How Did the False Pre-trib Rapture Get Started?

[BlessedPeace]

How?
God!

What's He know?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

With all due respect, it directly contradicts Paul's Postrib teaching in 2 Thes 2! How can Postrib do damage to the Bible when it is taught in the Bible? On the other hand, Pretrib is *not* taught in the Bible. People say it is in the Bible by using logic or by reading into the Bible using allegories to infer it.

pre trib, mid trib, post trib are not in teh bible but terms created later. 2 Thess. 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the rapture! Post trib is not taught in the bible but taught in a reinterpretation of the bible.

This is a big error caused by the Pretrib camp. They deliberately puff up the trouble that will exist during Antichrist's Reign to look as if it is worse than any other time of Christian persecution in history. In reality, this idea is taken out of context from a passage that is speaking of the NT Jewish Diaspora, which Jesus said would be the worst tribulation in Israel's history.

The idea that God's Wrath is poured out all through the reign of Antichrist is not in the book of Revelation. The 7 trumpet judgments and the 7 bowls of wrath are primarily a representation of Christ's Coming at Armageddon, which is a battle that will bring God's wrath upon the whole world.

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev. 6 proves you wrong. for after the sixth seal comes the seventh which unveils the trumpets, then the bowls. And these are called the wrath of the Lamb.

The persecution of Christians during the reign of Antichrist will probably be located in Europe. And I seriously doubt it will be any different from previous persecutions, from ancient Rome to the Communist persecutions of our own time.

I think the prediction of Antichrist's persecution was in reality a warning to Christians in all times, since it was given during the time of the ancient Roman Empire. God knew Christians would have to face stiff resistance to the Gospel message and would have to endure some hardship. It was an encouragement to stand fast in a time of temporary trouble.

Probably? I think? Guessing and making doctrine from guessing is dangerous. REvelation is a unique time in human history. Persecution is persecution but here it is global and all believers and Jews caught by the antichrist government and do not take the mark are beheaded!

That is one possible interpretation, that Jesus is the ruler whose 3.5 year covenant with Israel was cut short by his crucifixion. But there is another view, which I now favor. The "ruler" in view appears to relate to the ruler whose people, an army, destroys Jerusalem and the temple. This ruler could only be Roman leadership, whose army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

This ruler (not the same man, but the leadership) was also the one who either had a covenant of protection for Israel, until he decided to break it, or he without being conscious of it fulfilled God's covenant with Israel to provide for them a Christian atonement. The Roman ruler did this by having Jesus killed, resulting in the cutting off of the Anointed One, and the end of God's covenant with Israel under the Law.

Error 1: Jesus did not make a covenant with Israel at the start of HIs ministry. Jesus did not make sacrifices end, just their efficacy. Vastly different things.

Error 2: It is a ruler singular and personal and not a generic government.

Error 3: rome never entered into a 7 year covenant with Israel at any point in history! But the antichrist will enter into a 7 year covenant with Israel.

There is no way one can justify separating the 70th Weeks from the previous 69 Weeks and still call it a "70 Weeks period!"

TEchnically it is a 70 7 seven period and under normal circumstances we would expect it all to run consecutive with no breaks. But the prophecy is broken down into three periods 62, 69, and 7. If it ran consecutive with no breaksd we should see the fulfilment of all terms of the prophjecy. We haven't and they have not taken place so we know that there is a break.


Teh destruction of the temple occurred after the 70 consewcutrive sevens so that there shows this hypothesis wrong.

And so, to support your favored view you reject a more rational approach that this is a 70 Weeks period, which is exactly what is stated. Call it "70 7s," and it makes no real difference in how the Hebrews may have viewed it.

It really isn't my thing to convince anybody to change their mind. A person must conform to what God shows him or her. But when I see something lacking in an argument I have to give my two cents. I hope you'll give me that?

Once again if this prophecy is fully fulfilled, then show from history (as you claim these events are now historical):

First remember this prophecy of Daniel 9 are for Israel and Jerusalem alone!

1. when did Israel finish sin
2. make an end of sins
3. Israel make reconciliation for iniquity
4. When did Israel receive everlasting righteousness.
5. When did Israel seal up vision and prophecy (JOhn in c. 96AD after the 470)
6. When did Israel anoint the most holy (Messiah)
7. when did a roman prince make a 7 year covenant with Israel.
8. when did this Roman Prince cause sacrifices to cease after 466 1/2 7's?

These all had to be fulfilled in order for your hypothesis to be valid.

 

[marks]

Well I was influenced by the bible. I read the many views on the rapture and the millenium and the trib. a pre-mil, pre trib rapture does the least harm to Scripture.

Pre-trib is the only view that doesn't create massive contradictions. Those contradictions however are not worth discussing for the most part, as those who are faced with them negate the plain reading of Scripture as they interpret passages more "loosely" to match their view.

But if one simply accepts the plain sayings of the Scriptures, it' Pre-trib.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

pre trib, mid trib, post trib are not in teh bible but terms created later. 2 Thess. 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the rapture! Post trib is not taught in the bible but taught in a reinterpretation of the bible.

Yes, and a hundred languages are not in the Bible too. Does that mean there is no reference to many languages in the Bible? No.

Postrib is, conceptually, in the Bible, and in the most explicit way. Let me paraphrase it for you from 2 Thes 2: the Day of the Rapture will not take place until the Antichrist is destroyed at Christ's Coming. Would you say that's explicit enough?

How about this from the Olivet Discourse: After the tribulation of those days the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Is that explicit enough?

Or how about this from Daniel: The Son of Man will come with the clouds and establish God's Kingdom on earth. This is right after the Little Horn, the Antichrist, is defeated. Is that obvious enough for you?

But when you look for midtrib or pretrib, you won't find it. That would contradict everything I just paraphrased above.

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev. 6 proves you wrong. for after the sixth seal comes the seventh which unveils the trumpets, then the bowls. And these are called the wrath of the Lamb.

These are just a series of visions, or snapshots of what is to come. There is no attempt to produce a chronological sequence. They are progressive, but not chronological, snapshots of the unfolding drama.

Rather than trying to concoct a chronological sequence out of a series of visions, you should take explicit theological statements in Scriptures about the endtimes. Only then can you produce real doctrine. Reading into symbolism is a vain exercise and subject to serious error. You can read into it anything you want.

Error 1: Jesus did not make a covenant with Israel at the start of HIs ministry. Jesus did not make sacrifices end, just their efficacy. Vastly different things.

It's just a theory that some have, one that I held to in the past. Those who hold the theory believe that Jesus was in his ministry establishing in his ministry what led to the New Covenant. I don't hold to that theory anymore, but I respect it.

It is also argued that in making a new covenant Jesus disposed of the need for animal sacrifices and offerings under the Law. I also respect that, although that is not my position anymore.

Error 2: It is a ruler singular and personal and not a generic government.

You're arguing against a literary style, and I don't think you can prove it is one person, and not the generic Roman ruler who does each of these things. I could say the army of the Roman ruler would destroy the city and the sanctuary. That is a legitimate statement about "the ruler."

