Why Daniel's 70th Week does NOT support Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism

[GaryA]

Wow, now that's some really powerful exegesis, bro! Aside from a couple minor differences, i think it works well. I'm in favor of counting the 62 at the end of the 7 - I don't see it causing conflict with Messiah being cut off because "Messiah the Prince" refers to Jesus' baptism, not His death. "Messiah" means "anointed" so "Messiah the Prince" must refer to Jesus' anointing as Messiah in the Jordan. It's interesting that He was referred to as "rabbi" up until the evening Jesus said "come and see" but the words which broke the silence of the next morning were "We have found the MESSIAH". The word "messiah" is found only in Daniel, which means Jesus was showing those first disciples Who He was from Daniel's prophecies! What you think, bro?

I explained on that page why '62 at the end of the 7' does not work. The two relevant phrases in v25 and v26 cannot point to the same time. One points to the beginning of His ministry, and the other points to the end of it.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Remember, if you have Jesus as the 'he' of Daniel 9:27, then you would also have Jesus as the one who sets up the abomination.

I read the KJV. It does not say Jesus sets up any abomination. It says because of widespread abomination, Jesus will make the city desolate. The abomination has dual prophetic application, the one in 70 A.D. when the Romans defiled the holy ground of the city with their Sun god standards, and end times application, when the Antichrist sets up in the church that which the Sun god has always taken to himself to be his premiere symbol.

Therefore, Daniel 9:27 is saying Jesus is going to confirm His New Covenant for one week - 3 1/2 years in Person and 3 1/2 years "through them that heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3 KJV), and in the midst of the 70th Week His death is going to cause the sacrifices to mean zilch to God from then on out...and for widespread abomination, He's going to allow the Romans to come in and level the place in 70 A.D. because they "knew not the hour of their visitation".

 

[Phoneman-777]

I explained on that page why '62 at the end of the 7' does not work. The two relevant phrases in v25 and v26 cannot point to the same time. One points to the beginning of His ministry, and the other points to the end of it.

Which one points to the beginning of His ministry? It seems verse 25 does by saying it happens after the 7 and 62

 

[Phoneman-777]

I enjoy how indepth many of you get into this topic with your historical record, the Scripture to match, and a bit of each one's personal opinion.

For me, it's rather simple when we know this:

From Irenaeus:
We have the record of the Book of Revelation that John was on the Isle of Patmos (1:9), and there wrote the Apocalypse. In his Against Heresies Book III, at the end of chapter 3, Irenaeus says, “Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” Trajan began to rule in A.D. 98, and John was alive among the people of Ephesus till that time and perhaps a little while after.

In Against Heresies Book V.30.3, Irenaeus writes (declining to try to identify what the number of the beast signifies), “for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” Domitian died in A.D. 96.

As to John’s actual release from Patmos it would likely have been soon after the death of Domitian, as his edicts – such as banishments – would be voided on his death. But we have no accounts of his release.


From Eusebius:
(Church History III.13.1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.


From Tertullian:
The persecutors under Emperor Domitian (89–96 AD) tried to boil St John in oil in Rome. The Saint miraculously survived and was then exiled to Patmos.


That John factually was put onto Patmos under Domitian's rule around 94 AD where he wrote Revelations.
And when we read the final Chapters of John, we read Judgement, Eternal Punishment, and finally the END!

The End is where logic takes place, that this was not about 70 AD. Because the END is about the prophecies have all been fulfilled and there is no more to write about. Which means, if this happened in 70 AD, we, today, plus the 8 billion other humans on this planet would not be here! And since we are here, we know Revelations was not about 70 AD and proves anyone who believes such baloney is full of baloney!

The claim that all prophecy has been fulfilled has a serious problem: Daniel 7 says the saints do not inherit the literal kingdom of God until after the Judgment.

"The Judgment was set and the books were opened." I'm pretty sure that the great Judgment Day has not come upon the Earth, unless one is willing to argue that after Judgment Day, the wicked are still going to be around doing their dirt.

