Ammillennialism and Pretribulationism both fly against the Early Church

ralliann · May 13, 2024

RandyPNW said:
I have heard that Irenaeus interpreted "666" to refer to a "Latin King," thus identifying Antichrist as coming out of a later Roman Empire. Have you heard that? I personally think it's the best interpretation for "666," as opposed to the numerical equivalent of Nero or some other historical figure.

But you are right, in my view, that the Apostle John, who wrote of the Millennium, passed on to a train of disciples a Premillennial belief, or Chiliasm. And I also agree that the standard Christian belief, historically, was Postribulationism--not Pretribulationism, or Dispensationalism, which came many centuries after the time of the Early Church.

Postrib and PreWrath are "cousin" positions, although PreWrath does appear to borrow some Pretrib assumptions, such as the belief that the Church cannot face the Day of Wrath. In my view, going through the time of God's Wrath is not the same thing as being the *target* of God's Wrath. Call us victims of "friendly fire," or "collateral damage," we do suffer from the sins of this world, just as Jesus himself suffered the sins in this present world.

I'm Postrib but do not see the "bowls" as purely "symbols of God's Wrath." Yes, they are symbolic, but they represent God's real Wrath to come upon the Kingdom of Antichrist at the time of his demise. Unlike Pretribbers, I do not view the entire period of Antichrist's Reign as "God's Wrath." God never blesses an evil kingdom, and He will certainly place curses upon the Beast Kingdom. But final Wrath comes upon the Kingdom of Antichrist towards or at the very end of this period, in my view.

I'm not a Partial Preterist, but I do believe they have right a major part of interpreting the Olivet Discourse. Jesus' main focus, in that Discourse, was on the beginning of Jewish punishment in Jesus' generation. In 70 AD, the "Abomination of Desolation," the pagan Roman Army, came against Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple of God. The result has been an age-long "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, which will end at the Return of Christ. My view...

Yes, Historicism tends to be Amillennial, but I would agree with the general sense that all prophecy has a fulfillment in history, whether earlier or later. But I'm not a Historicist interpreter because I see Antichrist as fulfilled at the end, which is more Futurism than anything else. I just am not a Dispensationalist.

I found your explanation pretty good! A big "like" for you!

I have not read much of these but do remember reading Justin Martyr and Trypho. Where he made mention of various beliefs among believers on the 1,000 years. My thoughts are this, Before 1,000 years had even come or passed, would there have been much difference as there is today?
Many could have understood the 1,000 years as literal years of the Church age, others took it as not literal years of the Church age. Both could have seen it still as the Church age spoke of in the revelation couldn't they?

Thus in their time various beliefs handled according to this manner

1Cor 4:1 ¶ Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. {judgment: Gr. day }
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. {know: or, I am not conscious of any fault }
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

At the time of many of these men There were yet hundreds (700, 600, etc...) of years, before a millennium would pass to confirm. It did not need to have much to do with how we speak and think of it today. But believers were all the same living in the Church age.

Those Fathers that lived in the very early centuries could have believed the thousand years were in fact the Church age. They simply just speculated differently as to its length of duration.

Jamdoc · May 13, 2024

ralliann said:
I have not read much of these but do remember reading Justin Martyr and Trypho. Where he made mention of various beliefs among believers on the 1,000 years. My thoughts are this, Before 1,000 years had even come or passed, would there have been much difference as there is today?
Many could have understood the 1,000 years as literal years of the Church age, others took it as not literal years of the Church age. Both could have seen it still as the Church age spoke of in the revelation couldn't they?

Thus in their time various beliefs handled according to this manner

1Cor 4:1 ¶ Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. {judgment: Gr. day }
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. {know: or, I am not conscious of any fault }
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

At the time of many of these men There were yet hundreds (700, 600, etc...) of years, before a millennium would pass to confirm. It did not need to have much to do with how we speak and think of it today. But believers were all the same living in the Church age.

Those Fathers that lived in the very early centuries could have believed the thousand years were in fact the Church age. They simply just speculated differently as to its length of duration.

Well the definition of premillennialism is that Jesus will come before the 1000 years.
definition of postmillennialism is Jesus will come after the 1000 years
and Amillennialism is kind of like post, that Jesus will come after the 1000 years and further makes it that it is not 1000 years on Earth but "a long time" in heaven.

Early Church as far as I knew, adhered to Historic Premillennialism, that is the world goes into decay and gets worse until Jesus comes back, then the 1000 years. It is premillennialism that did not really have the dispensational premillennialism features of a hard separation between the Church and Israel, or the pre-tribulation rapture associated with that hard separation.

ralliann · May 13, 2024

Jamdoc said:
Well the definition of premillennialism is that Jesus will come before the 1000 years.
definition of postmillennialism is Jesus will come after the 1000 years
and Amillennialism is kind of like post, that Jesus will come after the 1000 years and further makes it that it is not 1000 years on Earth but "a long time" in heaven.