I could also say that the Roman ruler will, without being aware of it, confirm God's covenant through Jesus. This is also a legitimate statement about the ruler, even if it isn't the same exact person as the one who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

This covenant was expressed as coming to its fulfillment in a period of 7 years, making an atonement for sin (Dan 9.24). I can legitimately say that the ruler confirmed this covenant of atonement by terminating Israel's worship under the Law in the midst of that 7 year period. He did this by sacrificing Jesus in accord with God's covenant of atonement.

I can also legitimately say that the Roman ruler will set up a siege with his Army, a pagan, military abomination of desolation, to bring judgment upon the temple. That would be the same Roman ruler whose Army I earlier said would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

All of these things would be true. It uses the word "the ruler" in a loose, generic way. It is a matter of literary style, which the author determines--not you.

Error 3: rome never entered into a 7 year covenant with Israel at any point in history! But the antichrist will enter into a 7 year covenant with Israel.

Nowhere are we told the Antichrist makes a 7 year covenant. This is the 70th 7 year period of Dan 9. It ends a linear period of time beginning in 457 BC when Artaxerxes began the final process of restoring temple worship and Jerusalem's government.

The last period of 7 years brought to completion that 6 things mentioned in Dan 9.24, one of which was atonement for wickedness. This 7 year period the Roman ruler brought to fulfillment by ending Temple worship under the Law in the midst of that period. In other words, the 70th Week was finished in the middle of the Week.

TEchnically it is a 70 7 seven period and under normal circumstances we would expect it all to run consecutive with no breaks.

And you would be right. That is how it is to be interpreted.

But the prophecy is broken down into three periods 62, 69, and 7. If it ran consecutive with no breaksd we should see the fulfilment of all terms of the prophjecy. We haven't and they have not taken place so we know that there is a break.

They are 3 periods with specific things happening, and they all run consecutively. The 1st 7 Weeks are the period of Jerusalem's restoration. The 62 Weeks take us up to the beginning of Christ's ministry, when the covenant of his death begins to be proclaimed. The final Week is Christ's ministry, proclaiming his New Covenant, meaning death to the Temple worship, and new resurrection life for those with faith in Christ.

Teh destruction of the temple occurred after the 70 consewcutrive sevens so that there shows this hypothesis wrong.

The fall of the Temple took place within the same generation of the confirmation of Jesus' Covenant. It did not follow immediately after Jesus' death, but within a generation, as Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse.

Once again if this prophecy is fully fulfilled, then show from history (as you claim these events are now historical):

First remember this prophecy of Daniel 9 are for Israel and Jerusalem alone!

1. when did Israel finish sin

Israel's sin was consummated at Jesus' crucifixion.

2. make an end of sins

All means of dealing with sin through the Law was ended, condemning all sin on the Cross.

3. Israel make reconciliation for iniquity

Jesus on the Cross made atonement for all sin so that all those who put faith in him can be eternally forgiven.

4. When did Israel receive everlasting righteousness.

Jesus in rising from the dead brought his followers eternal righteousness.

5. When did Israel seal up vision and prophecy (JOhn in c. 96AD after the 470)

Jesus fulfilled all prophecy of the aforementioned things at the Cross.

6. When did Israel anoint the most holy (Messiah)

Israel didn't accomplish this! The 70 Weeks did! Jesus consecrated his own body, which is the true heavenly temple.

7. when did a roman prince make a 7 year covenant with Israel.

The Roman leader unwittingly provided for Christ's confirmation of the New Covenant by presiding over Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry up until he was put to death as an atonement for sin. The Roman ruler "confirmed" the covenant of Christ. He did not *make* the covenant!

8. when did this Roman Prince cause sacrifices to cease after 466 1/2 7's?

After 48.5 Weeks the Roman ruler had Jesus put to death, which effectively terminated the value of Temple worship.

These all had to be fulfilled in order for your hypothesis to be valid.

Yes, I've been trying to answer these things for a very long time. You should be able to tell I've struggled with it?

And I've held a number of different positions. This is just my latest position.

You'll have to decide what you want to think is more accurate. I've taken some important verifications from the Church Fathers, who saw the 70th Week as fulfilled in Christ's earthly ministry.

Only a couple of Church Fathers rendered the 70th Week *future,* which is what many Futurists do today. I'm a Futurist who doesn't do this.

I wish you well!

 

[Jericho]

Don't you see the absurdity of your argument? You're saying that truth cannot be stated unless a modern presentation of it comes 1st!

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that the revelation of the truth sometimes takes time. When Daniel was shown a vision of future events, he didn't understand it because it wasn't meant for his generation. The angel told him to seal up the book until the time of the end, when knowledge would increase (Dan 12:4–9). We are able to gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us.

And yes, I believe some of that knowledge is gained through divine revelation. God didn't reveal the church age to the Old Testament prophets, although He did hint at it. God revealed that to the Apostle Paul at a specific time in history. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that as we get closer to the end, God reveals more to us about those times and the rapture. I believe we have certain insights that not even the early Church had. For instance, they couldn't have understood how the anti-Christ could control the world with a mark. But with our understanding of modern technology, we do.

To say that Dispensationalism had to arise before any "real discussion" of the Rapture can happen is ludicrous. The doctrine of the Rapture began with Paul, and it didn't await Dispensationalism in the 1800s to explain it properly.

I didn't mention dispensationlism, but I do think there has to be a theological framework to flesh out certain ideas. I've already mentioned the Trinity doctrine. That wasn't established overnight. Doctrines take time to develop. Paul was given a small piece of the puzzle regarding the rapture, but we can't presume he was given the whole puzzle. If it were so, we wouldn't be having debates about the rapture now. Paul himself said we see through a glass darkly.

Go ahead and make your case. I've heard it all and have been arguing Postrib for a very long time. Truth fears no challenges.

That would require a lot of writing. I could send you a mini-book I wrote, but I doubt it would persuade you. We are looking through different eschatological lenses, so we will not see the same things.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, and a hundred languages are not in the Bible too. Does that mean there is no reference to many languages in the Bible? No.

Yes there is

Postrib is, conceptually, in the Bible, and in the most explicit way. Let me paraphrase it for you from 2 Thes 2: the Day of the Rapture will not take place until the Antichrist is destroyed at Christ's Coming. Would you say that's explicit enough?

Sorry it is a concept in your mind that you force upon the Scripture by allegorical interpretation.

How about this from the Olivet Discourse: After the tribulation of those days the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Is that explicit enough?

Or how about this from Daniel: The Son of Man will come with the clouds and establish God's Kingdom on earth. This is right after the Little Horn, the Antichrist, is defeated. Is that obvious enough for you?

But when you look for midtrib or pretrib, you won't find it. That would contradict everything I just paraphrased above.

These describe HIs physical return to earth, not a descending into either the second or first heaven to snatch the dead bodies of believers and the living off the earth!

These are just a series of visions, or snapshots of what is to come. There is no attempt to produce a chronological sequence. They are progressive, but not chronological, snapshots of the unfolding drama.

Rather than trying to concoct a chronological sequence out of a series of visions, you should take explicit theological statements in Scriptures about the endtimes. Only then can you produce real doctrine. Reading into symbolism is a vain exercise and subject to serious error. You can read into it anything you want.