 

[GaryA]

Which one points to the beginning of His ministry? It seems verse 25 does by saying it happens after the 7 and 62

beginning ---> v25 'unto...'
end ---> v26 '...cut off'

 

[GaryA]

v25 'unto...' ---> baptism
v26 '...cut off' ---> death / cross

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

Antichrist is no where the subject of Daniel 9. It was Jesus Who confirmed the Covenant for the 70th Week, first in Person and then through His disciples (Hebrews 2:3 KJV) and He Who caused the sacrifices to cease - because He is the final sacrifice to which all others pointed.

The Old Testament people looked forward in faith to the Messiah Who was to come and evidenced their faith by sacrificing a lamb...and we New Testament people look back in faith to the Messiah Who came and died for us and we also evidence our faith with our "good works which God ordained that we should walk in them."

The tribulation is at the end of time, but the saints have nothing to fear, just as Daniel was protected in the Lion's Den and the Three Hebrew Worthies in the Fiery Furnace, and Noah's family in the Ark, etc. When the Seven Last Plagues are falling on the wicked, it will be too late to change sides. Gospel preaching will have ceased and nothing will be left to see but the 7 Last Plagues, the 7th of which is Jesus coming to "destroy with the brightness of His coming" the wicked.

But what about the ending of sacrifices, the destruction of the city and the temple? That is mentioned in Daniel 9.

The anti-christ is the roman emperors that bring about these things.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Christians can TOTALLY IGNORE Jesuits, so that is a non-issue. As to debunking Historicism, it is patently false on the face of it. But my response will be somewhat lengthy to make things clear that everything discussed below pertains to the future.

Disagree. Historicism = NFL Pro Bowl team. Futurism = company picnic half drunk flag football squad...but OK.

Paul gives us a very specific context in which "the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition" sits in the temple of God claiming that he is God. Quite obviously that cannot be the Church, since the Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

That's so naive. We all know full well that God's past organizations became polluted with enemies of the truth...just ask Ezekiel about God's priests joining the fraternity of Sun worship in chapter 8 - and God was right there patiently putting up with their nonsense. Likewise, the Papacy moved in and set itself up over the church for centuries and today "protestants" like you who no longer protest defend Jesuit ideas for them. The KGB coined the phrase "useful idiots" and though I don't think of you as such (just a confused student of prophecy), you can bet your sweet aspartame that the Papacy considers all of you as such.

On the other hand Paul's prophecy is directly related to the prophecy of Christ, which was derived from the prophecy of Daniel, and continues in the prophecy of the apostle John in Revelation:

DANIEL 11:31: THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION WILL STAND IN THE SANCTUARY
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the Abomination that maketh desolate.

The daily sacrifice could only be offered in the temple at Jerusalem, which had a Holy Place as well as a Holy of Holies, and was consistently called "the sanctuary".

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. First of all, "sacrifice" is italicized - not in the original. The "daily" refers to the entire sanctuary ministry of sacrifice, intercession, the cleansing of, etc. Second, if you would stick to the established prophetic timeline of Daniel, which you have not, you would know this period of time is referring to the Papacy which has by then polluted the Heavenly Sanctuary by robbing our High Priest Jesus of His names, titles, attributes, and prerogatives, and claims to "take the place" of Christ ("Antichrist") -- the "arms" that stand for these enemies of God is the secular power united with the Catholic church (this unity is the very definition of the Papacy) with the church calling the shots...just as Satan worshiper Jezebel controlled Ahab, the head of State.

In the Olivet Discourse, Christ had already predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 AD. But then He introduced the Abomination of Desolation and connected it to the Great Tribulation (a totally unique event). And since Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple about 200 years BEFORE this prophecy, it is obvious that Christ was not referring to a past event, but was predicting a future event.

Everyone knows the AoD has a dual application: 1) When the Romans set up their Sun god standards on the holy ground surrounding the city, it was as abominable in the sight of God as when His priests committed the "greatest" abomination in Ezekiel 9 when their backs were to Him and they worshiped the Sun. In the end times, this abomination is repeated, with the premiere Sun god symbol ever set up in the church, and will cause God to destroy every last hypocrite from the midst of His commandment keeping people.

