Is The Holy Spirit Or The Church The Restrainer Of 2 Thess.?

You mean you want me to explain it again???? I have already done this and you want to see it again???

We are not going to agree on this and you are not going to change my understanding and neither am I going to do that for you. I feel like I am doing a Bible study class all over again on this, but asked, actually it seems to me you are demanding it.

Dan.9:26 is a good starting place.
Certain important events were to happen after the 62 weeks (plus the 7 weeks, or a total of 69 weeks): the "cutting down" (destroying, killing, perish) of Messiah. The killing of the Messiah is the end of the 69th week point in time. Then the scripture says the prince "shall come" or "who is to come" and the destruction of Jerusalem will occur. The original words mean the destruction will be "subsequent" or "after". That means the destruction of Jerusalem does not have to be immediately after the "downing" of the Messiah.

So then in 70 A.D, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans who are the people of the prince come. This destruction was done by Titus, the son of the emperor Vespasian. Therefore, there appears to be a gap between the "downing" of the Messiah and the destruction of the Temple. Because these events were to occur after the 69 weeks had run their course and before the 70th week began, there also must be a space of time between the conclusion of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th.

The words "but not of himself" or "and have nothing" are understood by most scholars to mean not having any guilt or crime in Him. It also closely resembles “there was nothing to him;” that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the "cutting off" of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end. We know it did not stop His power. As a matter of fact, it has been growing since then. However, as far as the people of the time were concerned, before the resurrection, was that He was dead.

The words referring to a flood are probably descriptive words to mean the destruction of Jerusalem would be like the destruction a flood would bring. All who believe in the global flood of Noah know the terrible damage, destruction, reforming of the water and land masses, and other environmental changes that a serious flood can cause. The word used here means a “gushing, outpouring,” as of rain, Job 38:25; of a torrent, Prov. 27:4; an overflowing, flood, Ps. 32:6; Nahum 1:8. Therefore, it would appropriately denote the ravages of an army, sweeping everything away.


9:27

The 70th week is the subject of discussion here. It seems to me that it is the thing that has confused you. Daniel describes what happens after the 69th week and before the 70th week, implying a temporal gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. The last week has certain things occur that are related to the end times.

The "prince who is to come" is the beast from the sea (Dan 8:23-27), and the "little horn" (Dan7:8) is the antichrist. A covenant, a Peace Treaty for SEVEN years will be made with "many". There is nothing that clearly defines who "many" is. However, most scholars seem to think that the reference covenant could only reference covenant people. Therefore, most believe Israel is the "many". That makes sense because the destruction of the the Temple and Jerusalem would most affect them. This one week now becomes what has classically been called the Tribulation. It is to be seven years long. The antichrist, who makes the covenant with Israel, will break the covenant in the middle of the week (3-1/2 years into the seven years), cause sacrifice to cease, and destroy the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.

The Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and desecrate the Temple and demand worship of him. The length of time between the time of the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week is not revealed to Daniel or to any other of the O.T. prophets. Even Jesus said He did not know; only the Father knew the exact time. This intervening time span incorporates the age of the church, in which we now live and work. The event is of 69 weeks, including the cutting off of Messiah, have passed. The events of the 70th week remain for the future. They will be realized during the age of the Tribulation with the major horrors occurring during the Great Tribulation (generally considered the last 3-1/2 years of the 7 year Tribulation. This is just prior to the bringing in of "everlasting righteousness".


I personally do not know any other way to explain this to you. You are committed to your philosophy and I do not see any way to change that. I will say however that I am so very glad that this is not a salvation issue for humanity! It is a non-essential topic but I also know that it can be frustrating when others will not come to another's point of view.

The Abomination of Desolation is used uniquely in Daniel. The word abomination means to stink or be detestable. The word desolation means to be ravaged, desolated, or appalled. Putting them together is a God hated ravaging or something that stinks and is detestable. Some of the things that Antiochus Epiphanes did and the Antichrist will do are desecration of th Temple by idols, killing of swine on the altars, spreading the blood over the Temple and insides, and stopping the sacrifices in the Temple by the Jews.

