Two particular problems with dispensationalism...

[brakelite]

I agree with Copperhead on this. That there is a gap; is proved by the fact of there having passed nearly 2000 years since Jesus was here last. Jesus Himself prophesied it in Luke 13:32. One 'day' while He is in heaven is equal to 1000 years earth time.

Are to take the prophecy as it reads and find the historical fulfillment.... And if there isn't one, them with may perhaps safely assume there is yet to be a future fulfillment. But to adjust the prophecy by inserting a nonexistent gap to fit a future clairvoyant unproven future... Don't you see the inherent risk in that? Especially when history easily dovetails with the prophecy as is?

 

[brakelite]

The very large, and profound difference I see here is this: Jesus is God. When Jesus tells you that there is a gap in Isaiah, we can go, "well alright then"...even if there is no direct and specific reference to a gap in the scripture.
However, when it comes to the gap that Dispensationalists insist is there, but is also not directly or specifically mentioned, they do so on their own authority, without, as far as I can see, any weighty biblical evidence to back it up.
Bit of a difference.


Sorry, but no it is not 'clear' that there is an implied gap. There are other, biblical interpretations for the '70 weeks'. And while none of them are what I'd call perfect, they still can be argued from a biblically faithful standpoint. Your view, with it's 'obvious/not obvious' gap is just another interpretation that has it's strengths and weaknesses.
From my point of view, in cases such as these, weighing up the 'viewpoint' that has the least weaknesses and assumptions to its name, is the one that ought to be looked at most seriously. And in my opinion, that is not the Dispensational model.


Again, the problem I have with this is the outright assumption that it has nothing to do with the Church; especially when we come to the NT and see that these things are not so easily divided anymore. Where once 'the temple of God' was clearly a reference to the actual temple, in the NT we see it referring to the people of God; the Church. We see in Revelation that the Church, the bride of Christ, IS, in a way, described as the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven. We see references throughout the NT to the people who are the 'children of promise'...those people who are truly recieving the promises given to Abraham. Not those of the flesh, but those of the spirit; the Church.
So, in fact when we look at it closely, we see that the Church has been grafted into Israel, and that much of what is talked off and promised in the OT about Israel therefore does apply to us.

Wow. Couldn't have said it better. There is hope for you after all

 

[n2thelight]

I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

There are two tribulations, one of satan and one of God ,satans being the deception, God's being the rod of iron on those who fell for the deception,

The Day of the Lord is a 1000 year period.

 

[Keraz]

Are to take the prophecy as it reads and find the historical fulfillment.... And if there isn't one, them with may perhaps safely assume there is yet to be a future fulfillment. But to adjust the prophecy by inserting a nonexistent gap to fit a future clairvoyant unproven future... Don't you see the inherent risk in that? Especially when history easily dovetails with the prophecy as is?

History dovetails with prophecy?
Care to inform us when the prophesied cosmic events took place?

I read history and I read Bible prophecy. There is no match for the end times events as described.
BTW, I am watching the World cup cricket match between Aus and NZ right now. It is looking to be a close match! [pun intended!]

 

[brakelite]

History dovetails with prophecy?
Care to inform us when the prophesied cosmic events took place?

I read history and I read Bible prophecy. There is no match for the end times events as described.
BTW, I am watching the World cup cricket match between Aus and NZ right now. It is looking to be a close match! [pun intended!]

Not all prophecy has been completed, after all, Jesus has not yet returned for His church to take them to His Father's house, but I see many people who take prophecy and claim "that is a cosmic event" when no such understanding is warranted.
And the cricket? Disappointing after such a good start.

 

[Keraz]

Not all prophecy has been completed, after all, Jesus has not yet returned for His church to take them to His Father's house, but I see many people who take prophecy and claim "that is a cosmic event" when no such understanding is warranted.

WE are all agreed that Jesus will Return, but not to take anyone away; His faithful people will be His priests and co-rulers on earth. Revelation 5:10, Isaiah 66:21

There are several specifically described cosmic events that have not yet occurred; Moon as bright as the sun and bright red, the sky; our atmosphere, rolled up like a scroll, terrible heat from the sun, plus.
These are things that can and will literally happen. Secular scientists warn us about it, but we who study the Prophetic Word, seem to lack any understanding of what is plainly told to us by the prophets.

 

[Enoch111]

However, when it comes to the gap that Dispensationalists insist is there, but is also not directly or specifically mentioned, they do so on their own authority, without, as far as I can see, any weighty biblical evidence to back it up.
Bit of a difference.

If you are referring to the gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel, it is not an invention of Dispensationalists but it is already embedded in Scripture for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Just because you have chosen to be wilfully blind does not nullify this truth.

 

[Jay Ross]

If you are referring to the gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel, it is not an invention of Dispensationalists but it is already embedded in Scripture for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Just because you have chosen to be wilfully blind does not nullify this truth.

Enoch111 are you suggesting that their is a gap of around 1,000 + years between the end of the Daniel.7:26b prophecy half verse prophecy and the prophecy contained in verse 27.