So prove they are snapshots and not a progressive and consecutive series of events. A normal usual reading of Scripture leaves all that they are consecutinve unless they have first been inculcated that the passages do not run concurrent in time.

Rather than trying to concoct a chronological sequence out of a series of visions, you should take explicit theological statements in Scriptures about the endtimes. Only then can you produce real doctrine. Reading into symbolism is a vain exercise and subject to serious error. You can read into it anything you want.

But you do and you call mine error.

It's just a theory that some have, one that I held to in the past. Those who hold the theory believe that Jesus was in his ministry establishing in his ministry what led to the New Covenant. I don't hold to that theory anymore, but I respect it.

It is also argued that in making a new covenant Jesus disposed of the need for animal sacrifices and offerings under the Law. I also respect that, although that is not my position anymore.

But these theories defy all logic and understanding of grammar and require secret interpretations that go against grammar that God created so we can understand one another

You're arguing against a literary style, and I don't think you can prove it is one person, and not the generic Roman ruler who does each of these things. I could say the army of the Roman ruler would destroy the city and the sanctuary. That is a legitimate statement about "the ruler."

I could also say that the Roman ruler will, without being aware of it, confirm God's covenant through Jesus. This is also a legitimate statement about the ruler, even if it isn't the same exact person as the one who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

This covenant was expressed as coming to its fulfillment in a period of 7 years, making an atonement for sin (Dan 9.24). I can legitimately say that the ruler confirmed this covenant of atonement by terminating Israel's worship under the Law in the midst of that 7 year period. He did this by sacrificing Jesus in accord with God's covenant of atonement.

I can also legitimately say that the Roman ruler will set up a siege with his Army, a pagan, military abomination of desolation, to bring judgment upon the temple. That would be the same Roman ruler whose Army I earlier said would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

All of these things would be true. It uses the word "the ruler" in a loose, generic way. It is a matter of literary style, which the author determines--not you.

Once again a normal grammatical reading of the se passages show you are wrong. Even when visions are spoken of, God uses grammar so we may know what He is trying to convey. And all symbols aredefined in SCripture.

One can say many things but proving them biblically is another!

But Jesus never made a formal covenant with Israel!

Now prove in a literal passage one word is to be used generically. Why do you feel the need to edit and correct god? Was He too stupid to not know to use a generic term and not a specific term?

They are 3 periods with specific things happening, and they all run consecutively. The 1st 7 Weeks are the period of Jerusalem's restoration. The 62 Weeks take us up to the beginning of Christ's ministry, when the covenant of his death begins to be proclaimed. The final Week is Christ's ministry, proclaiming his New Covenant, meaning death to the Temple worship, and new resurrection life for those with faith in Christ.

Yours is an allegorical interpretation. Why does God need the legions of reinterpreters. And why is yours better than the myriad of believers who have allegorically reinterpreted these passages differing from you?

Teh passage says:

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

The he must refer back to its nearest personal noun antecedent and that is the prince of the people which makes him a Roman ruler or prince.

nāḡîḏ
Pronunciation
naw-gheed'

leader, ruler, captain, prince

1. ruler, prince
2. prince-overseer
3. ruler (in other capacities)
4. princely things

The hebrew does not allow for a generic government.

Also it says that sacrifice and oblations to cease! neither did. the efficacy of the sin offerings ceased but they all continued!. You have to reinterpret this to say GOD MEANT TO SAY THE EFFICACY OF THE OFFERINGS AND OBLATIONS. Once again you felt god did a poor job of inspiration.

The fall of the Temple took place within the same generation of the confirmation of Jesus' Covenant. It did not follow immediately after Jesus' death, but within a generation, as Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse.

Yes that was teh judgment for Israels leaders rejecting the Messiaship of Jesus on the basis He was demon possessed as told in Matt. 12

Israel's sin was consummated at Jesus' crucifixion.

Then why do they still sin and why as a nation do they still live in unbelief? Kind of a lousy consumation if you ask everybody.

Israel didn't accomplish this! The 70 Weeks did! Jesus consecrated his own body, which is the true heavenly temple.

Well maybe in your rewrite of the bible , but Gods Word says this:

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Without reinterpreting this passage, these things things for Israel to do and not Jesus!

After 48.5 Weeks the Roman ruler had Jesus put to death, which effectively terminated the value of Temple worship.

But the Bible (Gods INspired Word) does not say the value of the temple sacrifices ended. It does plainly and clearly say the sacrificeas and oblations themselves are caused to be ceased by a Roman ruler.

You'll have to decide what you want to think is more accurate. I've taken some important verifications from the Church Fathers, who saw the 70th Week as fulfilled in Christ's earthly ministry.

Only a couple of Church Fathers rendered the 70th Week *future,* which is what many Futurists do today. I'm a Futurist who doesn't do this.

Well time will tell if those early church fathers and your self have gotten bad info be allegorically looking at Scripture. as for me I will continue to look at Scripture by the literal/historical/grammatical hemeneutic which allows for understanding visions and apocalyptic language without resorting to the myriad of reinterpretations believers have held.

 

[Randy Kluth]

These describe HIs physical return to earth, not a descending into either the second or first heaven to snatch the dead bodies of believers and the living off the earth!

Reminds me of people like the Millerites and JWs whose false prediction of Christ's Coming made them "explain" that it really did happen--we just didn't see it happen.

So prove they are snapshots and not a progressive and consecutive series of events. A normal usual reading of Scripture leaves all that they are consecutinve unless they have first been inculcated that the passages do not run concurrent in time.

It's easy to prove--just read it and count how many times reference is made to Jesus' Coming. Jesus isn't coming 8 different times!

But Jesus never made a formal covenant with Israel!

Have you heard of the New Covenant, which Jesus made reference to at the Last Supper? That was done while Israel was still in the OT, under the Law, though it is useful only for those who have faith.

Now prove in a literal passage one word is to be used generically. Why do you feel the need to edit and correct god? Was He too stupid to not know to use a generic term and not a specific term?

I see no problem, unless you wish to disprove something that is normally a logical deduction. If one is to speak of multiple rulers from a single kingdom, it is normal to address all of them as "the national ruler." Daniel uses the exact same literary style in Dan 11--that should be a clue for you.

Yours is an allegorical interpretation. Why does God need the legions of reinterpreters. And why is yours better than the myriad of believers who have allegorically reinterpreted these passages differing from you?

I fail to see where my reference to 3 consecutive periods of a single period of time is an allegorical interpretation? If I say I went to my house 7 days out of the week, that is not an allegorical interpretation. Each day is a distinct trip out of a single period of a week. 3 periods out of 70 Weeks of years can be divided up into 3 eras. This is not allegorical.

To use a day for a year is a normal biblical style in the use of prophetic language. See Joseph.

Teh passage says:

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

The he must refer back to its nearest personal noun antecedent and that is the prince of the people which makes him a Roman ruler or prince.

And so I interpreted it. The ruler was the Roman ruler referred to just prior.

Also it says that sacrifice and oblations to cease! neither did. the efficacy of the sin offerings ceased but they all continued!.

