Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

LindaR

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)

Recommended Posts



THis could all be avoided if you would stop the childish labelling of "Darbyism." I am willing to teach those who are willing to listen...


You object to being labelled a Darbyist because you follow the man made teachings of Darby, yet those of us who believe the bible's teaching on predestination are labelled Calvinists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know a former pastor who thought that the AofD was in the seventy weeks, but to get that, he said that the 70th week was one of unknown duration, known only to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you take offense to the term Darbyism. I've spoke with many dispensationalists and they not only have no problem with the term Darbyism, some use it themselves. The two are often used interchangably so the only childishness involved here is possibly your reaction to the term.

I've read every post put forth and asked questions in an attempt to learn yet you seem more interested in jumping to wrong conclusions about others intentions or reinterpreting their clear statements to mean something not intended at all.

The way you have responded in most of your posts gives one the impression you are very insecure in your position. This may not be the case, but in most cases when one responds in the manner you have it's an indication their viewpoint isn't as solid as they would like.

I certainly hope you aren't so wrongly judgemental of those who ask you questions in person. In any case, you have utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence dispensationalism is biblical. That is not to say that some of the conclusions dispensationalists eventually come to in regard to other matters may not hold some validity, but as to dispensationalism itself, no biblical foundation has been established.

That said, I remain open to learning, but like the Bereans, I'm going to study all things (whether dispensationalism, end times, baptism or anything else) presented in the light of Scripture.


Look, I know a lot of Baptists who believe the Baptists as a denomination started in the 1500's or 1600's. I disagree with that idea based upon the history I have read from several sources, sometimes from sources who are anti-Baptist. I can have grace with these people though since they are only repeating what they have heard. If I get the opportunity, I will give them a different perspective of Baptist History, and explain my side of the story, based upon the information I have come across. Generally speaking, they will take this new information ("new" to them!), and either be more considerate in my presence, or go do some digging themselves.
The people you have spoken to who accept the term "Darbyism" as appropriate simply do not know their history. I do not fault them for that - I fault their teachers.
I lay no blame at your feet for repeating that label, because, after all, it is repeated throughout most IFB circles, even by dispensationalists.
That does not mean that the label is correct or accurate. Remember, to the victors go the spoils. Within Christianity as a whole, Dispensationalists hold a very small minority. Therefore the opponents to Dispensationalism have all the tools to dismantle and discredit our system, with little fear of reprisals, corrections, or rebukes. They control the playing field. Unfortunately, just as many Baptists lost sight of their true history and heritage, so have many of the leading dispensationalists, and they have accepted the label "Darbyism" and the false history.

So I don't BLAME you for throwing that label out. However, after I take pains to correct you, and offer a reason for not accepting that label, my expectation is that you would take that into consideration, and then either ask more questions about WHY I don't accept that term, or question your own research, or try to find different sources, or (preferably) all of the above.
You didn't do that...you just kept repeating the same label.....as if I had said nothing.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on everything - especially on these difficult subjects.
However, I don't like to be ignored either, and that is exactly how I feel you have treated me in regards to this "Darbyism" stuff.
I can have patience with that, but when I have offered an alternative view to that name, and even supplied my source, and even given you a broader definition of "dispensationalism" you continue to throw that name out there.
Well, using the term "Darbyism" is in fact a derogatory term for Dispensationalism that implies that this Scriptural system of interpretting Scripture is a man-made system. It is not. Our system is built upon the Scriptures. I have already demonstrated that our approach to Scripture is nothing like the RCC, JW's. Mormons, etc. We don't take one verse and build some kooky cult out of it, as they do.

You say that you put forth your questions "in an attempt to learn," and I say "learn what?"
You are very decidely AGAINST dispensationalism - you can't hide that. In fact, on the other thread you state it quite clearly.
So I really don't know what it is that you are "attempting to learn" since you dismiss our answers very quickly and state your answer after you slam dispensationalism.

It is not my intention to be mean to you on a personal level.
As far as how I respond to other people - that is between me and the Lord. The Lord rebukes me when I am wrong, but I have been rough with some people, and they needed it, and the Lord didn't rebuke me for it either.

Pr 26:4 ¶ Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

There is a time to be patient, gracious, kind, gentle, etc....
And there is a time when a sledgehammer is appropriate.