Early Church as far as I knew, adhered to Historic Premillennialism, that is the world goes into decay and gets worse until Jesus comes back, then the 1000 years. It is premillennialism that did not really have the dispensational premillennialism features of a hard separation between the Church and Israel, or the pre-tribulation rapture associated with that hard separation.

I am going to look into this. I do not know what you mean by "historic premillennialism". The early Church as far as I have ever known is a literal 1000 years, or a figurative, not literal. From what I have heard Amillennial seen is figurative.
Some interesting discussion below. Those early fathers didn't look at it so much like we do.

Modern Reformation

Thinking Theologically.

www.modernreformation.org

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c332c448094935feJmltdHM9MTcxNTU1ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xY2ExZDg5Ny0xODRlLTZkMjItMWRhMi1kM2U0MTlkMjZjNjMmaW5zaWQ9NTMyNg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=1ca1d897-184e-6d22-1da2-d3e419d26c63&psq=chilaism&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubW9kZXJucmVmb3JtYXRpb24ub3JnL3Jlc291cmNlcy9hcnRpY2xlcy93aHktdGhlLWVhcmx5LWNodXJjaC1maW5hbGx5LXJlamVjdGVkLXByZW1pbGxlbm5pYWxpc20&ntb=1

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

ralliann said:
I am going to look into this. I do not know what you mean by "historic premillennialism". The early Church as far as I have ever known is a literal 1000 years, or a figurative, not literal. From what I have heard Amillennial seen is figurative.
Some interesting discussion below. Those early fathers didn't look at it so much like we do.

Modern Reformation

Thinking Theologically.

www.modernreformation.org

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c332c448094935feJmltdHM9MTcxNTU1ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xY2ExZDg5Ny0xODRlLTZkMjItMWRhMi1kM2U0MTlkMjZjNjMmaW5zaWQ9NTMyNg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=1ca1d897-184e-6d22-1da2-d3e419d26c63&psq=chilaism&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubW9kZXJucmVmb3JtYXRpb24ub3JnL3Jlc291cmNlcy9hcnRpY2xlcy93aHktdGhlLWVhcmx5LWNodXJjaC1maW5hbGx5LXJlamVjdGVkLXByZW1pbGxlbm5pYWxpc20&ntb=1

I think that the literal 1000 years is less important as the recognition that there is a period after Christ's return but before final judgement.
The fact that it is mentioned as "1000 years" but a 1000 year literal reign is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture is suspect, but how I've come to terms with it is through understanding that John was making a reference to "the Day of the Lord", which I've always understood is not a literal 24 hour period of time as we experience it. 2 Peter 3, and Psalm 90 that it is referencing both make this point that the way we perceive time is different than the way the Lord perceives time. Afterall, the Lord said Adam would die within the day he ate of the fruit, but Adam lived 930 years... so under 1000 years which is where I believe this equation of 1 day = 1000 years originally comes from.
In essence how I understand it now is that there will be the Day of the Lord, and there is all these things that happen during it, and instead of seeing it as all happening instantly, like many people do, I see it taking place over time. Whether that period of time ix exactly 1000 years or not is less important to me.

But the core meaning, that Jesus will come back, and there will be time between that and Final Judgement, that does hold importance, because there are things described in a Messianic age that do not make sense for the eternal state the way Amillennialists view it as Jesus comes back, the world instantly explodes, instant final judgement, instant eternal state on a new creation.
How do you beat swords into plowshares on a world that is new and has never known warfare?
How do they bury bodies for 7 months and burn weapons for 7 years if Gog/Magog is at the end of the Millennium and final judgement is intantaneous?

So essentially what I believe is most important and why I hold to a Premillennial position, is that #1, it explains why the world is getting worse and more immoral, rather than more moral the way that postmillennialists and amillennialists characterize their view, and #2, it allows for time for Jesus to tread the winepress of His wrath, to do a thurough job of it, instant delete button is just.. not satisfying for judgement. The saints, and angels cheer on the judgements of God during the bowls and cheer and praise the destruction of Babylon. These are judgements we're going to quite literally beg for (5th seal). #3 it allows time for resolution and restoration after Christ has returned before final judgement, for promises to be kept.
Finally it's just biblical, and it is what they believed in the Early Church, people much closer to the source and the apostolic teaching than Origen and Augustine or anyone who followed them.

JSRG · May 14, 2024

RandyPNW said:
I have heard that Irenaeus interpreted "666" to refer to a "Latin King," thus identifying Antichrist as coming out of a later Roman Empire. Have you heard that? I personally think it's the best interpretation for "666," as opposed to the numerical equivalent of Nero or some other historical figure.

