The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)

[Brother Rick]

Well, now, that's not very nice. I haven't persecuted anyone, other than maybe a few stray cats with my BB gun (they were getting into my trash and spraying the house), and I'm pretty sure the Catholics wouldn't want me in their camp after they read chapter six (All Roads Lead to Rome) of my Revelation book.

No one here ever said Jews can't get saved. You keep mischaracterizing us because your position is about as strong as a wet paper towel when you look at the Bible as a whole. We are consistent with Scripture when it says that God has set aside the nation of Israel but that one day He will go back to them again, and all Israel will be saved (Rom. 9, 11).

You say we're anti-sematic because we believe God gave them a chance to accept the Messiah and they rejected Him, and that the gap came (or the Church Age) as a result of that rejection. You believe God never gave them a real choice and predestined them ahead of time to reject the Messiah. We say they brought the trouble on themselves by their own decision, but you say that God brought the trouble on them because that's just what He felt like doing.



Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

[Covenanter]

Well, now, that's not very nice. I haven't persecuted anyone, other than maybe a few stray cats with my BB gun (they were getting into my trash and spraying the house), and I'm pretty sure the Catholics wouldn't want me in their camp after they read chapter six (All Roads Lead to Rome) of my Revelation book.
I am not accusing you personally but the thinking behind the OP - Plenty of nasty people have justified persecution of the Jews from Scripture.

No one here ever said Jews can't get saved. You keep mischaracterizing us because your position is about as strong as a wet paper towel when you look at the Bible as a whole. We are consistent with Scripture when it says that God has set aside the nation of Israel but that one day He will go back to them again, and all Israel will be saved (Rom. 9, 11).
Yes - but how many are all Israel? Not the 100 generations of the Gospel "dispensation" & only the survivors of Armageddon.

You say we're anti-sematic because we believe God gave them a chance to accept the Messiah and they rejected Him, and that the gap came (or the Church Age) as a result of that rejection. You believe God never gave them a real choice and predestined them ahead of time to reject the Messiah. We say they brought the trouble on themselves by their own decision, but you say that God brought the trouble on them because that's just what He felt like doing.
Only the generation that persistently rejected Jesus suffered the wrath of God. The Gospel counts them all in - & rejection is personal, NOT national. Why don't you reply to what I write, rather than bang your anti-calvinist drum as if that answers everything.


Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Happily the opposition of the Jewish leaders could not stop Jesus gathering her children - by the Apostolic Gospel.

BUT you still have made no attempt to explain away the clear reading of Scripture that shows that there is NO GAP in the 70 weeks. Ignoring my posts gets you no credibility.

[Brother Rick]

Ian, sometimes you make me laugh like a fat kid on his birthday with cake, you know that?

Have a great day.

[Brother Rick]

[Eric Stahl]

The Gap in Hosea

Hosea 5:14–15 KJV
14 For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.
15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

Jesus put the Jewish people out of the land of Israel for a time of indignation or judgment. Jesus restrained the latter rain and made your land a desert to save it for your return. Jesus will come back to save you when the nuclear fire falls on Israel, America, and Russia because Jewish survivors will turn to God, according to Ezekiel 39:1–8, 21–22.

Hosea 5:14–15 KJV
1 Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

As the end of Hosea’s two days (or two thousand years) nears, the Lord has brought you back into the land of Israel. In about 1982, the latter rain and snows came back. The rain is a sign that the Lord is coming soon. Israel is about to experience the judgment by fire and the returning to the Lord. You will live in His sight in the third day, or third thousand-year time period, which we call the kingdom age. If the third day is a thousand years long, the first two days should be two thousand years long!

Isaiah 30:8–18 KJV
8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

TO THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL

[Steve Schwenke]

I have no idea what you mean here. Is this what you thing those who believe in pre-mil/pre-trib but don't see dispensationalism in Scripture should be called?

Well, you keep throwing Darby's name out there, and I have to keep reminding you that Preterism has some pretty strong "credentials." You keep insisting that WE stop calling certain people "dispensationalists" but then you keep dropping "Darbyism" on US. If you want US to stop "name-calling," then maybe you should think about doing the same thing.
Darby did not invent it....
Guilt-by-association arguments never work...
Pot calling kettle black....
Get over it, and stay on topic....until then, I will continue to remind you of the preterist views "credentials" so that you remember that your position has some guilt-by-association problems as well.