So don't try to label me as "insecure" or "arrogant" or any of that nonsense. If I am not sure about something, I keep my mouth shut.
I would not participate in these threads if I was NOT sure of my position.
So, AGAIN, you are imposing YOUR emotion and YOUR assumptions into my posts. It is unwise to do so.
I do not fit ANY molds, stereotypes, etc. I have been married for 16 years, and my wife STILL has not figured me out completely. I don't fit any of the "corporate molds" for my company. I can get away with things at my job that most people would never DREAM of doing.
I can't explain it, but I am the Maverick. I don't fit into any of the typical "categories."
I am not angry - I am passionate and forceful.
I am not insecure - I am extremely secure on the things I speak about. In fact, I am absolutely dogmatic about it.
I am not "judgmental" - I am extremely intuitive about people and what they are up to, and where they are headed. Yes, my intuition is sometimes wrong, and I am cautious about it, but 98% of the time, it is dead on. (I speak as a fool...I am only attempting to help you understand where I am coming from....) The problem is that I can typically spot a fakir a mile away, and rat them out before they can stir up any mischief....and they HATE that. (I am not accusing you of being a fakir...again, insight.)
I am not proud or arrogant - I am confident of my gifts, and cognizant of my weaknesses. I use my gifts to the best of my abilities for maximum results, and try to shore up or protect myself from exposing my weaknesses (which I am not good at!) As Paul said, "By the grace of God I am what I am..." (I Cor. 15:10)
I AM a reactionary - I have a tendency to react instead of respond....and that does get me into trouble sometimes, but I am working on it....as bad as I am about this now, I was much worse in times past (having a good wife helps!)

As far "utterly failing" to provide Scriptural proof for dispensationalism:
1. I was not trying to prove the system as a whole, only offer my insight on the passages in question
2. You rejected dispensationalism a long time ago, and I don't think anyone can change your mind about it. So why pretend to be "open" about it, when you really are not?

Just askin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found no reason to believe dispensationalism is biblical or the concept existed prior to Darby. As I've studied the concept of dispensationalsim comes up as beginning with Darby, as even many of his contemporaries attest. At the time Darby put forth his ideas of dispensationalism virtually all conservative pastors/churches rejected what they called a new and unbiblical teaching. It was only a few of the liberal pastors/churches who accepted this, most of them being of the Brethren. Further study indicates the idea of dispensationalism didn't really catch on in any broad manner, or outside the more liberal churches, until Scofield adopted the idea and incorporated it into his study Bible. Of course Scofield also incorporated an evolutionistic gap in the creation account too.

At the same time, I've also studied the history of Baptists. While some new Baptists came out of the Reformation, even many of them came about because of the existence of Baptists prior to the Reformation. At least several hundred years prior to the Reformation there were Baptists, as even is evident by the writings of some in the RCC who had spent those years persecuting Baptists. Prior to that, there is no direct evidence of any Christians known as Baptists, but there is some possible evidence to show where Christians known by other names earlier on were among those who eventually came to be known as Baptist. There is room for debate on some matters between those Christians from the time of the Apostles to the time when some were actually known as Baptists, but there is no room for debate as to whether or not there were Baptists prior to the Reformation.

Now, I point this out, per your example, as an example of how my own studies have progressed from not knowing Baptists had been around that long to studying the evidence and learning they have. At the same time, I've also studied dispensationalism and as I've mentioned, I've not found proof of it prior to Darby.

When I study a subject or topic I study to see where the evidence leads, not to prove something is or isn't true. Thus far, as stated above, I've found the evidence proves Baptists existed prior to the Reformation, but I've not found proof that dispensationalism existed prior to Darby.

That said, in yet another post you jump to wrong conclusions and fail to take the opportunity to teach, if you have anything to teach in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found no reason to believe dispensationalism is biblical or the concept existed prior to Darby. As I've studied the concept of dispensationalsim comes up as beginning with Darby, as even many of his contemporaries attest. At the time Darby put forth his ideas of dispensationalism virtually all conservative pastors/churches rejected what they called a new and unbiblical teaching. It was only a few of the liberal pastors/churches who accepted this, most of them being of the Brethren. Further study indicates the idea of dispensationalism didn't really catch on in any broad manner, or outside the more liberal churches, until Scofield adopted the idea and incorporated it into his study Bible. Of course Scofield also incorporated an evolutionistic gap in the creation account too.

At the same time, I've also studied the history of Baptists. While some new Baptists came out of the Reformation, even many of them came about because of the existence of Baptists prior to the Reformation. At least several hundred years prior to the Reformation there were Baptists, as even is evident by the writings of some in the RCC who had spent those years persecuting Baptists. Prior to that, there is no direct evidence of any Christians known as Baptists, but there is some possible evidence to show where Christians known by other names earlier on were among those who eventually came to be known as Baptist. There is room for debate on some matters between those Christians from the time of the Apostles to the time when some were actually known as Baptists, but there is no room for debate as to whether or not there were Baptists prior to the Reformation.