Many more details of this can be studied in Revelation which will make these verses more understood. That is why understanding prophecy must include tying together prophecies in several books rather than stand alone readings. The secret to understanding to whom and to what these prophecies refer for example: to Antiochus or to the Antichrist, is the context and understanding of the history before and after the prophecies. Of course, we have 20-20 hindsight.

The key to me is that we know what happened in history. The people of those days did not have the knowledge from the prophecy to today as we do. However, we still don't know about the future. That we take from faith and using our intellect to try to understand what God is trying to tell us.


I really do think that you and I have gone about as far we can go with this discussion. I can tell by your words that you are becoming frustrated that you can not sway me from my perspective of these events. This may be a god time to end this and move on to some other topic.
Brother, you just can't seem to get it. The killing of Messiah is not the end of the 69 weeks segment of time for that would make it a part of the 69 weeks segment of time! His death took place AFTER the 69 week segment of time, which is DURING the 70th!

Questions:
  • Is the end of a song still a part of that song or part of the next song following after it?
  • Is the end of a movie still a part of that movie or a part of the next movie following after it?
  • Is the end of a war still a part of that war or a part of the next war following after it?
For heaven's sake, then why do you insist that the end of the 69 weeks is the death of the Messiah when the Bible says the death of the Messiah took place AFTER the 69 weeks???!!!
 
Brother, you just can't seem to get it. The killing of Messiah is not the end of the 69 weeks segment of time for that would make it a part of the 69 weeks segment of time! His death took place AFTER the 69 week segment of time, which is DURING the 70th!

Questions:
  • Is the end of a song still a part of that song or part of the next song following after it?
  • Is the end of a movie still a part of that movie or a part of the next movie following after it?
  • Is the end of a war still a part of that war or a part of the next war following after it?
For heaven's sake, then why do you insist that the end of the 69 weeks is the death of the Messiah when the Bible says the death of the Messiah took place AFTER the 69 weeks???!!!

You said............
"For heaven's sake, then why do you insist that the end of the 69 weeks is the death of the Messiah when the Bible says the death of the Messiah took place AFTER the 69 weeks???!!!"

What is the difference between the two.
"end of the 69 weeks is the death of the Messiah".
"Messiah took place AFTER the 69 weeks???!!!"

You are arguing over ......END OF 69 WEEKS and the AFTER 69 WEEKS!

OK. I will say this. At the END of the 69th week, AFTER 69 weeks had taken place, Messiah was cut off!

Then you say I dont not get it.

Your right......its all ME and not you!
 
OK. I will say this. At the END of the 69th week, AFTER 69 weeks had taken place, Messiah was cut off!

So, I see that the Holy Spirit has finally convinced you that a full 69 weeks had ticked off the clock BEFORE the Messiah was cut off and that He was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks had ticked of the clock. Good. When, then, did His death take place?

C'mon, stay with me, brother, we're almost there!!!

If the 69 weeks had fully ticked off the clock BEFORE His death, and His death took place AFTER the 69 weeks had ticked off the clock, then His death could only have taken place DURING the period of time that FOLLOWED the 69 weeks, or the 70th week! And if His death took place DURING the 70th week, the week cannot be sliced off and sent down to the end of time.

There are Futurists who are honest enough to admit this fatal flaw of the theory. So, in order to maintain their belief in the advent of a future Antichrist, they adopt a sort of "Neo-Futurist" idea:
  • They apply "...in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" to Jesus' death having caused the sacrificial system to have ceased to be of any significance in the eyes of God in the middle of the 70th week (just as Historicism correctly does)
  • They claim that it is then that His death "stopped the clock" leaving only a 3 1/2 year period to be sliced off and sent down to the end of time for a "3 1/2 period of tribulation" instead of the more popular "7 year period of tribulation"
This modified version of Futurism only serves to further confuse the issues, for it conflicts with Futurism's "7 year covenant confirmation period" which now demands an explanation of how that can be accomplished in just 3 1/2 years instead of 7.

C'mon, bro, give Historicism a chance!!! :) :)
 
So, I see that the Holy Spirit has finally convinced you that a full 69 weeks had ticked off the clock BEFORE the Messiah was cut off and that He was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks had ticked of the clock. Good. When, then, did His death take place?