Now, Ian, as far as being "anti-semitic", your accusation is laughable. The Roman Catholic Church's official theological position on the book of Revelation is the exact same position as yours. It is "highly symbolic" and they also insist on the preterist view. They also happen to be THE MOST ANTI_SEMITIC institution in the world. They also insist on the preterist view of Matthew 24. Anything MORE would condemn THEM! They are always careful to distance Papal Rome from Pagan Rome. Sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid! (See Rev. 17!)

:realitycheck:

[Covenanter]

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?

This could as easily be applied to the church - comprising believing Jew & Gentile:

33

And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34

Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35

And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appoi

nt

ed.

[John81]

Well, you keep throwing Darby's name out there, and I have to keep reminding you that Preterism has some pretty strong "credentials." You keep insisting that WE stop calling certain people "dispensationalists" but then you keep dropping "Darbyism" on US. If you want US to stop "name-calling," then maybe you should think about doing the same thing.
Darby did not invent it....
Guilt-by-association arguments never work...
Pot calling kettle black....
Get over it, and stay on topic....until then, I will continue to remind you of the preterist views "credentials" so that you remember that your position has some guilt-by-association problems as well.

Now, Ian, as far as being "anti-semitic", your accusation is laughable. The Roman Catholic Church's official theological position on the book of Revelation is the exact same position as yours. It is "highly symbolic" and they also insist on the preterist view. They also happen to be THE MOST ANTI_SEMITIC institution in the world. They also insist on the preterist view of Matthew 24. Anything MORE would condemn THEM! They are always careful to distance Papal Rome from Pagan Rome. Sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid! (See Rev. 17!)

I don't know what preterism has to do with this and in my studies everything points to Darby as the father of dispensationalism so I don't understand why those who call themselves dispensationalists want to separate themselves from him. Darbyism and dispensationalism are one and the same so I don't see how you reach the conclusion that such is "name calling".

As I've mentioned before, I know many who hold basically the same end times views as dispensationalists yet they reject what they see as the modern, unbiblical teachings of Darby just as did Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors of his day. It's clear dispensationalism isn't necessary to hold certain end times views.

[Steve Schwenke]

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?

This could as easily be applied to the church - comprising believing Jew & Gentile:

33

And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34

Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35

And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appoi

nt

ed.

1. You charge us with insults, but overlook John's continued harassment against us with the charge of "Darbyism."
2. We do not - never have, and never will - JUSTIFY the persecution of the Jews. Genesis 12:3 is just as true today as it was in the day the Lord spoke the words directly to Abram. We do not condone the persecution - we are FOR Israel! However, Jesus Christ has allowed them to be persecuted because of their rejection of Him. Noting facts as they occur does not mean that we CONDONE them. There is a BIG difference.
3. You charge us with not answering your points, but Rick has done an excellent job posting our position earlier in the thread. True to Preterist form, everything he said was completely swept aside, and not dealt with. We HAVE answered you position...you just are not listening.

[Steve Schwenke]

I don't know what preterism has to do with this and in my studies everything points to Darby as the father of dispensationalism so I don't understand why those who call themselves dispensationalists want to separate themselves from him. Darbyism and dispensationalism are one and the same so I don't see how you reach the conclusion that such is "name calling".

As I've mentioned before, I know many who hold basically the same end times views as dispensationalists yet they reject what they see as the modern, unbiblical teachings of Darby just as did Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors of his day. It's clear dispensationalism isn't necessary to hold certain end times views.

I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don't try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby's name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game....
I would remind you that your research is INCOMPLETE, and I gave you the reasons WHY it is incomplete. But as usual, you dismissed my argument out of hand, with no thought of attempting to verify what I said. So don't give me this stuff about "your research" and then continue on in the same line of reasoning as if nobody ever proved anything different. Take the fingers out of your ears, and try listening to those who know where they came from. Getting a sound history of Dispensationalism from someone who is opposed to dispensationalism is like asking Stephen Hawking to give us a history of Creationism.....the history will be distorted and perverted. I gave you the history of dispensationalism earlier, and you ignored it.
My advice is to STOP with the Darbyism claim, and STOP pretending that we are uneducated. This type of argumentation adds nothing to the discussion.
Show a little respect, please!