The passage, in my view, refers to the efficacy of the offerings. They ceased being offered to God, since God no longer received them. The offerings were offered on behalf of themselves--not God.

What makes this significant is that it ties the Roman ruler who cut off offerings in half the Week with the Roman ruler who destroyed the Temple with their offerings. They aren't the exact same people, but they were both Roman rulers. Pilate had Jesus killed, which delegitimized Temple offerings--the Temple veil was rent.

It was another Roman ruler who then in 70 AD destroyed the Temple so that no more vain offerings could be made to God even after the veil was rent! Both were "the Roman ruler."

Then why do they still sin and why as a nation do they still live in unbelief? Kind of a lousy consumation if you ask everybody.

As I said, in my view Israel's Sin was fully matured when they rejected Jesus. And it was fully exposed by the Law. And that's why the Law and its offerings were annulled.

You are arguing using your own opinion, just as I'm using mine. I see no reason to see your arguments against mine as stronger than mine.

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Without reinterpreting this passage, these things things for Israel to do and not Jesus!

Your opinion--not mine. The 70 Weeks are determined to see these things happen. They do not indicate Israel will "make reconciliation for iniquity."

Well time will tell if those early church fathers and your self have gotten bad info be allegorically looking at Scripture. as for me I will continue to look at Scripture by the literal/historical/grammatical hemeneutic which allows for understanding visions and apocalyptic language without resorting to the myriad of reinterpretations believers have held.

Baloney. As I said, I didn't use allegorical interpretation at all. You'll have to decide which arguments are best. It's not you vs me, but us vs the Bible, or God's word. We need to get it right, the best we can. And I'm not afraid to adjust when necessary and logical to do so.

 

[No Pre-TB]

the 70th week of Daniel or the 7 year trib. REv. 6 and numerous places in the minor prophets

Ronald,

What does Daniel say?

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

From the above, there are 7 sabbatical sevens. Each sabbatical 7 was 7 years for a total of 490 years. I'm sure you know this.

The command to build Jerusalem unto Messiah was 7 + 62=69 sabbatical weeks. That means Christ did not die in the first 69 weeks. Now notice verse 26, AFTER those 69 weeks, Messiah shall be slain. If Messiah isnt slain till after the 69 weeks, he is slain in the 70th week.

To drive the issue home,

Ellicott: These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Annointed one shall be cut off.

Benson: For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to the seven weeks, or forty-nine years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off.

Geneva: In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death

Keil and Delitzsch: After the three score and two weeks i.e., in the seventieth shall the Messiah be cut off

Darby's Bible synopsis: Sixty-nine weeks have been accomplished-after that, the Messiah is cut off.
--He continues and says, that Christians know that half thr 70th week was really fulfilled in Christ ministry; therefore we get a half of week in Daniel 7:25 and in Revelation.

Would you like more positions on this?
There is no 7-year tribulation. Please, find me it in Revelation if you can. Revelation only speaks of 42mo, 1260 days or 3.5 years by a time, times and the dividing of time. Each time it is only 3.5 years, never 7.

The witnesses preach only 3.5 years concurrently when the man of sin reigns 3.5 years. If you have additional info, please provide it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ronald,

What does Daniel say?

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

From the above, there are 7 sabbatical sevens. Each sabbatical 7 was 7 years for a total of 490 years. I'm sure you know this.

The command to build Jerusalem unto Messiah was 7 + 62=69 sabbatical weeks. That means Christ did not die in the first 69 weeks. Now notice verse 26, AFTER those 69 weeks, Messiah shall be slain. If Messiah isnt slain till after the 69 weeks, he is slain in the 70th week.

To drive the issue home,

Ellicott: These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Annointed one shall be cut off.

Benson: For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to the seven weeks, or forty-nine years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off.

Geneva: In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death

Keil and Delitzsch: After the three score and two weeks i.e., in the seventieth shall the Messiah be cut off

Darby's Bible synopsis: Sixty-nine weeks have been accomplished-after that, the Messiah is cut off.
--He continues and says, that Christians know that half thr 70th week was really fulfilled in Christ ministry; therefore we get a half of week in Daniel 7:25 and in Revelation.

Would you like more positions on this?
There is no 7-year tribulation. Please, find me it in Revelation if you can. Revelation only speaks of 42mo, 1260 days or 3.5 years by a time, times and the dividing of time. Each time it is only 3.5 years, never 7.

The witnesses preach only 3.5 years concurrently when the man of sin reigns 3.5 years. If you have additional info, please provide it.

I agree but would state that the last half of the 70th Week doesn't exist because sacrifices and offerings at the Temple were rejected when Christ was cut off in the midst of the Week. And the Temple itself was destroyed a short time later, in 70 AD. So there is no last half of the 70th Week, in my opinion.

Out of all of the Church Fathers, only 2 or 3 held to a future 70th Week of Daniel, or even last half of the 70th Week. All the rest seemed to believe the entire 70th Week was finished in the time of Christ and 70 AD. Irenaeus was one, as well as his disciple Hippolytus. There may have been more, but they were a small minority.

But Futurists today like to pick up on Irenaeus, because they want to interpret everything future, including prophecies that have already been fulfilled.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that the revelation of the truth sometimes takes time. When Daniel was shown a vision of future events, he didn't understand it because it wasn't meant for his generation. The angel told him to seal up the book until the time of the end, when knowledge would increase (Dan 12:4–9). We are able to gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us.

That's true. However, it is incumbent upon us to discern what things God would have us to know now, and what things should be set aside for the future. The Rapture was not laid out as something to be understood in the future, since Paul was plainly teaching about it in his letters to the Thessalonians. However, determining the times and the seasons is beyond our concern--our concern is to be on what God wants us to do today.

And yes, I believe some of that knowledge is gained through divine revelation. God didn't reveal the church age to the Old Testament prophets, although He did hint at it.

It is called a mystery because initially only Israel was called. But God revealed to Abraham that He would eventually call many nations. During Israel's tenure as "only chosen nation" it remained a mystery how God would reach out to the pagan Gentile nations.

God revealed that to the Apostle Paul at a specific time in history. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that as we get closer to the end, God reveals more to us about those times and the rapture. I believe we have certain insights that not even the early Church had. For instance, they couldn't have understood how the anti-Christ could control the world with a mark. But with our understanding of modern technology, we do.

I don't disagree with you. Each generation must recognize its own matters.

I didn't mention dispensationlism, but I do think there has to be a theological framework to flesh out certain ideas. I've already mentioned the Trinity doctrine. That wasn't established overnight. Doctrines take time to develop. Paul was given a small piece of the puzzle regarding the rapture, but we can't presume he was given the whole puzzle. If it were so, we wouldn't be having debates about the rapture now. Paul himself said we see through a glass darkly.

The Trinity was a developing doctrine, but not an evolving truth. It was clear right from the start that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all God. The doctrine developed because of opposition to this truth.

That would require a lot of writing. I could send you a mini-book I wrote, but I doubt it would persuade you. We are looking through different eschatological lenses, so we will not see the same things.

I guess that means you're fixed in your beliefs. Thanks for the warning....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Reminds me of people like the Millerites and JWs whose false prediction of Christ's Coming made them "explain" that it really did happen--we just didn't see it happen.