C'mon, stay with me, brother, we're almost there!!!

If the 69 weeks had fully ticked off the clock BEFORE His death, and His death took place AFTER the 69 weeks had ticked off the clock, then His death could only have taken place DURING the period of time that FOLLOWED the 69 weeks, or the 70th week! And if His death took place DURING the 70th week, the week cannot be sliced off and sent down to the end of time.

There are Futurists who are honest enough to admit this fatal flaw of the theory. So, in order to maintain their belief in the advent of a future Antichrist, they adopt a sort of "Neo-Futurist" idea:
  • They apply "...in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" to Jesus' death having caused the sacrificial system to have ceased to be of any significance in the eyes of God in the middle of the 70th week (just as Historicism correctly does)
  • They claim that it is then that His death "stopped the clock" leaving only a 3 1/2 year period to be sliced off and sent down to the end of time for a "3 1/2 period of tribulation" instead of the more popular "7 year period of tribulation"
This modified version of Futurism only serves to further confuse the issues, for it conflicts with Futurism's "7 year covenant confirmation period" which now demands an explanation of how that can be accomplished in just 3 1/2 years instead of 7.

C'mon, bro, give Historicism a chance!!! :) :)

I did my brother. About 40 years ago while at Presbyterian Univ. Time and age and more study has convinced me that the Historical view is an incorrect view. The Futurist view is the only one where ALL the Bible prophecies fit perfectly onto place.
 
I did my brother. About 40 years ago while at Presbyterian Univ. Time and age and more study has convinced me that the Historical view is an incorrect view. The Futurist view is the only one where ALL the Bible prophecies fit perfectly onto place.
My brother, you seem reluctant to answer the question, but rather than speculate as to why, I'll simply pose it to you again:

You have already conceded that Jesus' death took place AFTER the 69 weeks had ended, just as Daniel says it did, so then would not His death logically have occurred DURING the 70th week which followed immediately after the 69th ended?

Historicism says the very thing that anyone with even limited reasoning ability would say: YES.
What does Futurism say?
 
My brother, you seem reluctant to answer the question, but rather than speculate as to why, I'll simply pose it to you again:

You have already conceded that Jesus' death took place AFTER the 69 weeks had ended, just as Daniel says it did, so then would not His death logically have occurred DURING the 70th week which followed immediately after the 69th ended?

Historicism says the very thing that anyone with even limited reasoning ability would say: YES.
What does Futurism say?

NOPE! I just rejected it once again. I have done that now about 5 times.

The Futuristic approach is the ONLY one that accomplishes the purpose explained in Rev. 1:1..........
"To show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass".

The LIBERAL approach denies this ability.
The ALLEGORICAL approach allegorizes away the things revealed.
The PRETERIT approach relegates that which is to be future to the past.
The HISTORICAL approach presents items so veiled that they can not be identified even after they are completed.
The TOPICAL approach see only general trends rather than "future things".

The FUTURISTIC approach does not resort to unwarranted allegorization of the symbolical as wee as literal details of the Apocalypse as the Historical and Topical views do.

The FUTURISTIC view gives is a premillennial coming of Christ while the TOPICAL view with its cyclic pattern placing Rev. 20 before Rev. 19 logically then leads to amillennialism.
 
NOPE! I just rejected it once again. I have done that now about 5 times.

The Futuristic approach is the ONLY one that accomplishes the purpose explained in Rev. 1:1..........
"To show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass".

The LIBERAL approach denies this ability.
The ALLEGORICAL approach allegorizes away the things revealed.
The PRETERIT approach relegates that which is to be future to the past.
The HISTORICAL approach presents items so veiled that they can not be identified even after they are completed.
The TOPICAL approach see only general trends rather than "future things".

The FUTURISTIC approach does not resort to unwarranted allegorization of the symbolical as wee as literal details of the Apocalypse as the Historical and Topical views do.