2 THESSALONIANS 2:3,4: THE MAN OF SIN SITS IN THE FUTURE TEMPLE OF GOD
Note: it is called "the temple of God" for the simple reason that unbelieving Orthodox Jews will regard it as the temple of God, not that God approves of unbelief or a third temple erected in unbelief]

Let's compare notes: I've can show you several Scriptures where this same Paul refers specifically and explicitly to the saints as the "temple of God" - you've got zero verses showing where God regards the bankrupt opinions of unbelieving Jews about what is and ain't His temple. Can you see the scales of evidence just tipping all the way over in favor of Historicism on this?

Now it becomes clear that the Antichrist (the Man of Sin) desecrates a future temple in Jerusalem in two ways (1) he sets up an image of himself -- an animated idol -- which is called the Abomination of Desolation because idols are an abomination to God, and (2) he also sits in that temple and claims that he is God. While both these things are preposterous and abominable, he succeeds because God sends a strong delusion upon the earth for 3 1/2 years. Which takes us to Revelation 13:6,14,15:

Jesuit Futurism is about as clear as a black suit covered in coffee grinds at midnight. The "future" temple to Paul was the church in which the Papacy reigned on Earth while doing Satan's bidding. You looking for "idols"? One of the "3 horns" uprooted by the Papal "Little Horn" was the Vandals...ever heard of VANDALISM? The Vandals were known for going through the kingdom and breaking down the idols that the papacy dragged into the church and baptized so that, for instance, "Apollo" became Peter...they just changed the nameplates. Peter's got one heckuva horn sticking out of his forehead in one such idol, but never saw that in the Bible.

And he [the Beast, the Antichrist] opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name,

Want a textbook Biblical definition for "blasphemy"? Luke 5:21 KJV and John 10:33 KJV. See that? It's BLASPHEMY for a man to 1) make himself God, and 2) claim the power to forgive sin. Does the papacy claim that?

"We hold on this Earth the place of God Almighty". Pope Leo X

"Thou art the Shepherd, thou art the Physician, thou art the Ruler, thou art the Husbandman, thou art, finally, another God on Earth." - Archbishop Marcellus, to the Pope. For this blasphemy, the Pope rewarded him with the title, "Noble lord of Venice".


"And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution...the sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribed to it." - Dignities and Duties of the Priest

 

[Phoneman-777]

But what about the ending of sacrifices, the destruction of the city and the temple? That is mentioned in Daniel 9.

The Romans didn't cease any sacrifices, just elaborate Jewish Barbeques. It was Jesus' death which became the final sacrifice for all time, was it not?

The anti-christ is the roman emperors that bring about these things.

What does "Antichrist" mean? The Greek "Anti-Christos":

• "Anti" - means, "in place of, instead of, in behalf of, for"
• "Christos" - of course, "Christ"

So, what have we learned? "Antichrist" is that which claims to "take the place of Christ". Now, although Caesars claimed to be "god", which of them claimed to "take the place of Christ"? Not a one. If anything, they fancied themselves SUPERIOR to Christ. Now, does the Papacy claim to take the place of Christ? Since it's inception in 538 A.D. Here's one of many quotes that evidence this:

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." - Catholic National, 1895

 

[Phoneman-777]

v25 'unto...' ---> baptism
v26 '...cut off' ---> death / cross

According to history and archaeology, 457 B.C. begins the starting point of the 490, with the completion of the work marking the end of the first 49 and the beginning of the 434, which ends in 27 A.D. in the River Jordan, at which time the final 70th Week begins. It that similar to what you believe?

 

[RedeemedthruChrist]

@Phoneman-777

My view is similar to yours. Please read the following web page - note the minor differences - and tell me what you think:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

Thanks.

Great article

 

[GaryA]

According to history and archaeology, 457 B.C. begins the starting point of the 490, with the completion of the work marking the end of the first 49 and the beginning of the 434, which ends in 27 A.D. in the River Jordan, at which time the final 70th Week begins. It that similar to what you believe?

similar but not exact

 

[GaryA]

Great article

"Thank you kindly..."

 

[GaryA]

Got to go. If y'all want to see more - go to mywebsite.us - click on 'Study' (at left) - look at the pages you find there.