Now, I point this out, per your example, as an example of how my own studies have progressed from not knowing Baptists had been around that long to studying the evidence and learning they have. At the same time, I've also studied dispensationalism and as I've mentioned, I've not found proof of it prior to Darby.

When I study a subject or topic I study to see where the evidence leads, not to prove something is or isn't true. Thus far, as stated above, I've found the evidence proves Baptists existed prior to the Reformation, but I've not found proof that dispensationalism existed prior to Darby.

That said, in yet another post you jump to wrong conclusions and fail to take the opportunity to teach, if you have anything to teach in this area.

Look, John, all I am telling you is
1. you are applying a different definition to dispensationalism so that you don't have to admit that there were those who held to a form of it prior to Darby (I gave you the definition and demonstrated it);
2. You are too busy reading what MAN has to say about it, rather than just taking the Scriptures;
3. Just as many Baptists have their history wrong, so do most dispensationalists....I gave you a book reference that confirms this;
4. You demand that I "teach" you, but then state you have been studying it for 30 years, and state EMPHATICALLY that you do not accept it. How do I "teach" someone that has already made up their mind??? That would be about as silly as me trying to go down to the local college and attempting to "teach" the local Evolution Professor about Creation....
5. You accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" but don't tell me WHERE or HOW;
6. You have jumped to quite a few conclusions about my character and ministry...kind of a double standard, if you ask me!
7. Your assumption that I might not have "anything to teach" on this subject is based upon what, John? Just because I choose not to get into a running battle with someone who has already rejected the idea doesn't mean I can't teach on it. I choose not to HERE on THIS FORUM because (a) time constraints, and (B) most people here have already made up their mind.
8. You have some strange ideas about the obligations of the pastor. I am called to lead LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH, not "onlinebaptist forum." My obligations and priority are (1) family, and (2) ministry. This forum thing is just a nice diversion. I have absolutely NO OBLIGATIONS to anyone here.
So I am asking you "nicely" to stop placing the obligations of the Pastor's office to an internet forum participant!

Goodbye. Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

There are writings of a Catholic priest during the time of the Reformation who says that if the RCC hadn't been persecuting Baptists for the past 300 years the troubles of that time (Reformation) would be much worse.

I think I've posted the actual quote and source here before but I can't find it offhand.

As to any source of any called Baptist prior to that, I've not found any. Beyond that, most who claim a Baptist line to the Apostles list off several other groups under different names as their connecting line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Look, John, all I am telling you is
1. you are applying a different definition to dispensationalism so that you don't have to admit that there were those who held to a form of it prior to Darby (I gave you the definition and demonstrated it);
2. You are too busy reading what MAN has to say about it, rather than just taking the Scriptures;
3. Just as many Baptists have their history wrong, so do most dispensationalists....I gave you a book reference that confirms this;
4. You demand that I "teach" you, but then state you have been studying it for 30 years, and state EMPHATICALLY that you do not accept it. How do I "teach" someone that has already made up their mind??? That would be about as silly as me trying to go down to the local college and attempting to "teach" the local Evolution Professor about Creation....
5. You accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" but don't tell me WHERE or HOW;
6. You have jumped to quite a few conclusions about my character and ministry...kind of a double standard, if you ask me!
7. Your assumption that I might not have "anything to teach" on this subject is based upon what, John? Just because I choose not to get into a running battle with someone who has already rejected the idea doesn't mean I can't teach on it. I choose not to HERE on THIS FORUM because (a) time constraints, and ( B) most people here have already made up their mind.
8. You have some strange ideas about the obligations of the pastor. I am called to lead LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH, not "onlinebaptist forum." My obligations and priority are (1) family, and (2) ministry. This forum thing is just a nice diversion. I have absolutely NO OBLIGATIONS to anyone here.
So I am asking you "nicely" to stop placing the obligations of the Pastor's office to an internet forum participant!

Goodbye.

Sorry you don't seem to get it and are prone to misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you don't seem to get it and are prone to misunderstanding.

Well, John, that will have to fall on your shoulders for failing to clarify whatever it is that you are attempting to communicate with me....I just go by what you write in your posts, and respond accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well, John, that will have to fall on your shoulders for failing to clarify whatever it is that you are attempting to communicate with me....I just go by what you write in your posts, and respond accordingly.

I don't know how one could have been any more clear than I was.

You go back to pacman, I'll not ask you any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Darby did not "invent" dispensationlism he was just the first to lay it out in systematic form. The theology had been around in one form or another since 400 AD.

