Revelation also didn't indicate that people being rich was an end time's sign.
Rich merchants have always existed.
their existence is not pointed out as a sign. It's the global government of Babylon that is run by merchants that is more of a sign, and even then it's not given as something that happened suddenly, but rather was already in existence before the beast rose up. In fact Babylon rode the beast initially, that is, Babylon controlled the beast. The 10 Kings hate the harlot and destroy her, and then give their power to the beast.
That's the significance, not rich merchants existing.
Parroting that “rich merchants have always existed” shows you’re oblivious of Church history and why historicism trumps futurism and preterism. On the website Give Me History we are informed the merchants were on the bottom in society, which was the doing of the ecclesiocracy of the papacy,
Because merchants didn’t fit into the feudal system of the day, they got a lot of bad publicity from the church. The church felt merchants had no honor because their trade was profitable. They also didn’t own any land, which made them even more unpopular [4].
The church named merchants “userers” since they didn’t produce their own products. Christians weren’t allowed to become merchants, so this profession mainly belonged to the Jewish people.
Merchants weren’t regarded as part of the society since they didn’t own property and didn’t contribute to the development of the country. Merchants were also regarded as selfish and money hungry since they didn’t produce anything but sold the products made by others for a profit.
GiveMeHisory
You’re trying to bury the sign in Revelation about the rich merchants. Church history, to which you’re oblivious, affirms the status of the merchants was held down by the papacy but rose through apostate Protestantism’s intercourse with the princes of the earth, which is the warning in Revelation 18,
And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:1-4)
The evidence that apostate Protestantism facilitated the rise of the merchants through their intercourse with the princes of the earth in our time affirms historicism, insomuch as it proves Revelation represents Church history and not that of the Jews in the first century or when Christ returns. The warning to come out of Babylon is to the Church, not the Jews.
The statement that I mean by a short time is that Jesus said that the person who witnessed the beginning of the end times prophecies being fulfilled, that generation of people would not pass away before all of it was fulfilled, including the 2nd coming.
Short time as in, 1 person's lifespan.
That's the connotation that Jesus was getting across. It was refuting that this was something that'd be so long that it'd be in history books.
What’s the point of the sign of the abomination of desolation to the raptured Church that’s not there to see it? How absurd, insomuch as the sign is for the believer, not the unbeliever. Furthermore, your argument hinges on conflating the end of the sacrifices in the temple and the abominations in Daniel 9:27. Again, the abominations in Daniel 9 are not one of the goals of the seventy weeks, while the end of the sacrifices for sin is,
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city… to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness… (Daniel 9:24)
The goal that the reconciliation for iniquity, which establishes everlasting righteousness, falls within the seventy weeks affirms the covenant, and the ending of “the sacrifice and the oblation” in verse 27 pertains to Christ’s work, not the antichrist, as the futurists assert. The end of the sin offerings is one of the goals of the seventy weeks, while the abomination of desolation and the destruction of the city are not. The goals of the seventy weeks must be met first before any interpretation of what lies outside of them is considered. (The Jews continued sin offering, but they weren’t worthwhile to God, any more than they would be in a rebuilt temple.)
as to the 69th week, think about this. Jesus was said to be crucified on a Friday, and spend 3 days buried before resurrecting. He resurrected on Sunday.
if you use modern western reckoning of time Jesus did not spend 72 hours buried and then raise up. Even if He was crucified the moment the sun went down on Thursday evening which began Friday for them, 24 hours later begins Saturday, 24 hours later begins Sunday... 24 hours later..
well Jesus didn't resurrect on Monday did He? No
But He spent 3 days buried by Jewish reckoning, because they count the day they currently are on.
So Jesus Crucified Friday, was buried Friday, so that's day 1, day 2 was Saturday, He was buried all day Saturday that's day 2, and on Sunday Morning He rose, on the 3rd day. He was actually buried for well less than 72 hours, I don't even know if it was a full 48.
So when they say after the 69th week, they mean after the 69th week begins, not after it ends.
The destruction of the sanctuary isn't a goal, but it is something mentioned as happening after Messiah was cut off in the 69th week.
an additional week begins after Messiah is cut off and after the Sanctuary is destroyed. The syntax gives that the 70th week happens after 70AD. Giving the 70th week as 70AD or before, is breaking the syntax of the text.
To get a 70AD fulfillment of the 70th week, you'd need to hyperallegorize the 69th week, and say that Messiah being cut off was destroying the sanctuary, and the "end coming as a flood".. wait even that doesn't work because the verse says the city is also destroyed.
so yeah you have a syntax error if you don't have the 70th week start AFTER the city and the sanctuary being destroyed.
Sin still affects the world and the consequence of sin, death, still affects even the elect. Forgiven or not we still die.
Jesus returning means there's still prophecy to be fulfilled, meaning that one of the express purposes of the 70 weeks has not been fulfilled no matter how you look at it.
Your attempt at inclusive reconning is outrageous, insomuch as verse 26 affirms Christ comes “after” the 62 weeks, which comes after the 7 according to verse 25,
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. (Daniel 9:26)
After means following. Christ came “after” the 69 weeks, which is the seventieth week, and proves the covenant ending “the sacrifice and oblation” in verse 27 pertains to Christ’s work, one of the goals of the seventieth week.
youtube.com