AD-hominems will get you nowhere with me

It's easy to prove--just read it and count how many times reference is made to Jesus' Coming. Jesus isn't coming 8 different times!

Have read it numerous times! Even taught it in churches, bible institutes and bible college and on radio! Jesus only comes back once and the rapture is not His coming back to earth.

Have you heard of the New Covenant, which Jesus made reference to at the Last Supper? That was done while Israel was still in the OT, under the Law, though it is useful only for those who have faith.

Okay so show me when Jesus fulfilled all the provisions of His New Covenant with Israel:

Jeremiah 31:31-36

King James Version

​

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Here is the full text of the covenant. Now point to specific dates in hsitpory when God fulfilled all the provisions of the covenant with the nation of Israel and Judah!

I see no problem, unless you wish to disprove something that is normally a logical deduction. If one is to speak of multiple rulers from a single kingdom, it is normal to address all of them as "the national ruler." Daniel uses the exact same literary style in Dan 11--that should be a clue for you.

That is foolish. Multiple rulers would be called national rulers of.... Don't believe me go ask a first grade english teacher. Multiple rulers grammatically always have a plural noun. singular rulers always have a singular noun.

If you disagree, sho wme the rule that allows for a singular pronoun to be used of plural rulers. Especially inlight of the fat of the ten horns (plural) and an eleventh horn(singular0 rising from the plural horns!

I fail to see where my reference to 3 consecutive periods of a single period of time is an allegorical interpretation? If I say I went to my house 7 days out of the week, that is not an allegorical interpretation. Each day is a distinct trip out of a single period of a week. 3 periods out of 70 Weeks of years can be divided up into 3 eras. This is not allegorical.

To use a day for a year is a normal biblical style in the use of prophetic language. See Joseph.

No it is not a normal use of day, unless it is the word that is indefnite or the verb is indefinite.

There was one use:

Ezekiel 4:6
And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. And god specifically said each day would be a year of punishment.

As for Joseph and Pharoahs dreams, not once did the dreams mention days. You have some other reference. There i s no doctrine saying a "prophetic day" must = a year.

And so I interpreted it. The ruler was the Roman ruler referred to just prior.

Well Name him and the 7 year covenant he made with Israel.

The passage, in my view, refers to the efficacy of the offerings. They ceased being offered to God, since God no longer received them. The offerings were offered on behalf of themselves--not God.

Well at least you are hinest enough to say it is the word of Randy Kluth and not teh Word of the Lord. For a normal, usual reading shows you wrong.

The passage, in my view, refers to the efficacy of the offerings. They ceased being offered to God, since God no longer received them. The offerings were offered on behalf of themselves--not God.

Again the Word of Randy Kluth. You feel the need to edit god and add efficacy. Do you not think god smart enough to say efficacy plainly and clearly and not how He wrote it?

Your opinion--not mine. The 70 Weeks are determined to see these things happen. They do not indicate Israel will "make reconciliation for iniquity."

Then you need to bone up on Grammar-

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

490 are decreed for Israel and/or Jerusalme to do what follows. that is the only correct way of reading it without reinteprreting itr or adding opinion.

Baloney. As I said, I didn't use allegorical interpretation at all. You'll have to decide which arguments are best. It's not you vs me, but us vs the Bible, or God's word. We need to get it right, the best we can. And I'm not afraid to adjust when necessary and logical to do so.

YOu have already demonstrated that you use allegorical interpretations on many occasions. Every time you said Opinion, view. think< you are reinterpreting Scripture based on you rown ideas and not what is written. Admitting so is an implied statement that you reject what is plainly written for a different understanding.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ronald,

What does Daniel say?

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

From the above, there are 7 sabbatical sevens. Each sabbatical 7 was 7 years for a total of 490 years. I'm sure you know this.

The command to build Jerusalem unto Messiah was 7 + 62=69 sabbatical weeks. That means Christ did not die in the first 69 weeks. Now notice verse 26, AFTER those 69 weeks, Messiah shall be slain. If Messiah isnt slain till after the 69 weeks, he is slain in the 70th week.

To drive the issue home,

Ellicott: These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Annointed one shall be cut off.

Benson: For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to the seven weeks, or forty-nine years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off.

Geneva: In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death

Keil and Delitzsch: After the three score and two weeks i.e., in the seventieth shall the Messiah be cut off

Darby's Bible synopsis: Sixty-nine weeks have been accomplished-after that, the Messiah is cut off.
--He continues and says, that Christians know that half thr 70th week was really fulfilled in Christ ministry; therefore we get a half of week in Daniel 7:25 and in Revelation.

Would you like more positions on this?
There is no 7-year tribulation. Please, find me it in Revelation if you can. Revelation only speaks of 42mo, 1260 days or 3.5 years by a time, times and the dividing of time. Each time it is only 3.5 years, never 7.

The witnesses preach only 3.5 years concurrently when the man of sin reigns 3.5 years. If you have additional info, please provide it.

Why don't you post teh Catholic position and the Jw's as well. Positions and name does not make one right.

So if jesus died in the 70th week, please show the seven year covenant a roman ruler made with Israel and broke it half way through and stopped the sacrifices and oblations from happening.

 

[Randy Kluth]

AD-hominems will get you nowhere with me

No personal insult intended. It's a compliment to you that I think you can follow a line of reasoning. The Millerites and JWs truly rationalized away their false prophecies of Christ's Coming by explaining that he "came in the spirit," or some such thing.

I'm contrasting that with the Pretribbers, who believe that when Jesus comes he doesn't fully come, but only "comes in the clouds," invisibly. That is a genuine comparison. An insult would be producing something just to be nasty.

Have read it numerous times! Even taught it in churches, bible institutes and bible college and on radio! Jesus only comes back once and the rapture is not His coming back to earth.

Well, I suppose I would have to consult you as to when, in the Revelation, Jesus' Coming is supposed to be viewed as "only in the clouds" or "all the way to earth?"

Okay so show me when Jesus fulfilled all the provisions of His New Covenant with Israel:

Jeremiah 31:31-36​

My argument was that Jesus came to bring the New Covenant, and preached that *throughout* his NT ministry until the Cross. The Roman governors "confirmed" this process by presiding over the time when Jesus carried out this ministry and ultimately by condemning Jesus to the very death that brought about the New Covenant.

Jer 31 is talking about the time when the *nation Israel* accepts the New Covenant, which is at Christ's Coming. Israel did *not* accept the New Covenant, with the exception of a handful, in the time of Jesus. So there is a difference between the time when the New Covenant was being "confirmed" by the Roman governorship, when Jesus preached the New Covenant, and the time when Israel accepts the New Covenant at the 2nd Coming.

That is foolish. Multiple rulers would be called national rulers of.... Don't believe me go ask a first grade english teacher. Multiple rulers grammatically always have a plural noun. singular rulers always have a singular noun.