The FUTURISTIC view gives is a premillennial coming of Christ while the TOPICAL view with its cyclic pattern placing Rev. 20 before Rev. 19 logically then leads to amillennialism.
In your decision to hold fast to Jesuit Futurism, you are wise not to answer my question, seeing that the only possible answer is the one that completely overthrows your position. I'll answer it for you:
Jesus was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks which was DURING the 70th week, in which He also confirmed His covenant of grace for that week, as evidenced by His words at the Last Supper. Have you ever considered that the "70 weeks prophecy" is not called the "70 weeks + 2,000 years" prophecy?
 
When I say, after my divorce in 1999 (making up an example) I married my childhood boyfriend - doesn't mean I married or didn't remarry in 1999. If I got divorced in June, I still have 6 months.

So Phone - what is your answer to your OP?
 
In your decision to hold fast to Jesuit Futurism, you are wise not to answer my question, seeing that the only possible answer is the one that completely overthrows your position. I'll answer it for you:
Jesus was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks which was DURING the 70th week, in which He also confirmed His covenant of grace for that week, as evidenced by His words at the Last Supper. Have you ever considered that the "70 weeks prophecy" is not called the "70 weeks + 2,000 years" prophecy?

It seems to me that you have become fixated on making me denounce the only way to perceive the prophecies of Scripture.

IT is not that I hold fast to the Futuristic approach of prophecy, it is evident that you will not come to the same conclusion that I have come to.

You may continue to make questionable comments all you like but none of them can and will make me change what the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me as truth from the Scriptures.

As I have studied this and read the comments from some of the most spirit filled men ever to have lived and sat under the teaching of many of them, allow me ONE more time to explain this to you.

Daniel 9:25......."UNTO THE PRINCE", defines the termination point, or "terminus ad quem" of the 1st 69 weeks of years meaning that 483 years as expressed by Daniel's phrase of.....'SHALL BE SEVEN WEEKS AND THREESCORE AND TWO WEEKS."

The END of the 1st 69 weeks was unto the MESSIAH THE PRINCE (vs. 25) which speaks to His life not His birth or baptism which you have erroneously interpreted it to say. That must be and has to be the case because of the chronology that is historical involved. The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem would be and has to be the point in time when He presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah the Prince that was said to be coming.

Now Phone man.......The 69th week ended at His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and the "Messiah shall be cut off" is in fact the crucifixion of Jesus. There MUST BE a gap of time involved between the 69 and 70th week because that is what is indicated by the statement that "THE MESSIAH WILL BE CUT OFF AFTER THE 69 WEEKS."

Daniel used a calculation of time based upon prophetical years (360 days) rather than solar days (365). The same calculation is seen in the Book of the Revelation. Daniels calculations from Artaxerxes decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem to the CRUCIFIXITION of Messiah in prophetical years is 483 or exactly 173,880 days.

The final week (set of Seven) years is then left unexplained and IMO understanding is best taken to be the equivalent to the Seven years of Tribulation that are yet determined for Israel that we see explained by John in the Revelation where he says in Rev. 1:1...........................
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John".
 
When I say, after my divorce in 1999 (making up an example) I married my childhood boyfriend - doesn't mean I married or didn't remarry in 1999. If I got divorced in June, I still have 6 months.

So Phone - what is your answer to your OP?
Hi, Silk, not sure what you mean by "OP", but if you elaborate, I'd appreciate it.

"After my divorce in 1999" is not the same thing as "after 1999 I got divorced", which is along the lines of Daniel's claim that "AFTER 69 weeks Messiah shall be cut off". Everyone immediately recognizes from Daniel's words that Messiah cannot be cut off any sooner than the first day of the 70 week, or DURING the 70th week.

But, unfortunately, the Jesuit Futurism interpretation demands that no events have transpired during that 70th week so that it can be cut off and sent down to the end of time as a completely intact week of "seven years", which clearly does not stand the test of Daniel's prophecy, for once again, he clearly says that Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, or DURING the 70th. ;)
 
It seems to me that you have become fixated on making me denounce the only way to perceive the prophecies of Scripture.

IT is not that I hold fast to the Futuristic approach of prophecy, it is evident that you will not come to the same conclusion that I have come to.

You may continue to make questionable comments all you like but none of them can and will make me change what the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me as truth from the Scriptures.