The fact that it took this long to lay it out in systematic form does not suggest that it is heresy but rather that the church was not ready for the teaching yet and that people were still crawling out from the imposed spiritual darkness of the Catholic Church for 1,500 years. Jesus said that the Comforter would reveal "things to come" and would bring things to rememberance to the believer. Well, he had a lot of catching up to do. Don't forget, in Darby's time the Exquistion (the last of the four of them) was just coming to an end. The same argument about being no evidence of dispensationalism before Darby is similar to the argument used against KJV bible believers about the location of the pure word of God before 1611. It's the same line of reasoning. Anotherwards that if you couldn't find it that means it must not be true.

Also, the fact that we are getting closer to the end and the day of the Lord and with Israel back in the land it only makes sense that these deeper truths of the scriptures would be revealed. Dispensationalism was a major reason the Jews were placed back in Palestine in 1918. Try studying that some time and you'll find it's true. So true that many so-called Christians are blaming C.I. Scofield for the mess in the Middle East right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

Almost every branch of Christianity - including heresies - practise baptism as an initiation rite into the church, so to call a church "baptist" was hardly a distinctive feature. Baptism of converts of all ages, & their families was normal. Children were claimed for Christ, rather than be seen as continuing in paganism.

The distinctive feature is the baptism of believers on profession of faith even if they had been baptised as infants by the state church - Catholic or Protestant. They were persecuted as "anabaptists" or re-baptisers because they were rejecting the authority of the state church. At first they baptised by pouring water over them. This soon evolved into immersion of believers. I think they were only allowed to be "Baptists" after the 1689 English revolution.

The practice of baptising believers is not limited to churches calling themselves "Baptist" but is widespread among Bible-believing Gospel churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Darby did not "invent" dispensationlism he was just the first to lay it out in systematic form. The theology had been around in one form or another since 400 AD.

The fact that it took this long to lay it out in systematic form does not suggest that it is heresy but rather that the church was not ready for the teaching yet and that people were still crawling out from the imposed spiritual darkness of the Catholic Church for 1,500 years. Jesus said that the Comforter would reveal "things to come" and would bring things to rememberance to the believer. Well, he had a lot of catching up to do. Don't forget, in Darby's time the Exquistion (the last of the four of them) was just coming to an end. The same argument about being no evidence of dispensationalism before Darby is similar to the argument used against KJV bible believers about the location of the pure word of God before 1611. It's the same line of reasoning. Anotherwards that if you couldn't find it that means it must not be true.

Also, the fact that we are getting closer to the end and the day of the Lord and with Israel back in the land it only makes sense that these deeper truths of the scriptures would be revealed. Dispensationalism was a major reason the Jews were placed back in Palestine in 1918. Try studying that some time and you'll find it's true. So true that many so-called Christians are blaming C.I. Scofield for the mess in the Middle East right now.

Can you put forth the evidence that dispensationalism was around since 400? What was believed prior to 400?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Can you put forth the evidence that dispensationalism was around since 400? What was believed prior to 400?


In 1844 E B Elliott, wrote a refutation of several types of futurism, which did not include darbyism as at that time it probably had not really spread far from the West Country. He did at one time make an oblique reference to a group in the west country who held strange views, and my copy has a pencil reference: "Brethren?" He also made a refutation of Praeterism, which strangely you can find on the praeterist site. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1844_elliot_hours.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Can you put forth the evidence that dispensationalism was around since 400? What was believed prior to 400?


The facts that it was declared an heresy by the papists at the Council of Trent in 431 should tell you it was around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilchbla:
The facts that it was declared an heresy by the papists at the Council of Trent in 431 should tell you it was around.


Wilchbla - have you a reference to the condemnation of the heresy of dispensationalism at Trent or Ephesus? There was a Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Council of Trent was between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a papacy in 431? Certainly not of the kind we have now.

Wilchbla,

Would you like to give the wording of that condemnation, and a reference to where one can find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I have a question:

 

If this means Jesus, does that mean after the week, the convenant is null and void?

It is the prince that shall come from the people that destroyed the temple in 70AD that will confirm the covenant. It is the antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because covenant/preterist theology makes no distinctions between the church and Israel and since this covenant/preterist theology interprets Scripture allegorically and not literally, all prophecies concerning Israel are blurred. These folks will never see a "gap" between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel because they aren't even looking for it.

Israel is not the church, the 70th week of Daniel and the book of Revelation is still future. The church was a mystery in the OT. The church age is "parenthetical"....that "parenthesis" is the "gap" between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy.

 Absolute supposition.  It is pure Brethren teaching.