Shalom

 

[Enoch111]

Enoch111 are you suggesting that their is a gap of around 1,000 + years between the end of the Daniel.7:26b prophecy half verse prophecy and the prophecy contained in verse 27.

You were probably referring to Daniel 9:26,27. I don't believe Daniel 7:26,27 is related to the gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. It is about the Antichrist and his end:

DANIEL 7
THE REIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST FOR 3 1/2 YEARS
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time [1 yr] and times [2 yrs] and the dividing of time [6 months].

THE JUDGMENT AND END OF THE ANTICHRIST
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHRIST
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

The gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is from the crucifixion of Christ to beginning of the reign of the Antichrist. Which would be the Church Age.

DANIEL 9
THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST
26a And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah [Jesus] be cut off, but not for himself:...

GAP -----> THE CHURCH AGE

THE START OF THE REIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST
26b...and the people of the prince that shall come [the Antichrist] 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.

THE BOGUS COVENANT OF THE ANTICHRIST
27a 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 SETTING UP OF THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
27b ...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The reign of the Antichrist cannot start until and unless there is a third temple in Jerusalem. Plans for the third temple are already in place.

 

[Jay Ross]

You were probably referring to Daniel 9:26,27. I don't believe Daniel 7:26,27 is related to the gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. It is about the Antichrist and his end:

DANIEL 7
THE REIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST FOR 3 1/2 YEARS
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time [1 yr] and times [2 yrs] and the dividing of time [6 months].

THE JUDGMENT AND END OF THE ANTICHRIST
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND CHRIST
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

The gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is from the crucifixion of Christ to beginning of the reign of the Antichrist. Which would be the Church Age.

DANIEL 9
THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST
26a And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah [Jesus] be cut off, but not for himself:...

GAP -----> THE CHURCH AGE

THE START OF THE REIGN OF THE ANTICHRIST
26b...and the people of the prince that shall come [the Antichrist] 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.

THE BOGUS COVENANT OF THE ANTICHRIST
27a 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 SETTING UP OF THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
27b ...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The reign of the Antichrist cannot start until and unless there is a third temple in Jerusalem. Plans for the third temple are already in place.

First off, there is a 2,000 or so year time span for Dan.9:26b which tells us that the prophecy is applicable unto the end of the war in heaven and that the desolations will last until the when the war in heaven is over and Satan and his fallen angel colleagues are tossed out of heaven.

Now, in Luke. 14:28-30, Jesus tells His Jewish audience that although they will have a desire to rebuild the destroyed Temple, that they will not have the means to complete the task to actually build the Temple in our near future. In fact the attempt by the present day nation of Israel to build a third temple will be stopped by the Gentile nations coming to the Valley of Decision and threatening Israel if they continue with their work on the temple. As we continue reading Luke. 14 we read that the assembled nations at Armageddon will be Judged by Christ and that they will be Judged and imprisoned in the Bottomless pit for 1,000 years.

Now your statement: -

The reign of the Antichrist cannot start until and unless there is a third temple in Jerusalem. Plans for the third temple are already in place.

needs to be backed up with scripture to confirm what you are claiming.

Shalom

 

[Enoch111]

Now your statement: - needs to be backed up with scripture to confirm what you are claiming.

I thought you were aware of the Scripture to back that up:
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:...(Mt 24:15,16).

The holy place was always within the temple at Jerusalem. So for the Abomination of Desolation to be set up, there must first be a temple which the Antichrist can hijack.

​

 

[Willie T]

All you brilliant Bible Scholars do realize, don't you, that "antichrist" is only mentioned 4 times in 4 verses in the entire Bible? And it is never mentioned as a "specific person." LOL

1Jo 2:18 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Enoch111]

All you brilliant Bible Scholars do realize, don't you, that "antichrist" is only mentioned 4 times in 4 verses in the entire Bible? And it is never mentioned as a "specific person." LOL

And you do realize that neither "Trinity" nor "Rapture" are found in the Bible. Yet all *brilliant* Christians accept those as facts.

But of course, you have failed to search the Scriptures, since the Antichrist is called by many other names also. He is AGAINST Christ and he also comes IN PLACE OF Christ. So kindly sit down first with the book of Daniel and then with book of Revelation and get a proper grasp of the subject. Unless you can't handle the truth.

 

[Jay Ross]

I thought you were aware of the Scripture to back that up:
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:...(Mt 24:15,16).

The holy place was always within the temple at Jerusalem. So for the Abomination of Desolation to be set up, there must first be a temple which the Antichrist can hijack.

View attachment 6691​

In the Old Testament, the Lord considered the whole hill/mountain on which the temple was originally built upon as being Holy. The Holy Place is not as you have suggested, just the Holy of Holies within the temple, but the place is the whole hill. The Temple was just the footstool on which God rested His feet upon as a Temple building cannot contain the God that we worship. Just as all of Mt Sinai was Holy to the Lord when Moses went up to speak with the Lord God, so all of the "mountain" upon which Solomon's temple was built is considered to be Holy. As at Mt. Sinai the people where not to touch the Mountain on which God was residing upon nor where they to enter into the bounded off area of Mt. Sinai, so it will be at Jerusalem, all of the "hill/mountain" where Solomon's Temple had been built the Temple is considered to be Holy.