Irenaeus didn't offer a single interpretation of 666. Rather, he gave several different possibilities with the purpose of showing that he didn't know and that people shouldn't be spending a bunch of time fruitlessly trying to figure it out ahead of time.

Here is what he says on the subject (Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30):

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ), the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed “Titan” by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.” We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; 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.

So as we can see, Irenaeus here is talking about names. It is true that "Lateinos" can also mean a Latin person or be used as an adjective to mean Latin (note back then Latin basically meant Roman), but his attention to it is as a name; this only means "Latin King" in the sense that Lateinos (Latinus) was a--probably fictional--king of the Latins in the past. However, he mentions this as just one of several possibilities (he actually seems to favor Teitan as more likely), so one can't really say he was interpreting six hundred and sixty six to refer to a Latin king or Latinus, only that it was one possibility among many.

Note, for whatever it's worth, that Irenaeus is not using the typical spellings for Lateinos and Teitan; their typical spellings in Greek are Latinos and Titan, which do not add up to six hundred and sixty six. Of course, spellings were far less standardized back then, so I'm sure some people were spelling it the way Irenaeus did.

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

ralliann said:
I am going to look into this. I do not know what you mean by "historic premillennialism". The early Church as far as I have ever known is a literal 1000 years, or a figurative, not literal. From what I have heard Amillennial seen is figurative.
Some interesting discussion below. Those early fathers didn't look at it so much like we do.

Modern Reformation

Thinking Theologically.

www.modernreformation.org

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c332c448094935feJmltdHM9MTcxNTU1ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xY2ExZDg5Ny0xODRlLTZkMjItMWRhMi1kM2U0MTlkMjZjNjMmaW5zaWQ9NTMyNg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=1ca1d897-184e-6d22-1da2-d3e419d26c63&psq=chilaism&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubW9kZXJucmVmb3JtYXRpb24ub3JnL3Jlc291cmNlcy9hcnRpY2xlcy93aHktdGhlLWVhcmx5LWNodXJjaC1maW5hbGx5LXJlamVjdGVkLXByZW1pbGxlbm5pYWxpc20&ntb=1

Reading that paper was interesting, I think the one place where Historic Premillennialism kind of failed in the church (outside of those who had outright anti-semitic views of the Jews and wanted to distance themselves from anything "Jewish") was the intermmediate state. The New Testament is clear that believers are present with the Lord, and the Historic Church clung to a Jewish belief of existing in Hades until the resurrection.

Modern premillennialists do believe in an intermediate state in heaven with Christ, but still awaiting the redemption of the Body, which I think is strongly supported in the New Testament.
I do not think this really hinges on whether there's a millennial kingdom or not but was something of a hangover belief that hindered premillennialism because that view did conflict with the new testament. But premillennialism itself largely stems out of Revelation 20, a new testament source, people just looked through the old testament to find supporting evidence of it.

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

but all this makes me realize I also need to read Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. I've avoided reading a lot of Early Church Father writings, because I always associated "Early Church" with Augustine, who I always knew was poison, because all the teachings branching from his school became very .. Greek.. like Greek Philosophy dualism, and I learned.. that's his root, he was a Greek Philosopher convert, trying to hybridize Hellenic Thought with Christianity.
So I avoided him and anything from that era.

But before the School of Alexandria? Seems like the ECF had much closer beliefs to the Apostles.

To be fair, I can't claim that Augustine himself held beliefs like the extreme of material bad, spirit good, but extensions rooted in Augustinian teaching sometimes hold it.

and remember God created the material world Good, it pleased Him and there was no sin in any physical being that He created. Sin entered the world through a corrupt spiritual being that used his wickedness and deceit, to convince an innocent material being to do wrong.
Never forget that God created man body first, and man was always intended to be a material, embodied being, to atone for Sin the Word of God became material flesh, and died in the flesh, arose in the flesh, and ascended to the Father in the flesh.

Jerryhuerta · May 14, 2024

Jamdoc said:
I meant the Olivet Discourse. Jesus didn't give people being rich as a sign, because there have always been wealthy merchants.

As previously stated, the fact that the Revelation is the testimony of Christ affirms all the phenomena are sighs for us, just as much as the OD. And if one bothers to study the issue of the merchants, it’s not just an issue of a rich merchant here and there, but that the merchants, in general, have attained a status and command in society never witnessed in ancient and feudal societies. Furthermore, the sign affirms historicism because history shows they were made rich through the intercourse between the princes of the earth and apostate Protestantism. These facts demolish futurism and preterism, and the devastation also includes your misrepresentation of the Olivet Discourse.