As I have studied this and read the comments from some of the most spirit filled men ever to have lived and sat under the teaching of many of them, allow me ONE more time to explain this to you.

Daniel 9:25......."UNTO THE PRINCE", defines the termination point, or "terminus ad quem" of the 1st 69 weeks of years meaning that 483 years as expressed by Daniel's phrase of.....'SHALL BE SEVEN WEEKS AND THREESCORE AND TWO WEEKS."

The END of the 1st 69 weeks was unto the MESSIAH THE PRINCE (vs. 25) which speaks to His life not His birth or baptism which you have erroneously interpreted it to say. That must be and has to be the case because of the chronology that is historical involved. The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem would be and has to be the point in time when He presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah the Prince that was said to be coming.

Now Phone man.......The 69th week ended at His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and the "Messiah shall be cut off" is in fact the crucifixion of Jesus. There MUST BE a gap of time involved between the 69 and 70th week because that is what is indicated by the statement that "THE MESSIAH WILL BE CUT OFF AFTER THE 69 WEEKS."

Daniel used a calculation of time based upon prophetical years (360 days) rather than solar days (365). The same calculation is seen in the Book of the Revelation. Daniels calculations from Artaxerxes decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem to the CRUCIFIXITION of Messiah in prophetical years is 483 or exactly 173,880 days.

The final week (set of Seven) years is then left unexplained and IMO understanding is best taken to be the equivalent to the Seven years of Tribulation that are yet determined for Israel that we see explained by John in the Revelation where he says in Rev. 1:1...........................
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John".
\

Brother, I speak the truth in love and mean you no harm. However, you know full well that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that demands that there "must be a gap of time involved between the 69th and 70th week" and "Messiah will be cut off after the 69 weeks" is absolutely no indication of the same. This is purely subjective, textbook Futurism which assumes such a gap without any scriptural evidence.
If we simply read the passage objectively, then Historicism is the unavoidable conclusion. God intended the prophecy to be 70 weeks in duration, which Historicism perfectly and effectively explains just such a time period, and no 16th century Jesuit priest desperately trying to deflect the accusing finger of Protestantism can stick a rubber band in the Bible to make the prophecy extend one second longer than what God says would be the duration - SEVENTY WEEKS. :)
 
OP = opening post.

I'm no expert in Daniel, but wasn't he the prophet that had to close the book because he was giving away too much on end times? So, IMHO, Daniel should be searched for "hints". You seem very hung up on the `after' word when throughout the bible, OT & New, some verses hint at `then' and `later' - interwoven, if you like to show a pattern. Revelation clearly states a 7 year tribulation and Daniel is linked because it talks about 69 weeks with a 70th week not clearly defined in limbo. As another poster here as said, sometimes you have to "lean" a little with the HS to see the precision, in context, with how these things link. A few months ago, I might have been arguing on your side but now I see new meaning in scripture. And I don't mean wishful/hoped for/expected meaning - I mean very clear, once I stopped trying to stitch together things from what I was seeing as contradictions.

I think the pretrib rapture has to happen, leaving the first chosen people to the last for salvation. The end times are brinking now. Christ's church goes first to prepare.
 
\

Brother, I speak the truth in love and mean you no harm. However, you know full well that there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that demands that there "must be a gap of time involved between the 69th and 70th week" and "Messiah will be cut off after the 69 weeks" is absolutely no indication of the same. This is purely subjective, textbook Futurism which assumes such a gap without any scriptural evidence.
If we simply read the passage objectively, then Historicism is the unavoidable conclusion. God intended the prophecy to be 70 weeks in duration, which Historicism perfectly and effectively explains just such a time period, and no 16th century Jesuit priest desperately trying to deflect the accusing finger of Protestantism can stick a rubber band in the Bible to make the prophecy extend one second longer than what God says would be the duration - SEVENTY WEEKS. :)

The Historic view and You contend that the Abomination of Desolation was when the Roman armies were encamped round about Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD. We know this can't possibly be true because a covenant was supposed to have been confirmed 3 1/2 years prior to the Abomination of Desolation. Nothing like that happened.

