Futurism

[Waggles]

Dan 9:25  Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

seven weeks = 7x7 = 49 years in prophecy - while anointed one refers to Christ 

While some scholars opt for the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC, sending Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:12-26), that decree also emphasized the Temple and its ministry. The decree of Daniel 9:25 is probably that of Artaxerxes in 445 BC authorizing Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls and restore the gates (Nehemiah 2:5-8).

 

[Charlie744]

4 minutes ago, Waggles said:

Dan 9:25  Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

seven weeks = 7x7 = 49 years in prophecy - while anointed one refers to Christ 

While some scholars opt for the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC, sending Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:12-26), that decree also emphasized the Temple and its ministry. The decree of Daniel 9:25 is probably that of Artaxerxes in 445 BC authorizing Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls and restore the gates (Nehemiah 2:5-8).

 

The entire 70 week prophecy has the 3 separate periods carved out by God. Within each of the 3 periods, Daniel identifies those things which will be restored. The first 7 weeks this will be completed, the next 62 weeks this will be restored, leaving one more period of 7 years. 

The entire 70 weeks is to be a complete restoration of the Jews back to Jerusalem as though they had never left for Babylon. The Jews had paid their punishment and now God will restore everything in 3 separate sections. The final section or the last week in Daniel will begin on the first day of this last week when the Messiah is indeed baptized by John in the Jordan. Now Daniel will tell us in chapter 9 those "things" which the Messiah will complete / fulfill / restore in the final week.  This is the purpose of the 3 carve out periods. God wants us to see without any doubt who and when and what will be fulfilled in the final week of the "restoration period". There is no one other than the Messiah who is able or sent to fulfill the 6 requirements identified in Daniel 9:24. 

So, we have the Messiah (the ANOINTED ONE) coming at the exact beginning of the 70 week, we find He will indeed "confirm" (not establish) the covenant (identified in Jeremiah 31, which means it is not a brand new covenant but a "confirmation" of the covenant first mentioned to Abraham when he is told that God would indeed provide His Lamb to be sacrificed...... 

In chapter 9, we see the Messiah being "cut off" (crucified) but not for Himself (paid for our sins) in the "midst of the week" (3.5 years into His Ministry and exactly 1/2 of the final week), and because of this event (the most ABOMINABLE event in mankind's history) will cause the daily sacrifices to cease (no longer need animal sacrifices), and despite all of the mercy and planning from God to once again restore the Jews to their home, (having just paid a 70 year punishment for their disobedience and idolatry), they ONCE AGAIN AND IN THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY, reject their Messiah and crucify Him.... This really is / was the last straw fo the Jews... God had never before allowed a gentil power do to Israel what He will now allow them to do... this was not their typical idolatry or disobedience as they had done so many times before, this was murdering their Messiah and this would be the CAUSE of their pending COMPLETE DESOLATION when God would use Titus as His agent, just like He used Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus earlier to punish and then free His people. This time, they, their land, their city, their Temple, their everything would be destroyed and made desolate.

But thanks to the "little horn", this story / message in Daniel 9 has been thoroughly corrupted and pushed forward 2000 years and excludes the Messiah in these powerful verses.

Just my thoughts, Charlie

[canada]

For those who believe in "futurism", I believe it is mainly because of the excitement and sensationalism of their futurist interpretations.

I know, as I was hooked, line and sinker into that thought for my first ten years of research into Revelation ... my books by those type of authors stacked as high as myself.

Jesus, in the midst of the week (3 1/2 years of His ministry) caused the need for the sacrifices to cease by the one time sacrifice of Himself ... it is finished ... not on and on and on as in Romanism.

 

[Waggles]

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:26b

Titus the Roman general was indeed a prince being the son of his father Emperor Vespasian. And the people of this prince did indeed destroy the Temple and the Sanctuary and Judah through several wars of rebellion and brought about the desolation of the Temple Mount and the Levitical priesthood. 

Matthew 23:37  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 
23:38  See, your house is left to you desolate. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Waggles

[Waggles]

The Arch of Titus - The siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD was the decisive event of the First Jewish–Roman War, in which the Roman army captured the city of Jerusalem and destroyed both the city and its Temple. The Roman army was led by the future Emperor Titus.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Waggles

[Starise]

On 3/19/2021 at 9:31 AM, Justin Adams said:

The Roman Catholic Church had Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, a brilliant man with a doctorate in theology, write a 500 page commentary with an **opposing view, where he manipulated prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation, to create an end-time 7-year tribulation antichrist. (**opposing the reformed idea that the pope was the antichrist)

The most important passage that they manipulated is the 70 Weeks of Daniel prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. 