Jamdoc said:
Unto the end desolations are determined..
yeah, since Israel was scattered, Israel has been desolate, few people lived there, until recently.
Note the temple is destroyed. Desolations are determined.....

and THEN the 70th week happens, with the abomination of desolation, taking place in a temple or tabernacle, as sacrifices can't just be performed anywhere.

Note that you conceded that the desolation commenced in the first century, with the temple's destruction in 70 AD. That destroys your whole argument that the things in Matthew 24 “take place in a short period of time, not centuries.” Thank you. The OD does not relate events that happen in a short period of time, and neither does Daniel.

Daniel relates that from the time of the decree to restore the city unto the coming of the Messiah, there would be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Daniel 9:25). If you were a Jew living in that time, you would be arguing that’s a short time, 69 weeks or 483 days. (BTW, that 69 weeks means Christ came on the seventieth week, and his ministry lasted three and a half years; his sacrifice made the sin offerings cease to be acceptable to God, fulfilling verse 27.) The point is that Daniel cloaked delay in imminence, just like Christ did in the OD.

Yes, the desolations are a protracted event connected with Christ being cut off, vindicating historicism.

Jamdoc said:
Jesus gave the Abomination of Desolation as the most important sign prefacing His return, and the Parable of the Fig Tree to stress that it'd be a short time, not thousands of years of Great Tribulation.

and again, things are progressing in that direction. The Jews want to build a temple, and the entire world is turning against the Jews.
We're progressing towards a one world government (Bablyon), and a cashless economy.
Things are accelerating, and converging. Even a year ago, the world was not against Israel like this.

Jesus said all this stuff would be like birth pangs, the illustration is that the closer you get to the birth the more intense and more frequent they'd get.
Acceleration, convergence.
Since 2020, those Rich Merchants you talk about, have gotten more wealth and more political influence than they've ever had before, nobody talked about the WEF or Davos before that
Acceleration, convergence

Again, you’re only making my argument. Where you fall short is ignorance in history that the merchants were made rich through the intercourse between the princes of the earth and apostate Protestantism.

Jamdoc said:
Incorrect, they would be sifted by the nations, but then be brought back into their land, in unbelief, while profaning God's name, according to Ezekiel 36.
They would be given a new heart later.

Jesus said these things would take place in a short period of time, not centuries.

Obviously, you’re unaware that the OT was not written linearly. The gathering in Ezekiel 36 is the same as in 37, only from another perspective to shed more light. Israel is not brought back while in rebellion. God saves them in the wilderness, and they find grace in the wilderness, which is written all over the OT,

At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. (Jeremiah 31:1-2)

And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the LORD. I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again. I will bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon; and place shall not be found for them. (Zechariah 10:7-10)

ralliann · May 14, 2024

Jamdoc said:
but all this makes me realize I also need to read Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. I've avoided reading a lot of Early Church Father writings, because I always associated "Early Church" with Augustine, who I always knew was poison, because all the teachings branching from his school became very .. Greek.. like Greek Philosophy dualism, and I learned.. that's his root, he was a Greek Philosopher convert, trying to hybridize Hellenic Thought with Christianity.
So I avoided him and anything from that era.

But before the School of Alexandria? Seems like the ECF had much closer beliefs to the Apostles.

The anti-Nicene fathers is where the reformers took their "covenant theology". Many think covenant theology came from the reformers, it did it would appear, but it also did not originate from them alone. They got covenant theology from these early Church Fathers.

From wiki

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"

Add languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For Covenant theology in the Protestant, Reformed perspective, see Covenant theology.

Covenantal theology is a distinctive approach to Catholic biblical theology stemming from the mid-twentieth century recovery of Patristic methods of interpreting scripture by scholars such as Henri de Lubac. This recovery was given further impetus by Dei verbum, the Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation", and consolidated in the section on scripture Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 101–41). These developments gave rise to an approach that emphasizes the "four senses" of scripture within a framework that structures salvation history via the biblical covenants, in combination with the techniques of modern biblical scholarship."

Jamdoc said:
To be fair, I can't claim that Augustine himself held beliefs like the extreme of material bad, spirit good, but extensions rooted in Augustinian teaching sometimes hold it.

and remember God created the material world Good, it pleased Him and there was no sin in any physical being that He created. Sin entered the world through a corrupt spiritual being that used his wickedness and deceit, to convince an innocent material being to do wrong.
Never forget that God created man body first, and man was always intended to be a material, embodied being, to atone for Sin the Word of God became material flesh, and died in the flesh, arose in the flesh, and ascended to the Father in the flesh.

I do not know if the Early Church fathers being covenantal in their thinking would have application here, but just thought I would mention it.....Since "fulfillment" promises etc., would/could be in a covenantal sense. It has recently been brought back to Catholicism, as Greek philosophical notions got in the way of it....Therefore attempts to a "recovery" of patristics.