Now, what is dispensationalism, or who would be properly classified as a dispensationalist?
A dispensation is a period in time in which God dispenses His grace to us through His specified means during that period of time. Some people refer to these periods of time as "God's economy" for that period. You should read Ryrie's book for a better understanding of what we mean by "dispensation."
If you recognize a difference between the OT and the NT, then you are recognizing a difference between God's plan during those specific periods of time.
If you recognize a difference between the Garden of Eden and the times immediately following (pre-flood), then you are recognizing a difference between God's economy during those two specific time periods.
If you recognize the difference between God's dealing with man after the flood up until the OT Law was given, then you are recognizing that there was a difference between God's economy during the two specific time periods.
If you recognize a difference between this current Church age, and the coming Tribulation, and then the coming Millenial Kingdom, then you are admitting that God's economy changes during those times.

Now, maybe the changes are more subtle at times, and maybe there are some foundational prinicples which never change (i.e. FAITH), but we are not looking for SIMILARITIES as much as we are DIFFERENCES - something the preterists seem to abhor.
If you can recognize these differences, then you ARE a dispensationalist to some degree or another. And yes, John, we all know that there are varying forms of dispensational schemes out there. But if you understand what dispensationalism really is, then it is easier to understand why there are differences of opinion on the dispensations.
At the root of the discussion is this simple question: Do you recognize a difference between how God dealt with mankind during different periods of time? (such as Garden, pre-flood, post-flood, under the Law, After the Law, and future events?) If you do recognize those differences, then that is what dispensationalism is all about.

[Covenanter]

1. You charge us with insults, but overlook John's continued harassment against us with the charge of "Darbyism."
2. We do not - never have, and never will - JUSTIFY the persecution of the Jews. Genesis 12:3 is just as true today as it was in the day the Lord spoke the words directly to Abram. We do not condone the persecution - we are FOR Israel! However, Jesus Christ has allowed them to be persecuted because of their rejection of Him. Noting facts as they occur does not mean that we CONDONE them. There is a BIG difference.
3. You charge us with not answering your points, but Rick has done an excellent job posting our position earlier in the thread. True to Preterist form, everything he said was completely swept aside, and not dealt with. We HAVE answered you position...you just are not listening.

I have sought to answer ALL the points you have made. You are welcome to link to some you think I have not.

You & Rick have consistently evaded answering my where I showed a gap was totally unnecessary for a literal understanding of the 70 weeks as 490 years.

[John81]

I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don't try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby's name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game....
I would remind you that your research is INCOMPLETE, and I gave you the reasons WHY it is incomplete. But as usual, you dismissed my argument out of hand, with no thought of attempting to verify what I said. So don't give me this stuff about "your research" and then continue on in the same line of reasoning as if nobody ever proved anything different. Take the fingers out of your ears, and try listening to those who know where they came from. Getting a sound history of Dispensationalism from someone who is opposed to dispensationalism is like asking Stephen Hawking to give us a history of Creationism.....the history will be distorted and perverted. I gave you the history of dispensationalism earlier, and you ignored it.
My advice is to STOP with the Darbyism claim, and STOP pretending that we are uneducated. This type of argumentation adds nothing to the discussion.
Show a little respect, please!

Now, what is dispensationalism, or who would be properly classified as a dispensationalist?
A dispensation is a period in time in which God dispenses His grace to us through His specified means during that period of time. Some people refer to these periods of time as "God's economy" for that period. You should read Ryrie's book for a better understanding of what we mean by "dispensation."
If you recognize a difference between the OT and the NT, then you are recognizing a difference between God's plan during those specific periods of time.
If you recognize a difference between the Garden of Eden and the times immediately following (pre-flood), then you are recognizing a difference between God's economy during those two specific time periods.
If you recognize the difference between God's dealing with man after the flood up until the OT Law was given, then you are recognizing that there was a difference between God's economy during the two specific time periods.
If you recognize a difference between this current Church age, and the coming Tribulation, and then the coming Millenial Kingdom, then you are admitting that God's economy changes during those times.