Good Morning Justin,

When you say they manipulated it I'm guessing you mean they had an alternate explanation to an existing text. I am not aware of a text itself being changed unless there were changes in the Catholic bible?  I don't see notes, ideas and added annotations really changing the texts of the most modern accepted translations of the Bible so far as prophecy is concerned. What the Catholic church seems to have put forth through these men were ideas about existing texts. So to say they manipulated a passage really means they interpreted a passage differently. The texts themselves never changed. If you think they did, how so? And where? 

I'm not arguing that these men haven't maybe changed the direction of ideas on the end times. I remember the Scofield Bible being a staple in my church with some members when I was growing up. I suppose a scholar's ideas added to that bible  influenced many in their views since many of them simply took it all at face value trusting those scholars.

I will say I always stay away from Bibles that have any sort of added studies in them from people I don't know. I wasn't always that way because people I trusted and looked up to read them and taught those notes. Though I didn't religiously study bibles like the Scofield bible I once trusted the notes as reliable. 

Probably the bigger question for me is how did men, Jesuits even, manage to convince Baptists and others to adopts these things?  To see how Baptists are now, one would surely deny even the slightest possibility any Baptist worth his salt would have anything to do with one of these fellows so far as their teachings were concerned. I mean, it's like water and oil.

Whenever you have something people often don't totally understand, such as biblical end times prophecy, I think it's very easy for people to offer explanations that don't fit. Explanations that sound good and make sense if they don't think about it too much. Some people through no fault of their own, just have an extra tough time grappling with the end times. Some of them decide to let those explanations up to people who they think are better trained to understand such things. Others go off on a wild goose chase and grab at whatever they can to make sense of it, often going off in the wrong directions.

I'm more of a slow to decide type who will swing around given the right amount of proof. If no proof is ever given or no explanation ever solid, if I don't know. If I can't get all of something I say I don't know and I keep studying. I might know some but not all. To infer anything and call it an answer that I would tell others as concrete truth isn't really getting us anywhere if there is no real solid foundation for it. Not directing that comment at you personally . I will likely have an OPINION. I might give references as to why I hold that opinion.

The main thing for me is I want to see BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that certain interpretations are worth considering. To call someone a futurist can be potentially misdirecting the thinking towards a mostly historical  interpretation which I am not convinced totally fits all texts. I mean, it's easy to say something that happened looks like what the Bible is talking about, but then we need to dig deeper to confirm, was it really THE event mentioned? Was it an event that is SIMILAR yet still leaving a few stones unturned? The main problem with getting it wrong is obvious. If we start out with a false premise we will end up with false results in our thinking. Especially concerning the end times. My suggestion to all would be not to follow only one or two scholars we like and respect. Remember Scofield? He was a respected scholar too. I think we need to be very careful.

Many events can SEEM to be the events in question, but I think we have to ask are they really?????? Then we need to confirm it FOR SURE or label it as a theory. 

 

 

 

[Starise]

16 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, I am sure everyone has a clear understanding of my thoughts and interpretations on Daniel... and although I have NOT studied Revelation AT ALL, I am aware that much of Daniel will  / must "fit" quite nicely with Revelation.

So, having made that disclaimer, I would like to throw out to this audience who have studied Revelation and find it quite enigmatic...

When I read certain phrases in Revelation of the Gospels and other books of the NT, they SEEM to be either meant to be a deeper and fuller understanding of the Scriptures God placed in the OT.... if we think some NT phrases  or interpretations contradict or amend or alter or whatever the Words of God in the OT, then it is time to stop and throw those thoughts out as quickly as one can.. because NO NT verse will or should ever be thought to change or remove His Words in the OT. The second comment is where I believe those terms / phrases / verses which are not meant to be enlighten our understanding of HIS commands then they do speak to the end times. 

I believe the parable of the 10 virgins as well as the "no one could buy and sell" are strictly for the end times. Specifically, I do not think this speaks in any such way of the buying and selling of goods and services. I believe the "oil" in the 10 virgins fits quite nicely with the"no buying and selling" mention.... The "oil" reflects the Holy Spirit and our possessing His Word, the Scriptures, The Cross, His being our Messiah...... that is the "oil" we must have with and in us at His second coming. It we are found not to be in possession, we will have NO TIME to acquire it... it is too late.

I think this is exactly the same as the "buying and selling"... but here perhaps this same "little horn" who commands we worship him (papacy), obey THEIR COMMANDS, PRACTICES, RITUALS,  POWER, AUTHORITY, etc., this is the one who will prevent us or not allow us to "buy and sell" the true Word of God.  If one does not follow / accept that only those who are Catholics will be saved (and that is certainly their contention), we will not have any ability to buy our way into heaven....If we do not "buy" into THEIR theology and become Catholics... we will not "own" the "oil" necessary to be saved.... it is only THEIR BRAND OF OIL THAT WE NEED TO BE SAVED..... If we do not have THEIR "oil" at the end, it will be too late to buy it....