Then some of the Historic view people teach that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled in 167 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a pig on the altar in the Jews" Second Temple. We know that this could not possibly be the Abomination of Desolation because in Matthew 24:15 Jesus taught that the Abomination of Desolation was an event that was yet future. The actions of Antiochus Epiphanes occurred at least 200 years before Jesus said this.

Then Immediately after the 3 1/2 year tribulation triggered by the Abomination of Desolation, the sun was to be darkened, the moon was to not give her light, and the stars were to fall from heaven. If the Abomination of Desolation occurred prior to 70 AD, when did these things happen and where do we go to valid the events as truth????

Matthew 24:30-31 teaches us that, right after the sun is darkened and the stars fall from heaven, the Lord will send His angels to gather His elect and the inhabitants of the earth will see Him. If the Abomination of Desolation had happened around 70 AD, the Lord would have gathered His elect at that time. Did anything like that happen? Of course not! The surrounding of Jerusalem by the Romans was not the Abomination of Desolation.

The Apostle Paul describes the Abomination of Desolation in II Thessalonians 2:3-4.............
"3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Paul says here that the MAN of sin, is the Antichrist, A PERSON will sit "In the temple of God."

Where did Jesus say that the Abomination of Desolation would take place in Matthew 24:15?--In the holy place which was in the temple. Paul went on to say that the Antichrist would sit in the temple of God claiming to be God. This is the event known as the Abomination of Desolation. It is placed by the Antichrist, not by Jesus Christ.

Now Phoneman, what I have shown you yet once again???
1. It is the Antichrist, not the Messiah, who will confirm the covenant for seven years.
2. It is the Antichrist that takes away the daily sacrifice and places the Abomination of Desolation.
3. The Abomination of Desolation signals the beginning of the Great Tribulation.
4. The Great Tribulation lasts for three and one-half years--th last three and one-half years of Daniel's 70th week.
5. Immediately after the Great Tribulation, Jesus appears, sending his angels to gather His elect. At this time those dwelling on earth shall see him.

Once you understand these things, it becomes obvious that Daniel's 70th week is a future event, not something past.
 
The Historic view and You contend that the Abomination of Desolation was when the Roman armies were encamped round about Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD. We know this can't possibly be true because a covenant was supposed to have been confirmed 3 1/2 years prior to the Abomination of Desolation. Nothing like that happened.

Then some of the Historic view people teach that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled in 167 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a pig on the altar in the Jews" Second Temple. We know that this could not possibly be the Abomination of Desolation because in Matthew 24:15 Jesus taught that the Abomination of Desolation was an event that was yet future. The actions of Antiochus Epiphanes occurred at least 200 years before Jesus said this.

Then Immediately after the 3 1/2 year tribulation triggered by the Abomination of Desolation, the sun was to be darkened, the moon was to not give her light, and the stars were to fall from heaven. If the Abomination of Desolation occurred prior to 70 AD, when did these things happen and where do we go to valid the events as truth????

Matthew 24:30-31 teaches us that, right after the sun is darkened and the stars fall from heaven, the Lord will send His angels to gather His elect and the inhabitants of the earth will see Him. If the Abomination of Desolation had happened around 70 AD, the Lord would have gathered His elect at that time. Did anything like that happen? Of course not! The surrounding of Jerusalem by the Romans was not the Abomination of Desolation.

The Apostle Paul describes the Abomination of Desolation in II Thessalonians 2:3-4.............
"3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Paul says here that the MAN of sin, is the Antichrist, A PERSON will sit "In the temple of God."

Where did Jesus say that the Abomination of Desolation would take place in Matthew 24:15?--In the holy place which was in the temple. Paul went on to say that the Antichrist would sit in the temple of God claiming to be God. This is the event known as the Abomination of Desolation. It is placed by the Antichrist, not by Jesus Christ.

Now Phoneman, what I have shown you yet once again???
1. It is the Antichrist, not the Messiah, who will confirm the covenant for seven years.
2. It is the Antichrist that takes away the daily sacrifice and places the Abomination of Desolation.
3. The Abomination of Desolation signals the beginning of the Great Tribulation.
4. The Great Tribulation lasts for three and one-half years--th last three and one-half years of Daniel's 70th week.
5. Immediately after the Great Tribulation, Jesus appears, sending his angels to gather His elect. At this time those dwelling on earth shall see him.