 

It all boils down to when the 69 weeks to the messiah ended.  It seems plain the me that they ended when John said "Behold the Lamb of God"  That was when he was announced as Messiah and the disciples recognized him as such.  Which means that the prophecy of Daniel, that he was cut off after the 69 weeks was absolutely accurate.  Others say that the 69 weeks expired when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, That still makes a gap impossible as he was cut off after the 69 weeks, i.e. in the 70th week.

 

You have misquoted and misused scripture to turn a wonderful prophecy of Messiah to one of Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this has been referred to in another discussion, I'm reposting the last sentence:

.........

 

You have misquoted and misused scripture to turn a wonderful prophecy of Messiah to one of Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DaveW:

Dan 9
 24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 
 25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
 26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
 27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

First thing:
This prophecy is to do with "thy people and thy holy city."
The whole 70 weeks. Israel is the people, Jerusalem is the city. This prophecy has nothing to do with the churches. Vs 24 states that plainly.

I won't disagree with that, although, of course, the church benefits from the finished saving work of Jesus detailed in Dan. 9:24

The timing starts from the command to build the city.
This gives us the start point of this countdown.
Smarter men than I have calculated the end of the 69th weeks of years to precisely coincide with the death of Christ.

Which of the 4 commands? 2 were before AD 500. A suggested (accepted?) date for the 3rd decree is 457 BC - Ezra 7:11-26 taking us to AD 26 for the end of the 69th week when Messiah was anointed.  

Coincidentally vs 26 says after the 69th week Messiah is cut off. This is OBviously by the context referring to the death of Christ - no other event fits the description, and the timing from the decree works too.

Note "after" so the prophesied events may be during the 70th week or beyond. Specifically the cutting off of the Messiah & the resultant destruction.  

Vs 26 continues on to note that the city and the sanctuary are destroyed, there is a flood, and a war of desolation. 
All this happens after the 69th week begins.

We know this because the next and only other week mentioned - this must be the 70th week - is in vs 27.

Not necessarily - AFTER the 69th week, so could also be after the 70th week. 

 

Here a covenant is confirmed for a week. This is the final week of the 70.
In the midst of that week the sacrifice and OBlation are caused to cease.
No!  THE covenant is confirmed, not A covenant. The sacrifices & OBlations relating to the faithful administration were fulfilled, & brought to a conclusion by the new covenant sacrifice in Jesus blood, inaugurated at the last supper. At Calvary the temple veil was rent by God - the way into the most holy place was opened. The could never be another acceptable sacrifice. The sacrifices continued in ignorance, & in defiance of Messiah, but that did not annul either the prophecy or the finished work of Christ. 

This is the plain order of events according to Dan 9.
You will note that the events of vs 26 happen after the end of week 69 but before the beginning of week 70.
No. you've added that timing to the prophecy.  
The final week can not possibly be an I start continuation from week 69, for there must be time for the vs 26 events to occur.

You will note that although the gap is written into to passage, there is no indication of the duration of the gap in Dan 9.
The existence of the gap is evident, the timing of the gap is evident (after week 69 ends), but the duration of the gap is not.
There is no gap written INTO the passage. The time for the events after week 69 are not ipecified in v.26, What we can reason is that the prophesied destruction is the consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah. We do know that Jesus was crucified about 3 1/2 years after his baptism, so that takes us into the middle of the 70th week, but the destruction an unspecified time after the cutting off. 

Note : the ceasing of the sacrifice and OBlation CAN NOT be referring to the death of Christ as dome false teachers promote, as the sacrifice etc continued while t he Temple was in existence. It does not refer to the effectiveness of the sacrifice, but the practice.

In your opinion. 
This means that for those to make the death of Christ the middle of the 70th week for that reason MUST have a gap as well, for we know the sacrifice continued TO BE PERFORMED after Christ's death.

No need - AFTER the 69th week. The 70th week by a literal calculation ends around AD 33, which roughly coincides with the martyrdom of Stephen, who declared those who rejected the Holy Spirit "uncircumcised." The old covenant, marked by circumcision, was absolutely ended. Acts 7:48-53 
Note further that Daniel makes no reference to "this generation".

The simple and plain reading of Daniel 9 denotes a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week.

Deleted ..... you must come to the conclusion that vs 26 happens after week 69 and before week 70.
That is what it says.
No.
Deleted....... 

God is gracious, so instead of immediately destroying the city at the end of the 70th week, with those who rejected their Messiah he allowed then 40 years to repent. But that 40 years came to an end. Psalm 95:7-11 quoted in Heb. 3. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this topic of Daniel 9 has been started in another thread by Pastor Scott Markle, I am going to lock this thread and allow the discussion on Daniel 9 continue on the new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 21 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...