That is just a off the top of my head thoughts and it is obviously written in haste....

Thanks, Charlie.... would love to hear everyone's interpretations on these end times..

Hi Charlie,

The way I look at this is there should never be any contradictions period. Neither is a study of biblical prophecy for a new or relatively new believer probably a good idea in my opinion until they have some other foundations laid first and especially to make decisions when not all texts have been considered first because scripture interprets or confirms other scripture. People often use the books of Daniel and Revelation for prophetic study, yet there are numerous other references to prophecies elsewhere in the bible too. 

I mostly study making mental notes and keeping internet links to references I think will help. Having said that, when it comes to an in depth study of end times prophecy notes for me are probably a prerequisite. As a person who hates taking notes and keeping study records, I am going to admit that here,  it's probably necessary. Unless you have a very sharp memory and can recall all of the data you are going to be digging up. There are lots of things that people try to connect that don't really fit. 

I don't claim to be a guru of end times prophecy. I do claim to see that what most of us who were in certain denominations have been taught might very well be untrue, at least in the sense that we were taught it. Many well meaning men who thought they were telling us the truth, in fact, were not. It might be an advantage to someone who was never exposed because they can start off from square one with no inhibitions. My main advice would be not to look at what someone says it says or what we think it says. Look at what it says

[Justin Adams]

The RCC took the Geneva bible's commentary and everyone up until then and stood it on its head. Pre-trib rapture, 7 years trib and all the other stuff. Then the mark and the kind of thing that is in Rev. was emphasized along with a so-called millennium.

They added a compelling set of ideas to many thousands of believers that could not read scripture for themselves. The RCC always has its own magisterium to make sure Catholics tow the line. They redefine by Edict much of the scripture as it suits them.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Justin Adams]

Really guys. I do not care for eschatology. I just care for the many time I hear 'great tribulation' and 'MOB' and 'pre-trib rapture'. I mainly wish to disabuse people of this and other notions so they will THINK for themselves. The TV evangelists were all seemingly indoctrinated in this way and it is sad to me.

As I said. I do not care. My ideas will not make anything different as a  reality. However, as Ravi used to say: "LET MY PEOPLE THINK".

I encourage all of you to junk the eschatology books and start afresh.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Starise]

21 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Really guys. I do not care for eschatology. I just care for the many time I hear 'great tribulation' and 'MOB' and 'pre-trib rapture'. I mainly wish to disabuse people of this and other notions so they will THINK for themselves. The TV evangelists were all seemingly indoctrinated in this way and it is sad to me.

As I said. I do not care. My ideas will not make anything different as a  reality. However, as Ravi used to say: "LET MY PEOPLE THINK".

I encourage all of you to junk the eschatology books and start afresh.

Even the terminology gets confusing sometimes IMHO. I mean , lets look at the "pre-trib rapture". There's probably more than one take on it. To most it's a teaching that says Jesus comes again for His saints right before 7 years of pure hell on earth. While people certainly disagree on the times and when, or even if, a rapture is supposed to happen if you were to simply say..Jesus will rescue us from certain events held for ONLY those who He has reserved punishment for. Jesus will take us to be with Himself before that time.

I think this is a universal statement we all agree on. We will disagree on the details but agree on the outcome. Some won't admit a rapture but will acknowledge we will still be "taken up". So it might be funny to hear someone argue, there's no such thing as a rapture. You ask the same person, will we eventually be taken up to be with the Lord? They say yes.

Let's look at the "great tribulation". The word itself is something many men, both saved and unsaved, go through routinely here on planet earth. Christians go through tribulation sometimes tied directly to persecution. We might go through tribulation because we are persecuted. We don't often hear the word used anymore. Tribulation is simply going through trouble or suffering and we usually refer to it as hard times or trouble. So Great Tribulation is really " Great Trouble". This would indicate greater trouble than what we see as "normal trouble" or the expected things men go through. In one view "the bottom drops out" so to speak. The Bible clearly speaks of coming times when things will get VERY BAD as compared to now. Whether you believe we are here when it happens is a point of argument between some. Or what exactly constitutes that phase of time. One thing we probably all agree on is there will be a time when it will get WORSE than it is now. We will hopefully also agree that God uses these things to either bring men back to Him or punish men that did not follow Him. Men that weren't neutral to God but enemies of God.

Most agree we go through tribulation, that many of us are and will be persecuted and that God will use severe climactic events and conditions to judge men before He returns. 

It's this splitting hairs over terminologies and times that  hangs everyone up. No question there is a future and that future events will occur to dwarf anything seen before them.