RandyPNW · May 14, 2024

JSRG said:
Irenaeus didn't offer a single interpretation of 666. Rather, he gave several different possibilities with the purpose of showing that he didn't know and that people shouldn't be spending a bunch of time fruitlessly trying to figure it out ahead of time.

The point is that Irenaeus suggested a "Latin person" as a possible interpretation--perhaps even a likely interpretation.

Against Heresies (Book V, Ch. 30) CLICK
Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel].

I simply asked if Jamdoc heard of this, and your point is to render it irrelevant?

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

Jerryhuerta said:
As previously stated, the fact that the Revelation is the testimony of Christ affirms all the phenomena are sighs for us, just as much as the OD. And if one bothers to study the issue of the merchants, it’s not just an issue of a rich merchant here and there, but that the merchants, in general, have attained a status and command in society never witnessed in ancient and feudal societies. Furthermore, the sign affirms historicism because history shows they were made rich through the intercourse between the princes of the earth and apostate Protestantism. These facts demolish futurism and preterism, and the devastation also includes your misrepresentation of the Olivet Discourse.

Note that you conceded that the desolation commenced in the first century, with the temple's destruction in 70 AD. That destroys your whole argument that the things in Matthew 24 “take place in a short period of time, not centuries.” Thank you. The OD does not relate events that happen in a short period of time, and neither does Daniel.

The OD has Jesus say these things will happen within a short timeframe, including His return. Daniel does not.
Daniel 9 has 69 weeks, in the 69th week, Messiah is cut off, then the sanctuary is destroyed, and desolations are determined.

and then AFTER THAT, there's the confirming of a covenant for 7 years, during the middle of which the abomination of desolation would take place.

So 70AD can't involve the 70th week, because the sanctuary would have to be destroyed AND THEN a covenant made for 7 years.
so there's a gap put in the text, between the destruction of the temple, and the covenant with the many/70th week. They were not the same thing.

Jerryhuerta said:
Daniel relates that from the time of the decree to restore the city unto the coming of the Messiah, there would be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Daniel 9:25). If you were a Jew living in that time, you would be arguing that’s a short time, 69 weeks or 483 days. (BTW, that 69 weeks means Christ came on the seventieth week, and his ministry lasted three and a half years; his sacrifice made the sin offerings cease to be acceptable to God, fulfilling verse 27.) The point is that Daniel cloaked delay in imminence, just like Christ did in the OD.

Nope because the temple was not destroyed before that 70th week if you took Jesus' earthly Ministry as the 70th week.
The sanctuary gets destroyed by the people of the prince who is to come after Messiah is cut off, but before the 70th week.

So you have a space where the sanctuary had been destroyed, but sacrifices are being performed which are then cut off.
That hasn't happened. Your interpretation would count the sacrifices being ended BEFORE the temple was destroyed.

But Daniel places the destruction of the sanctuary BEFORE the abomination of desolation, desolations determined BEFORE the abomination of desolation.

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

ralliann said:
The anti-Nicene fathers is where the reformers took their "covenant theology". Many think covenant theology came from the reformers, it did it would appear, but it also did not originate from them alone. They got covenant theology from these early Church Fathers.

From wiki

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"
Add languages

Article

Talk

Read

Edit

View history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For Covenant theology in the Protestant, Reformed perspective, see Covenant theology.

Covenantal theology is a distinctive approach to Catholic biblical theology stemming from the mid-twentieth century recovery of Patristic methods of interpreting scripture by scholars such as Henri de Lubac. This recovery was given further impetus by Dei verbum, the Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation", and consolidated in the section on scripture Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 101–41). These developments gave rise to an approach that emphasizes the "four senses" of scripture within a framework that structures salvation history via the biblical covenants, in combination with the techniques of modern biblical scholarship."

I do not know if the Early Church fathers being covenantal in their thinking would have application here, but just thought I would mention it.....Since "fulfillment" promises etc., would/could be in a covenantal sense. It has recently been brought back to Catholicism, as Greek philosophical notions got in the way of it....Therefore attempts to a "recovery" of patristics.

Well my gripe with Augustine and the other fathers who basically brought in Amillennialism, was that their root is basically Greek Philosophy, Clement and Augustine were scholars of Greek Platonic Philosophy, who then converted. But that Greek thought persisted in their theology.

I can't really say I'm a covenant theologian or a dispensationalist, I suppose I'd lean to a form of dispensationalism-lite, in which I can see a difference between Gentiles and Israel, that persists into the new testament namely there's Romans 11 and Revelation 7, where Paul says after the fulness of the Gentiles there will be a salvation of the Jews, their blindness healed from them, and Revelation 7 has the 144,000 consisting of the tribes of Israel, then there's a great multitude of every tribe, tongue and nation.