Apparently you don't understand what I was saying. Several times Dan 9 mentions "the ruler" in Dan 9 with respect to Daniel's 70 Weeks.
1) The people (army) of the ruler who will destroy Jerusalem--Titus.
2) He, ie the ruler, will confirm a covenant with many for one Week--Pilate.
3) He, ie the ruler, will put an end to sacrifice and offering--Pilate.
4) He, ie the ruler, will set up an abomination that causes desolation--Titus.

They are each called "the ruler" because it is understood that he represents the 4th Kingdom, which is Rome, in ch. 7.

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

None of this requires a differentiation between singular and plural forms of the word "ruler." Each one is being talked about without distinction because each one belongs to the same government.

This same style is used in Dan 11, in reference to the "king of the north" and the "king of the south." They are not all the same king, but represent the same respective governments. We don't have to know their names--just the government they belong to.

No it is not a normal use of day, unless it is the word that is indefnite or the verb is indefinite.

There was one use:

Ezekiel 4:6
And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. And god specifically said each day would be a year of punishment.

Yes, that's a good example of how a day represented a year! Thank you.

As for Joseph and Pharoahs dreams, not once did the dreams mention days. You have some other reference.

I was showing how prophetic language can view as *normal* the use of allegory. You indicated that my separation of 70 Weeks into 3 sections constituted "allegorical interpretation." I denied that, with the exception that the reference to "days" instead of "years" was an allegorical application, dignified by biblical use in matters of prophecy.

In this case, Weeks, or "7s," referred to Weeks of Years, which is commonly understood among Christian scholars. The reference to Joseph was to his dreams, which used allegories--not necessarily "days." He used "sheafs" for "years" if I remember correctly.

Well Name him and the 7 year covenant he made with Israel.

Well at least you are hinest enough to say it is the word of Randy Kluth and not teh Word of the Lord. For a normal, usual reading shows you wrong.

Yes, I'm not sure of these things. It is my honest assessment of what a possible interpretation should be. We all have to assess the best interpretation of God's word, and should not just declare our interpretations "God's word."

Pilate or the Roman government "confirmed" the New Covenant preaching and ministry under their supervision. They allowed Jesus to minister for half the "Week" until they put him to death, ending Temple sacrifices in terms of their efficacy.

Then you need to bone up on Grammar-

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

490 are decreed for Israel and/or Jerusalme to do what follows. that is the only correct way of reading it without reinteprreting itr or adding opinion.

No, proper reading indicates that the subject is "70 Weeks" which are "determined to finish" (the action). Do you really think *Israel* "made reconciliation for iniquity?" No, Jesus did that by completing his work in the 70th Week.

YOu have already demonstrated that you use allegorical interpretations on many occasions. Every time you said Opinion, view. think< you are reinterpreting Scripture based on you rown ideas and not what is written. Admitting so is an implied statement that you reject what is plainly written for a different understanding.

My ideas, right or wrong, are not automatically "allegorical interpretations." Sorry, that's not accurate at all. I'm just trying to interpret things I've been reading well over 50 years. I'm trying to be right, just like I think you are.

 

[No Pre-TB]

So if jesus died in the 70th week, please show the seven year covenant a roman ruler made with Israel and broke it half way through and stopped the sacrifices and oblations from happening.

Ronald,

Let me repost the most important part first.

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

If I were to say, Ronald, after Tuesday I'll be on my Day off. Would that mean I'd be off on Wednesday or Tuesday?
Or if I'd say, after 2 weeks, and I'll be on vacation. When would I be on vacation? After the 2 weeks or during it?

"Achar" has the meaning of afterward or following an event with another event that follows it.

In response to your question above,

And he shall - the prince who is to come, Jesus Christ

Confirm the covenant with many - by his shed blood on the cross for the remission of sin Matthew 26:28, Isaiah 42:6

midst of the week - midway in the 70th week he causes the mosaic ordinances to be obsolete by his death and resurrection.

made desolate - because of the Jews overspreading abominations.

Until it is poured on the desolate - destruction at 70 AD

Ronald, the people of the prince that is to come was the Jews. They destroyed their own city because they didn't know God visited them Luke 19:44, They broke Daniel 9:24, failure to end sin, bring in righteousness, make reconciliation and instead, killed the son of God in order for them to keep Israel for themselves Matthew 21:38 They treated God's servants spitefully and slew them Matthew 26:6 and God called forth his armies (Romans) to destroy them Matthew 22:7

 

[Davy]

I disagree. The Christian Church didn't have a rapture doctrine. Sure, you can probably find elements of every rapture position in early Christian writings if you look hard enough, but they didn't have a single codified rapture doctrine. The rapture wasn't even really being discussed until the 19th century or so. The fact is, every rapture doctrine is modern, and I think there are valid reasons for it. The post-trib rapture, for instance, was popularized by George E. Ladd in his 1956 book "The Blessed Hope.".

Sorry, but your attempt to stress the word "rapture" as a means to say the early Church didn't preach the saints being "caught up" to Jesus at His future coming does not work. The word in the Greek of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is harpazo (NT:726) which means 'to seize, or catch away'. The Greek language is very specific on that point.

Jesus of Nazareth The Christ is Who popularized a POST-tribulation 'gathering' of His saints at His future coming...

Matt 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
KJV

 

[Davy]

Paul specifically said in 2 Thes 2 that the Day of the Lord cannot take place before Antichrist comes. And that is because Christ is coming back to specifically destroy him! That's the story in Dan 7 that Paul was referring to!

Anyway, I have a different view of the "Abomination of Desolation" than you do, as well as a different view of the "Beginning of Sorrows" than you do. Never mind--we have to choose our interpretations, if only tentatively.

I believe the Olivet Discourse was more focused on the 1st generation of the Church and on the Jewish experience in the NT era. This may sound like Preterism, but it is not.

The "man of sin" Paul was pointing to in 2 Thess.2 is the same false one Jesus was pointing to in His Olivet discourse, and the same one of Dan.7 that the ten kings that come to power with the beast at the end of this world, will give their power to, per Rev.17. That's the same false one of Rev.13:11 forward also. All 3 examples are connected in regard to the great signs and wonders that false one is to work on earth to deceive the whole world. That did not happen in the 1st century, nor has it ever happened yet to this day.

It's what the early Church Fathers believed, that Jesus was addressing his Disciples as Jews, before the Cross. The Jews would lose their main city of Jerusalem, as well as their temple worship, and go into dispersion throughout the present age.

This is the "Great Tribulation" as Jesus defined it in Luke 21. It was to be a "Jewish Punishment."

The four Gospel Books cover many of the same events, but often giving bits and pieces of information about the same event. Singling out the descriptions just in Luke 21 with supplying a theoretical order that contradicts Christ's other versions in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is not how to interpret those events.

There was no "abomination of desolation" event that happened in 70 A.D. Jerusalem. And the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11 Scripture about the "vile person" defined just what that "abomination of desolation" is about, i.e., an IDOL abomination placed at the temple in Jerusalem in false worship. The Jerusalem temple burned down in 70 A.D. when the Romans tried to seize it. So there was no "abomination of desolation" idol event there.

Did Lord Jesus then lie about that "abomination of desolation" event He quoted from the Book of Daniel? I know in my heart He did not lie about that. So even though Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 B.C. served as a blueprint type for the placing of that "abomination of desolation" idol in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, Jesus quoted that event for the end of this world, and not for the 1st century A.D.