Now contrary to your belief of a third temple being built, in Luke. 14:28-30, Jesus warned the Israelites that they would not have the means to complete the desire of their hearts to build a temple where they would be able to continue the Mosaic covenantal practices to atone for their sins.

With Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross, the atonement process was radically changed such that animal sacrifices for Sin was no longer in vogue, nor was it any longer acceptable unto the Lord.

Perhaps you would like to have another attempt to demonstrate that the construction of the Third Temple will be completed this side of the GWTHJ.

Shalom

 

[Enoch111]

In the Old Testament, the Lord considered the whole hill/mountain on which the temple was originally built upon as being Holy.

Context is critical. So please consult your concordance for "holy place" not "holy hill" or "holy mount".

 

[Jay Ross]

Context is critical. So please consult your concordance for "holy place" not "holy hill" or "holy mount".

Perhaps if we actually go to the Greek text, we would read, "stand in the holy place" does not describe a building or a room within a building and as such the context which you are pointing towards is actually not associated within this passage. In any case the time frame for the Abomination standing in the Holy Place is still a distant future event.

Again please provide any other reference that shows that the rebuilding of the temple will be completed soon.

Shalom

 

[Davy]

And you do realize that neither "Trinity" nor "Rapture" are found in the Bible. Yet all *brilliant* Christians accept those as facts.

Of course that is just another slanderous statement made by the deceived, even in jesting.

 

[Naomi25]

I'm not really aware of their rules of interpretation. I'm sure they do have some real fractures - I've seen some of them in the verses they sometimes insist are about our gathering together.
And I've seen fractures in other views too - mid, post, a mill.
I do believe prophecy...is history in advance, as you phrased it...but I don't know why that should translate as a problem to me if I believe this, believe in our gathering together, and believe that repentance has and can cause God to change His mind despite what He's told a prophet to say.

I guess I'm still not understanding why you think it has to be a problem for me. I don't know, maybe if I don't completely agree with all other dispensationalists on all points at all times, then I can't be called a dispensationalist...but then, according to that rigidness , neither could I be called a christian because I don't agree with all of them always...or a woman (don't agree with them always.) In fact, most labels we slap on someone aren't a good thing, because we then try to force people into very narrow and rigid confines, taking away any uniqueness of thought, talent or preference they might have. All black men don't like fried chicken and chittlins, all women are not bad drivers and I've met some white men who can dance very well!

To be honest, it's been so long since we've had this conversation, I'm struggling to remember why its a problem as well! Sorry...I've been crazy busy!
I think my point is this: if a person is looking at prophecy as foretelling, rather than forthtelling. What I mean by that is that they see prophecy as a set future that is being told...thus the "history written in advance" thing. Forthtelling is more of a 'declaring of a truth that can, or at least should, effect an outcome or response'. An example to that would be Jonah. God sent him with a "prohpecy"...that "Yet 40 day and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" And yet we see that that repented and were spared.
However, should we take a Dispensationalists hermenuetic at face value...all of scripture must be read literally, then we must understand that what Jonah said and therefore meant, when he said that Nineveh SHALL be overthrown, that it was going to be. Thus we end up with a contradiction....for we have in Numbers 23:19 a verse that tells us that God never changes his mind. What then?
We must realise that often reading scripture 'literally' doesn't produce a true understanding of what God is communicating to us. We come to understand that some prophecy is forthtelling...a calling for people to change...a direct opportunity FOR them to change.

Anyway...I hope that has clarified my position a little better. To be perfectly frank, I'm so flat out at the moment that I am having trouble rubbing two brain cells together!

 

[Enoch111]

...all of scripture must be read literally, then we must understand that what Jonah said and therefore meant, when he said that Nineveh SHALL be overthrown, that it was going to be.

Had Nineveh not repented that is exactly what would have happened. Nineveh would have been destroyed. So what's your point? How does this invalidate the Dispensational reading of Scripture as being literal?

What is literal is literal, and what is metaphoric is metaphoric. But no one has the right or the authority to create fantasies by spiritualizing away the Scriptures.

 

[Willie T]

And you do realize that neither "Trinity" nor "Rapture" are found in the Bible. Yet all *brilliant* Christians accept those as facts.

But of course, you have failed to search the Scriptures, since the Antichrist is called by many other names also. He is AGAINST Christ and he also comes IN PLACE OF Christ. So kindly sit down first with the book of Daniel and then with book of Revelation and get a proper grasp of the subject. Unless you can't handle the truth.

These are your exact words: "What is literal is literal, and what is metaphoric is metaphoric. But no one has the right or the authority to create fantasies by spiritualizing away the Scriptures." Are you now going to say that when the Bible DOES NOT say something is "The Antichrist", we can take references we find, and declare they mean "Antichrist?"