So there is a difference to an extent, however they are both saved the same way (Jesus) and the Church is "Grafted in" to the promises. It did not replace Israel, it was joined with them.
Revelation 12 refers to Christians as being the rest of the seed of the Woman, the woman bringing forth Christ, well, Mary's in Heaven, she can't be persecuted by the Dragon that was cast down to Earth, but Israel can, and so Israel seems to be the woman, and the rest of her seed, are Christians. They both get persecuted is my understanding of Revelation 12's latter half.

So a distinction, but also a union.

I don't think it truly fits either covenant theology or dispensationalism solidly.

ralliann · May 14, 2024

Jamdoc said:
Well my gripe with Augustine and the other fathers who basically brought in Amillennialism, was that their root is basically Greek Philosophy, Clement and Augustine were scholars of Greek Platonic Philosophy, who then converted. But that Greek thought persisted in their theology.

Seems many modern Orthodox and Catholics agree. That is why they want to "recover" it.

Jamdoc said:
I can't really say I'm a covenant theologian or a dispensationalist, I suppose I'd lean to a form of dispensationalism-lite, in which I can see a difference between Gentiles and Israel, that persists into the new testament namely there's Romans 11 and Revelation 7, where Paul says after the fulness of the Gentiles there will be a salvation of the Jews, their blindness healed from them, and Revelation 7 has the 144,000 consisting of the tribes of Israel, then there's a great multitude of every tribe, tongue and nation.

I have covenantal thinking, and not into dispensationalism myself. Paul IMO speaks coivenantally, of the two covenants, which the Women represent in Galatians. Genesis 15, then in Genesis 17.
As Paul says
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Jamdoc said:
So there is a difference to an extent, however they are both saved the same way (Jesus) and the Church is "Grafted in" to the promises.

In promise to Abraham
Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Jamdoc said:
It did not replace Israel, it was joined with them.

I would say, Rabbinic Judaism had it's own form of replacement theology they developed.
Every promise spoken to Abraham, they associate to themselves as a people, and nation.

Jamdoc said:
Revelation 12 refers to Christians as being the rest of the seed of the Woman, the woman bringing forth Christ, well, Mary's in Heaven, she can't be persecuted by the Dragon that was cast down to Earth, but Israel can, and so Israel seems to be the woman, and the rest of her seed, are Christians. They both get persecuted is my understanding of Revelation 12's latter half.

They are all Christians, Jew and Gentile.

Jamdoc said:
So a distinction, but also a union.

The unity IMO, is in the fulfillment of the covenant genesis 17 to Abraham. Unity, in that the law which was 430 after could not disannul. It still can't....

Jamdoc said:
I don't think it truly fits either covenant theology or dispensationalism solidly.

Maybe take a look closely at Gen 15, and Gen 17....
Gen 15 spoke concerning the 4th generation of his seed.
As Hebrews says
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Ex 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already. {loins: Heb. thigh }
6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

Gen 17 kings (annointed ones).

Ge 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
Ex 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

The seed of the woman.....
Ge 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. {covenants: or, testaments } {Sinai: Gr. Sina }
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jamdoc · May 14, 2024

ralliann said:
They are all Christians, Jew and Gentile.

Well, I think "not yet" they aren't, This is where the dispensationalism lite comes in, in that I think the Woman depicted is still in unbelief. God specifically protects them, because there's a plan in the works. The woman is provided for, but no such provision is revealed for the second group, the rest of the seed of the woman, the gentile Chirstians. They're saved, they're promised to be blessed even if they die. But among the unbelieving Jews who will believe, if they die, they utterly perish, and so protection is arranged for them, but there's a promise to heal their blindness and so they will believe.

It's like they're both going to be Christian, but 1 group isn't yet. 1 group is kept blind until the fulness of the gentiles are come in, if that makes sense.

I still see some different plans going on, but I disagree with the harder dispensationalists "God has to rapture the Church so He can focus back on Israel" Like there is clearly gentile Christians also involved, and being martyred.

ralliann · May 15, 2024

Jamdoc said:
Well, I think "not yet" they aren't, This is where the dispensationalism lite comes in, in that I think the Woman depicted is still in unbelief. God specifically protects them, because there's a plan in the works.

The difference between our views is the "plan in the works" is a covenant Still in effect among Jew's. Remember the covenant of circumcision is not Sinai, but before.....

Precedence......
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers

and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Jamdoc said:
The woman is provided for, but no such provision is revealed for the second group, the rest of the seed of the woman, the gentile Chirstians.