Once you understand these things, it becomes obvious that Daniel's 70th week is a future event, not something past.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've addressed each point both individually and collectively:
  • There nothing that demands that there must be a "3 1/2 year confirmation of a covenant" period just prior to the A of D. The text plainly says that there would be a 7 year period in which "he" will confirm the covenant with many for one week", which refers to Jesus confirming the covenant of grace during the 70th week, first for 3 1/2 years in Person and then 3 1/2 years through His disciples (Hebrews 2:3). Job says that the "king of all the children of pride" (who else but SATAN?) Leviathan will never make a covenant with anyone, including the 21st century Jews, and neither will His Antichrist!
  • Anyone who claims that Antiochus Epiphanes had anything to do with the A of D is simply not teaching Historicism, they are teaching a brand of Futurism or Preterism!
  • "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" (the nearly 1260 year persecution and tribulation of the Papal Antichrist) did in fact see the events He described begin to unfold with the greatest Earthquake ever recorded in Lisbon, Portugal in 1755, the Dark Day and Blood Red Night of 1780, as well as the greatest Meteor Shower ever of 1830, which heralded the preaching of the soon return of Jesus and His angels.
  • The A of D was explained by Jesus as pertaining to both the "destruction of the temple" in 70 AD and to an "end of the world" A of D which would exist just before the end of time. Please stop limiting the A of D to just the end times.
  • Does the "man of sin" refer to only one man? This same Paul refers to the "man of God" in 2 Tim 3:17 which you know full well refers to a plurality of "men of God". The "man of sin" was to sit in the "temple" of God (Gr. Naos) which Paul over and over uses to refer to the Christian church! Jesus called Judas the "Son of Perdition", who arose from the midst of His followers and apostatized, just as Paul and John say Antichrist would do in their N. T. writings. It is Futurism which claims that Antichrist will arise from OUTSIDE the church. The Roman Catholic Church arose in the midst of Christianity but early on ceased to teach Bible truth and committed the "great falling away" apostasy!
  • Was not the perimeter that stretched several farthings outside the temple where the Roman armies stood not considered by God to be a "holy place"? Yes, it was. So, why do you attempt to put words in Jesus' mouth by saying that He was referring to the first apartment of the sanctuary when you are fully aware of that holy ground outside the temple?
It should be plain to see that your arguments are not as bullet proof as you'd like them to be. But, if you insist on putting your faith in the Jesuit Diversionary Tactic that is Futurism (designed to deflect the fingers of accusation pointed at them by the Protestant Reformers) while knowing full well that the Roman Catholic Church is unBiblical in every single other area of Christian doctrine and faith, well then, so be it. :)
 
Thanks for your thoughts. I've addressed each point both individually and collectively:
  • There nothing that demands that there must be a "3 1/2 year confirmation of a covenant" period just prior to the A of D. The text plainly says that there would be a 7 year period in which "he" will confirm the covenant with many for one week", which refers to Jesus confirming the covenant of grace during the 70th week, first for 3 1/2 years in Person and then 3 1/2 years through His disciples (Hebrews 2:3). Job says that the "king of all the children of pride" (who else but SATAN?) Leviathan will never make a covenant with anyone, including the 21st century Jews, and neither will His Antichrist!
  • Anyone who claims that Antiochus Epiphanes had anything to do with the A of D is simply not teaching Historicism, they are teaching a brand of Futurism or Preterism!
  • "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" (the nearly 1260 year persecution and tribulation of the Papal Antichrist) did in fact see the events He described begin to unfold with the greatest Earthquake ever recorded in Lisbon, Portugal in 1755, the Dark Day and Blood Red Night of 1780, as well as the greatest Meteor Shower ever of 1830, which heralded the preaching of the soon return of Jesus and His angels.
  • The A of D was explained by Jesus as pertaining to both the "destruction of the temple" in 70 AD and to an "end of the world" A of D which would exist just before the end of time. Please stop limiting the A of D to just the end times.
  • Does the "man of sin" refer to only one man? This same Paul refers to the "man of God" in 2 Tim 3:17 which you know full well refers to a plurality of "men of God". The "man of sin" was to sit in the "temple" of God (Gr. Naos) which Paul over and over uses to refer to the Christian church! Jesus called Judas the "Son of Perdition", who arose from the midst of His followers and apostatized, just as Paul and John say Antichrist would do in their N. T. writings. It is Futurism which claims that Antichrist will arise from OUTSIDE the church. The Roman Catholic Church arose in the midst of Christianity but early on ceased to teach Bible truth and committed the "great falling away" apostasy!
  • Was not the perimeter that stretched several farthings outside the temple where the Roman armies stood not considered by God to be a "holy place"? Yes, it was. So, why do you attempt to put words in Jesus' mouth by saying that He was referring to the first apartment of the sanctuary when you are fully aware of that holy ground outside the temple?
It should be plain to see that your arguments are not as bullet proof as you'd like them to be. But, if you insist on putting your faith in the Jesuit Diversionary Tactic that is Futurism (designed to deflect the fingers of accusation pointed at them by the Protestant Reformers) while knowing full well that the Roman Catholic Church is unBiblical in every single other area of Christian doctrine and faith, well then, so be it. :)