Jesus really was... speaking to His Church there upon the Mount of Olives, not just an isolated few of Jewish followers that were with Him there. Afterall, His Apostles make up the early foundation... of His Church, and the SIGN of His future return He was giving involve ALL His Church when He comes to gather us.

And what many brethren miss, is that the Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 verses directly parallel His gathering of the two groups of His saints that Apostle Paul covered in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. One group is gathered from heaven, and the other group is gathered from the earth, same as Paul taught.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The "man of sin" Paul was pointing to in 2 Thess.2 is the same false one Jesus was pointing to in His Olivet discourse, and the same one of Dan.7 that the ten kings that come to power with the beast at the end of this world, will give their power to, per Rev.17. That's the same false one of Rev.13:11 forward also. All 3 examples are connected in regard to the great signs and wonders that false one is to work on earth to deceive the whole world. That did not happen in the 1st century, nor has it ever happened yet to this day.

We disagree on that. Jesus didn't mention the "Man of Sin" in the Olivet Discourse. I believe he was primarily focused on his own generation and on the future of the Jewish People. This was before the Cross, when the primary focus was still on the Jewish People.

The four Gospel Books cover many of the same events, but often giving bits and pieces of information about the same event. Singling out the descriptions just in Luke 21 with supplying a theoretical order that contradicts Christ's other versions in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is not how to interpret those events.

My version of Luke 21 is the same account that we find in Matt 24 and Mark 13--it is just worded a little differently. If anything it helps us to understand those versions better. They all speak of the Jewish Punishment about to begin in 70 AD and continuing throughout the NT age.

To assume that Matt 24 and Mark 13 mean something different seems illogical to me, since all 3 versions are based on the same Address.

There was no "abomination of desolation" event that happened in 70 A.D. Jerusalem.

Why? I should just take your word on that? Dan 9 indicates that in the context of the destruction of "the city and the sanctuary," ie 70 AD, there would be the "people of the ruler to come," ie an army to accomplish this. It would be an abominable force causing desolation to the temple. This is the precise format that the Olivet Discourse appears to follow. So I would have to assume that the AoD of the Olivet Discourse is also the 70 AD desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.

And the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11 Scripture about the "vile person" defined just what that "abomination of desolation" is about, i.e., an IDOL abomination placed at the temple in Jerusalem in false worship. The Jerusalem temple burned down in 70 A.D. when the Romans tried to seize it. So there was no "abomination of desolation" idol event there.

I know that it is popular to see Antichrist in Dan 11 and in Dan 9. That's what Futurists do, trying to make prophecies fulfilled historically to be a supposed "Future Prophecy." But the context of these passages indicate they were fulfilled in history, in my opinion.

Did Lord Jesus then lie about that "abomination of desolation" event He quoted from the Book of Daniel? I know in my heart He did not lie about that. So even though Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 B.C. served as a blueprint type for the placing of that "abomination of desolation" idol in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, Jesus quoted that event for the end of this world, and not for the 1st century A.D.

The author of the Gospels indicated that Jesus got the AoD from Dan 9. No lie.

Jesus really was... speaking to His Church there upon the Mount of Olives, not just an isolated few of Jewish followers that were with Him there. Afterall, His Apostles make up the early foundation... of His Church, and the SIGN of His future return He was giving involve ALL His Church when He comes to gather us.

The Olivet Discourse was directed at a relatively small group of Jewish followers at that time, though it certainly did reflect upon the future Church. If the Jewish followers of Jesus would be persecuted by the fallen Jews, then future Christians would also be persecuted by those in their own countries.

And what many brethren miss, is that the Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 verses directly parallel His gathering of the two groups of His saints that Apostle Paul covered in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. One group is gathered from heaven, and the other group is gathered from the earth, same as Paul taught.

I'm not really sure about this. Is Jesus speaking of the restoration of Israel at his 2nd Coming? Is he speaking of the resurrection of departed saints? Is he speaking of the entire Rapture event in 1 Thes 4.13-17? I don't have a full grasp on it yet--not even after decades of reading it. I'm probably too affected by the input of so many opinions that I can't read it in a neutral way. But I'm trying....

 

[Davy]

We disagree on that. Jesus didn't mention the "Man of Sin" in the Olivet Discourse. I believe he was primarily focused on his own generation and on the future of the Jewish People. This was before the Cross, when the primary focus was still on the Jewish People.

Yes Lord Jesus did point to the same false one for the end of this world that Apostle Paul did in 2 Thess.2. The pseudochristos in Matt.24:24 is translated to "false Christs", plural in the KJV, however the context of the Matt.24:23 and 26 verses is 'singular'. For this reason Dr. James Strong translated pseudochristos (NT:5580) as 'a spurious Messiah', singular. Furthermore, Jesus showed that false one will work "great signs and wonders" that if possible would deceive even His very elect. That is the same one coming in 2 Thess.2:9-10 that is to work the "signs and lying wonders".

Thus I concur with Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance definition of 'a spurious Messiah', singular.

My version of Luke 21 is the same account that we find in Matt 24 and Mark 13--it is just worded a little differently. If anything it helps us to understand those versions better. They all speak of the Jewish Punishment about to begin in 70 AD and continuing throughout the NT age.

Well, no it's not, because your version denies the "abomination of desolation" event that Jesus quoted from the Book of Daniel, even though it is emphatically pointed to in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 versions of Christ's Olivet discourse, but NOT in the Luke 21 version.

Since the seminary doctrine of men you are on where you got that denial of the AoD in the Matthew and Mark versions, you of course are taught to favor only the Luke 21 version which does not have it.

And the following Luke 21 Scripture with the word "desolation" instead is pointing to the armies that surround Jerusalem on the 7th Vial at the battle of Armageddon, which means last day of this world, for that is when God's 'day of vengeance' is to happen.

Luke 21:20-22
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
KJV

So that Luke 21 version is not pointing to the "abomination of desolation" event from Daniel, but instead to Armageddon with those armies surrounding Jerusalem on the last day, as that is the timing of that 22nd verse, which is pointing to the Isaiah "day of vengeance", the time of Christ's future 2nd coming in Isaiah 61:2, the part He did not read in Luke 4 at the start of His Ministry because it is about His future time of return. We are even given a very strong clue that is pointing to the battle on the last day of this world with that, "that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

You instead have wrongly been taught to point that to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, when that Scripture is actually for the 'end' of this world on the day of Christ's future return to fight with His army, thus fulfilling all Bible prophecy for this present world on that day.

To assume that Matt 24 and Mark 13 mean something different seems illogical to me, since all 3 versions are based on the same Address.

God does not say it's OK to try and change His Word just so it will make more sense to our personal reasoning. He demands that we accept His Word as written, and let the chips fall where they may. What you just said above is one of the main problems with many doctrines of men that come out of the seminaries; like, "Oh God couldn't have meant that because that doesn't make sense to my reasoning, He instead must have meant this...".