The difference between the two groups is fleshly, vs spiritual.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Jamdoc said:
They're saved, they're promised to be blessed even if they die. But among the unbelieving Jews who will believe, if they die, they utterly perish, and so protection is arranged for them, but there's a promise to heal their blindness and so they will believe.

It's like they're both going to be Christian, but 1 group isn't yet. 1 group is kept blind until the fulness of the gentiles are come in, if that makes sense.

Yes it does make sense.
But....Let's go back to Romans for a minute...Not all Israel is Israel.

Jamdoc said:
I still see some different plans going on, but I disagree with the harder dispensationalists "God has to rapture the Church so He can focus back on Israel" Like there is clearly gentile Christians also involved, and being martyred.

Who is the Israel that is not all Israel?
I think we go to the covenants for answers.
Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

I think this may have to do with Israel as God's firstborn. That is what Israel is called when he brought them out of Egypt, (to fulfill the covenant of Genesis 15...)
This is a true statement, would you agree?....According to Moses law, all son's are heirs. But not all heirs are firstborn....
What is the difference? The firstborn has a double portion above their brethren.
The two covenants made with Abraham, are inheritances. One earthly, one heavenly....
The Firstborn, has an inheritance IN BOTH. A share above his brothers.
When Israel came out of Egypt, they came out with the promise of both inheritances.....set before them.
Ex 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
24 ¶ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. {sharp … : or, knife } {cast … : Heb. made it touch }
26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

As Solomon blessed them
1 ki 8:54 ¶ And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.
55 And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying,
56 Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. {failed: Heb. fallen }
57 The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:

Jerryhuerta · May 16, 2024

Jamdoc said:
The OD has Jesus say these things will happen within a short timeframe, including His return. Daniel does not.
Daniel 9 has 69 weeks, in the 69th week, Messiah is cut off, then the sanctuary is destroyed, and desolations are determined.

and then AFTER THAT, there's the confirming of a covenant for 7 years, during the middle of which the abomination of desolation would take place.

So 70AD can't involve the 70th week, because the sanctuary would have to be destroyed AND THEN a covenant made for 7 years.
so there's a gap put in the text, between the destruction of the temple, and the covenant with the many/70th week. They were not the same thing.

Nope because the temple was not destroyed before that 70th week if you took Jesus' earthly Ministry as the 70th week.
The sanctuary gets destroyed by the people of the prince who is to come after Messiah is cut off, but before the 70th week.

So you have a space where the sanctuary had been destroyed, but sacrifices are being performed which are then cut off.
That hasn't happened. Your interpretation would count the sacrifices being ended BEFORE the temple was destroyed.

But Daniel places the destruction of the sanctuary BEFORE the abomination of desolation, desolations determined BEFORE the abomination of desolation.

Apparently, I’m not getting proper notifications, which accounts for my late response. Even so, I do need a break from such unsound thinking.

Again, you try and get around the ramifications that we live in the time of the rich merchants. They attained their influence and rise to power with the aid of apostate Protestantism over a hundred years ago. That power is not a recent acquisition, as you falsely claim. The historical evidence vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

As I said, if you were a Jew living in Daniel’s time, you would be arguing that the seventy weeks is a short time, 490 days. But it’s not a short time any more than the events depicted in the OD. Daniel prophecies 70 weeks or 490 days, but in reality, the period is 490 years, a day for a year. So, your argument that Daniel does not relate a short time is bogus! Through Daniel, God cloaks a great amount of time in the symbolism of 490 days, a day-for-a-year, which vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

I challenge you: where does it say the “destruction of the temple” is determined or decreed in Daniel 9:24? There are six goals decreed in verse 24, and the destruction of the temple is not one of them. The fact that the destruction of the temple is not one of the goals of the seventy weeks destroys your dispensationalist’s argument. The absence makes your argument bogus once again.

If you were really concerned about the truth, verse 25 can’t be avoided in determining that from the time of the decree to restore the city unto the coming of the Messiah, there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks, which means Christ came on the seventieth week, and his ministry lasted three and a half years; his sacrifice made the sin offerings cease to be acceptable to God, fulfilling verse 27. All the dispensationalists’ presumptions are bogus and an evasion of the proper reading of Daniel 9.

Jamdoc · May 17, 2024

Jerryhuerta said:
Apparently, I’m not getting proper notifications, which accounts for my late response. Even so, I do need a break from such unsound thinking.

Again, you try and get around the ramifications that we live in the time of the rich merchants. They attained their influence and rise to power with the aid of apostate Protestantism over a hundred years ago. That power is not a recent acquisition, as you falsely claim. The historical evidence vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

For the last time, Rich Merchants have existed for centuries, and were not given as a sign in the Olivet Discourse.
Rich merchants mean absolutely nothing unless they have a world government that they control, and the 10 kings overthrow that world government and set up the Beast as their ruler.