Then that is the way it will have to be.
 
Then that is the way it will have to be.
Well, then. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue. So many Christians today don't know why they believe what they believe; they just parrot what some popular preacher says. I'm sure you'll change your mind on the issue when you discover that we'll going through the time of trouble such as the world has never seen. :)
 
Well, then. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue. So many Christians today don't know why they believe what they believe; they just parrot what some popular preacher says. I'm sure you'll change your mind on the issue when you discover that we'll going through the time of trouble such as the world has never seen. :)

Don't worry my brother. I will grab you on my way up when the Rapture takes place!
 
OP = opening post.

I'm no expert in Daniel, but wasn't he the prophet that had to close the book because he was giving away too much on end times? So, IMHO, Daniel should be searched for "hints". You seem very hung up on the `after' word when throughout the bible, OT & New, some verses hint at `then' and `later' - interwoven, if you like to show a pattern. Revelation clearly states a 7 year tribulation and Daniel is linked because it talks about 69 weeks with a 70th week not clearly defined in limbo. As another poster here as said, sometimes you have to "lean" a little with the HS to see the precision, in context, with how these things link. A few months ago, I might have been arguing on your side but now I see new meaning in scripture. And I don't mean wishful/hoped for/expected meaning - I mean very clear, once I stopped trying to stitch together things from what I was seeing as contradictions.

I think the pretrib rapture has to happen, leaving the first chosen people to the last for salvation. The end times are brinking now. Christ's church goes first to prepare.

Yes....you have studied hard and grown ! I have seen it and it is a blessing.
 
Yes....you have studied hard and grown ! I have seen it and it is a blessing.
Hi again, Silk. My emphasis of that word was to show that since Messiah is cut off "after" the 69 weeks (w/o any direction from Scripture to insert a "gap" upon the conclusion of them), it can only mean that He was cut off "during" the 70th week which would make that week historic, and not future.

Historicist Protestant scholars from the beginning of the 16th century up to the middle of the 19th century taught that JESUS CHRIST (not Antichrist) would "confirm the covenant with many for one week" and that the "people of the prince that shall come" was either one of two possibilities: (1) the Jews of Prince JESUS whose stubborn refusal to accept their Messiah led to the eventual withdrawal of the Lord's protection of their city and sanctuary from the Romans -OR- (2) the Romans of Prince Titus himself who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. None of them associated the Antichrist of Scripture with any part of this prophecy.

It was 16th century Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, who searched the Bible to find a way to clear the Papacy of the Protestant accusation that it was the Antichrist, who first identified the coming "prince" and the one who would "confirm the covenant" as a future Antichrist and fabricated the whole idea of a "gap" theory in which the "prophetic clock" would stop until the 70th week would begin counting down at the end of time. Incidentally, it is always a fatal mistake to search the Bible for what we want to be truth, rather than searching the Bible to find out what God says is truth. BTW, all that I've said is a matter of history, not opinion, easily proven through a simple study of church history. :)
 
Back
Top