Why? I should just take your word on that? Dan 9 indicates that in the context of the destruction of "the city and the sanctuary," ie 70 AD, there would be the "people of the ruler to come," ie an army to accomplish this. It would be an abominable force causing desolation to the temple. This is the precise format that the Olivet Discourse appears to follow. So I would have to assume that the AoD of the Olivet Discourse is also the 70 AD desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.

Well, Josephus (100 A.D.) showed the 2nd temple caught fire while the Romans were fighting with the Jews inside it in trying to seize possession of it. That temple burned down before the Romans could possess it.

And the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 verses are specific about the false one placing an abomination idol in the temple in false worship in Jerusalem. Antiochus IV served as the 'blueprint' for that "abomination that maketh desolate" event in 165 B.C. Jerusalem. But Jesus quoted it about 200 years later for the end of this world. That's not a coincidence, but the idea of "ensamples" that God often left us in His Word from past history, like Apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 10.

I know that it is popular to see Antichrist in Dan 11 and in Dan 9. That's what Futurists do, trying to make prophecies fulfilled historically to be a supposed "Future Prophecy." But the context of these passages indicate they were fulfilled in history, in my opinion.

Trying to bring in what Futurists believe, is a futile idea, simply because Futurists believe in a false Pre-tribulational Rapture theory, and I certainly do not. So that's just a seminary ploy, for they are the ones who make up categories to try and put people in a certain 'boat', so they can singularly attack that 'boat'. And I'll admit, I do it too when pointing to folks like you that adhere to the false seminary doctrine of Preterism.

So when the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11 Scripture about what the "vile person" does is allowed to stand 'as written', it is obvious it is pointing to a literal abomination idol setup in Jerusalem involving temple worship.

The author of the Gospels indicated that Jesus got the AoD from Dan 9. No lie.

Then why don't you believe our Lord Jesus, what He said?

The Olivet Discourse was directed at a relatively small group of Jewish followers at that time, though it certainly did reflect upon the future Church. If the Jewish followers of Jesus would be persecuted by the fallen Jews, then future Christians would also be persecuted by those in their own countries.

No, no, no, that's a false view. Jesus gave His Olivet discourse especially to His Church at the 'end' of this world leading up to His future return. That is actually the subject of the SIGNS He gave there, which are actually the same SIGNS of the Seals of Revelation 6. So would you even make the false claim that Christ's Revelation was given only to Apostle John and not to Christ's Church?

I'm not really sure about this. Is Jesus speaking of the restoration of Israel at his 2nd Coming? Is he speaking of the resurrection of departed saints? Is he speaking of the entire Rapture event in 1 Thes 4.13-17? I don't have a full grasp on it yet--not even after decades of reading it. I'm probably too affected by the input of so many opinions that I can't read it in a neutral way. But I'm trying....

Like I said, the Matthew 24:31 verse and Mark 13:27 verse parallel what Paul taught about the day of Christ's future return and gathering of the Church. Now if you don't understand that, then it suggests to me that you do not really understand the 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 Scripture about the gathering event.


1 Thess.4:13-16 is about Jesus resurrecting the 'asleep' saints that had died, and that He brings with Him when He descends from heaven. Note where the saints are gathered... from:

Matt 24:31
31 And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
KJV

1 Thess.4:17 is about the saints still alive on earth gathered from the earth ("caught up" to Jesus). Note below where these saints are gathered... from:

Mark 13:27
27 And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
KJV

Like I said, Jesus was giving the SIGNS of the end leading up to His future return in His Olivet discourse. The "great tribulation" and AoD is for the end of this world, not back in history.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thus I concur with Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Exhaustive Concordance definition of 'a spurious Messiah', singular.

Your view is noted.

Since the seminary doctrine of men you are on where you got that denial of the AoD in the Matthew and Mark versions, you of course are taught to favor only the Luke 21 version which does not have it.

And the following Luke 21 Scripture with the word "desolation" instead is pointing to the armies that surround Jerusalem on the 7th Vial at the battle of Armageddon, which means last day of this world, for that is when God's 'day of vengeance' is to happen.

I see all 3 versions as the same--all AoDs (in synoptic Gospels) refer to the invasion of Jerusalem by the pagan Roman armies. This is just what Dan 9 said in vss 26-27. Futurists want everything to be about the future, about the Antichrist, about Armageddon. Doesn't work for me.

And the Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 verses are specific about the false one placing an abomination idol in the temple in false worship in Jerusalem.

I don't conflate Dan 9.27 and Dan 11.31o. Different contexts. One is 70 AD. The other is Antiochus 4.

Antiochus IV served as the 'blueprint' for that "abomination that maketh desolate" event in 165 B.C. Jerusalem. But Jesus quoted it about 200 years later for the end of this world.

Jesus referenced Dan 9--not Dan 11. My opinion.

And I'll admit, I do it too when pointing to folks like you that adhere to the false seminary doctrine of Preterism.

I've said many times that I am *not* a Preterist. Done.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let me repost the most important part first.

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

If I were to say, Ronald, after Tuesday I'll be on my Day off. Would that mean I'd be off on Wednesday or Tuesday?
Or if I'd say, after 2 weeks, and I'll be on vacation. When would I be on vacation? After the 2 weeks or during it?

"Achar" has the meaning of afterward or following an event with another event that follows it.

Yes and the cumulative 483 years occurred on Palm Sunday with Jesus triumphal entry!

Then after the 62 7's He was cut off on Good Friday!

Now let us look at what is written after Messiah is cut off.

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.

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.

According to you this has to happen within seven years of Jesus triumphal entry!

And he shall - the prince who is to come, Jesus Christ

Confirm the covenant with many - by his shed blood on the cross for the remission of sin Matthew 26:28, Isaiah 42:6

YOu start wrong which is why you end so drastically wrong! God does not violate the rules of Grammar He gave us so we can understand things to please you and the other allegorists.

The 2 "hes" of verse 27 must go back to their nearest antecedent that matches in gender and number that is the prince of the people who will destroy the sanctuary (over 20 years after the 70 7's BTW)

Confirm the covenant with many - by his shed blood on the cross for the remission of sin Matthew 26:28, Isaiah 42:6

midst of the week - midway in the 70th week he causes the mosaic ordinances to be obsolete by his death and resurrection.

made desolate - because of the Jews overspreading abominations.

Once agaian you arrive at this only be redfining words, reinteprreting and allegorizing and skipping words. The prince makes a covenant for 1 7 Show form SCripture when Jesus made a covenant with many for 7 years.

Confirm means toi bind and make strong. So this is a 7 year binding covenant! Unless you wish to redefine words like th emodern woke crowd does.

Ronald, the people of the prince that is to come was the Jews. They destroyed their own city because they didn't know God visited them Luke 19:44, They broke Daniel 9:24, failure to end sin, bring in righteousness, make reconciliation and instead, killed the son of God in order for them to keep Israel for themselves Matthew 21:38 They treated God's servants spitefully and slew them Matthew 26:6 and God called forth his armies (Romans) to destroy them Matthew 22:7

Absolute and utter foolishness! Their sin may have caused judgment to be passed, but it was Rome who destroyed the city and Sanctuary. YOur allegorical reinterpretations would make even the JW's blush.

What you preach is totally different from what is written and that my brother is a big problem.