Now, maybe the changes are more subtle at times, and maybe there are some foundational prinicples which never change (i.e. FAITH), but we are not looking for SIMILARITIES as much as we are DIFFERENCES - something the preterists seem to abhor.
If you can recognize these differences, then you ARE a dispensationalist to some degree or another. And yes, John, we all know that there are varying forms of dispensational schemes out there. But if you understand what dispensationalism really is, then it is easier to understand why there are differences of opinion on the dispensations.
At the root of the discussion is this simple question: Do you recognize a difference between how God dealt with mankind during different periods of time? (such as Garden, pre-flood, post-flood, under the Law, After the Law, and future events?) If you do recognize those differences, then that is what dispensationalism is all about.

Aren't pastors supposed to be apt to teach?

You jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. Where is the proof dispensationalism was around prior to Darby? If my research is incomplete in this area, why not fill it in rather than make wild accusations and emotional outbursts. My research into this area has encompassed a wide variety of reading, including reading the works of more dispensationalists than non-dispensationalists. The vast majority of the dispensationalist readings I've looked into all pointed to Darby as the father of dispensationalism and didn't seem to have a problem with that.

I've found it interesting in my research that dispenstionalists don't agree upon the number of dispensations or even what each dispensation actually means. That hardly sounds biblically solid and yet each group stands by their version while denouncing the other versions.

I've yet to discover any more proof that dispensationalism stems from Scripture, through Christ, the apostles and on to us any more than I've found proof of the apostolic secession the RCC claims.

[Brother Rick]

I have sought to answer ALL the points you have made. You are welcome to link to some you think I have not.

You & Rick have consistently evaded answering my where I showed a gap was totally unnecessary for a literal understanding of the 70 weeks as 490 years.

You didn't say anything new in that post so there was no reason to address it. We are at an impasse; both sides have presented the evidence ad nauseam for their interpretation based on the text alone. There's nowhere left to go on the text by itself. The only place to go from here is to consider how the rest of the Bible must be interpreted as based upon the two views of the text.

I see them as follows:

1. You believe God is not sincere in His offers, I disagree.

2. You believe all the promises to the nation of Israel have been fulfilled or transferred to the church, I disagree.

3. You believe there is no future seven year Tribulation period, no future Antichrist, and that everything before Revelation 20 and all of Matthew 24 have been fulfilled completely, I disagree.

These are the supporting views to our different interpretations, and as such I don't see any middle ground. If someone takes up your view on the text they must by default take up the other supporting beliefs. Your view cannot stand without them, and neither can mine.

None of us have anything new to say on the text by itself, so there's nowhere to go there. On the above three points you have been skunked several times in the past, so there's nowhere to go there either.

Therefore, in all areas of this discussion there is nowhere to go. If you want to declare victory because some of us are getting bored, go ahead.

<_<

[Invicta]

Steve
I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don&amp;#39;t try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby&amp;#39;s name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game

I label you as Darbyites, or Scofieldites as they were the inventors of the system. Darby invented it, Scofield perfected it. There was no dispensationalism before Darby. The pretribulation rapture preceded Darby by a few years in the church of Edward Irving the leader of the Scottish and English pentecostal/charismatics at the time, late 1820s-early 1830s. Irving got his teaching from J. J. Ben Exzra, "A Converted Jew." but in fact a Jesuit priest writing under an assumed name. Irving taught himself Spanish in one month to be able to translate the book, so I don't expect his translation was all that accurate, although it might have as he would have had Latin and French, which you had to have to be educated in those days.

[Invicta]

Covenanter, on 01 March 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?

Ian. A generation is usually reckoned to be about 40 years, so 100 generations would be 4.000 years and 1,000 generations, 40,000 years.

There were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ, Matt.1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Josephus says there were 88 high priests from Aaron till the last in AD70, and some of those only reigned a short time, one only a day.