@Phoneman-777:

Go look at the 'Time Line' page.

 

[Nebuchadnezzer]

The Romans didn't cease any sacrifices, just elaborate Jewish Barbeques. It was Jesus' death which became the final sacrifice for all time, was it not?

But there is also mention that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed and also the sanctuary. Did not the Romans do this?

So, what have we learned? "Antichrist" is that which claims to "take the place of Christ". Now, although Caesars claimed to be "god", which of them claimed to "take the place of Christ"? Not a one. If anything, they fancied themselves SUPERIOR to Christ.

The chief priests chose the anti-christ as their king.

John 19:14-15
“Here is your king [Jesus],” Pilate said to the Jews.
But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

Now, does the Papacy claim to take the place of Christ? Since it's inception in 538 A.D. Here's one of many quotes that evidence this:

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." - Catholic National, 1895

Are you saying the Pope is the anti-christ?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Got to go. If y'all want to see more - go to mywebsite.us - click on 'Study' (at left) - look at the pages you find there.

@Phoneman-777:

Go look at the 'Time Line' page.

If the prophecy says the rebuilding would take 49 years, I'm unclear as to why you claim that period took 52 years.

Counting 62 Weeks from the end of the 7 Weeks brings us to 27 A.D. which is which is the year of Jesus' "anointing" in the Jordan as "Messiah the Prince", according to Luke 3:21, Luke 3:1, and the Syro-Macedonian calendar which everyone, and surely Luke as well, was using in that region and time.

He was crucified in 31 A.D. and the prophecy ended 3 1/2 years later with Paul taking the Gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[Phoneman-777]

But there is also mention that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed and also the sanctuary. Did not the Romans do this?

Yes, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. which did deprive the Jews of their ability to sacrifice according to the Law...that's got nothing to do with the 70 Weeks prophecy which details Christ's mission, not Jewish cacophony of confusion. It was Christ's death that rendered all sacrifices thereafter worthless. Jesus was crucified in the middle of the 70th Week "and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease."

The chief priests chose the anti-christ as their king.
John 19:14-15
“Here is your king [Jesus],” Pilate said to the Jews.
But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
Are you saying the Pope is the anti-christ?

As I stated earlier, "ANTI-CHRIST" MEANS "TAKE THE PLACE OF CHRIST". You ever heard of "antibiotic" or "antipasta"? What about "antitype"?

An antibiotic is a weakened form of a healthy bug that a doctor gives you IN PLACE OF the healthy bug, so that your body can develop immunity to the healthy bug without you getting sick.

Antipasta is served INSTEAD OF pasta.

In the Bible, the Antitype is that which TAKES THE PLACE OF of the Type.

ANTICHRIST IS THAT WHICH TAKES THE PLACE OF CHRIST. THE CAESARS DID NO SUCH THING NOR CLAIMED TO DO THAT...THE PAPACY HAS CLAIMED TO BE THE "ANTICHRIST" SINCE THE 6TH CENTURY A.D.

 

[tanakh]

Another two individuals that had a large influence in 19th Century futurism was Manuel De Lacunza who in 1812 published a book in
Spanish titled The coming of the Messiah in glory and majesty. The book was published under the pen name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra
He was also a Jesuit and admirer of Ribera's Revelation Commentary. I leave it to others to explain why he didnt use his own name!.

His book was translated into English by Edward Irving who was is credited as being the founder of the Pentecostal Movement.
A copy of his two volume translation can be bought on Amazon

 

[Nehemiah6]

I leave it to others to explain why he didnt use his own name!.

Because he anticipated this nonsense about Jesuits creating Futurism.

It is interesting that people would rather resort to talking about past writers rather than focusing on the Scriptures themselves. The very fact that the Second Coming of Christ has not occurred should be sufficient to establish the validity of Futurism.

BTW those writers you quoted made some good observations based on Scripture.

 

[GaryA]

Counting 62 Weeks from the end of the 7 Weeks . . .

. . . gives you an impossible situation - which I explain on the web page.

The 62 weeks (v26) runs from the middle of the 8th week until the middle of the 70th week.