Jerryhuerta said:
As I said, if you were a Jew living in Daniel’s time, you would be arguing that the seventy weeks is a short time, 490 days. But it’s not a short time any more than the events depicted in the OD. Daniel prophecies 70 weeks or 490 days, but in reality, the period is 490 years, a day for a year. So, your argument that Daniel does not relate a short time is bogus! Through Daniel, God cloaks a great amount of time in the symbolism of 490 days, a day-for-a-year, which vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

I challenge you: where does it say the “destruction of the temple” is determined or decreed in Daniel 9:24? There are six goals decreed in verse 24, and the destruction of the temple is not one of them. The fact that the destruction of the temple is not one of the goals of the seventy weeks destroys your dispensationalist’s argument. The absence makes your argument bogus once again.

If you were really concerned about the truth, verse 25 can’t be avoided in determining that from the time of the decree to restore the city unto the coming of the Messiah, there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks, which means Christ came on the seventieth week, and his ministry lasted three and a half years; his sacrifice made the sin offerings cease to be acceptable to God, fulfilling verse 27. All the dispensationalists’ presumptions are bogus and an evasion of the proper reading of Daniel 9.

They count the week they're in when they do counting. Messiah is not cut off in the 70th week, but in the 69th the 70th week begins after the destruction of the sanctuary and the desolations that were determined
after the destruction of the sanctuary, there is a covenant confirmed for 1 week (the 70th) and in the middle of it sacrifices are cut off.
That means sacrifices after the destruction of the sanctuary. You have a syntax problem if you have the 70th week taking place before the destruction of the sanctuary, because the text has the covenant, and the abomination of desolation.... after the destruction of the sanctuary.

You point out the 6 things given as the purpose of the 70 weeks. By that alone you should be able to conclude that the 70 weeks are NOT finished

"to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins", sins still exist, death still exists
"to seal up the vision and prophecy" if you believe that Jesus is still coming again, then this has not been accomplished, and therefore the 70 weeks are not accomplished, because there is still future prophecy, even in your point of view seeing historical events as being fulfillment of prophecy, it was not fulfilled before Jesus ascended from heaven or in 70AD, unless you count yourself a full preterist which I know you don't.

Because there is yet Prophecy to be fulfilled, the 70th week, is yet future.

and.. in addressing the thread topic...
the Early Church Fathers did not believe that the 70th week had been fulfilled in their past.
So if your variant of Historicism involves an already fulfilled 70th week in Christ's ministry or 70AD.. that is not fitting with what the early Church believed.

Jamdoc · May 17, 2024

To give a hypothetical example of a form of Historicism that would not conflict with the Early Church beliefs would be to see the Beast as Islam/Muhammad, and his conquest as being the empire of the beast. That'd take place after the Early Church period and be consistent with their futurist premillennial beliefs from their point of view, and to some degree it would fit.

It's still require a lot of allegory and messing with the definition of a "generation" but, Irenaeus didn't outright shoot it down like a 70AD fulfillment.

Jerryhuerta · May 17, 2024

Jamdoc said:
For the last time, Rich Merchants have existed for centuries, and were not given as a sign in the Olivet Discourse.
Rich merchants mean absolutely nothing unless they have a world government that they control, and the 10 kings overthrow that world government and set up the Beast as their ruler.

They count the week they're in when they do counting. Messiah is not cut off in the 70th week, but in the 69th the 70th week begins after the destruction of the sanctuary and the desolations that were determined
after the destruction of the sanctuary, there is a covenant confirmed for 1 week (the 70th) and in the middle of it sacrifices are cut off.
That means sacrifices after the destruction of the sanctuary. You have a syntax problem if you have the 70th week taking place before the destruction of the sanctuary, because the text has the covenant, and the abomination of desolation.... after the destruction of the sanctuary.

You point out the 6 things given as the purpose of the 70 weeks. By that alone you should be able to conclude that the 70 weeks are NOT finished

"to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins", sins still exist, death still exists
"to seal up the vision and prophecy" if you believe that Jesus is still coming again, then this has not been accomplished, and therefore the 70 weeks are not accomplished, because there is still future prophecy, even in your point of view seeing historical events as being fulfillment of prophecy, it was not fulfilled before Jesus ascended from heaven or in 70AD, unless you count yourself a full preterist which I know you don't.

Because there is yet Prophecy to be fulfilled, the 70th week, is yet future.

and.. in addressing the thread topic...
the Early Church Fathers did not believe that the 70th week had been fulfilled in their past.
So if your variant of Historicism involves an already fulfilled 70th week in Christ's ministry or 70AD.. that is not fitting with what the early Church believed.

The OD is not the only source of eschatological events in the NT. Your insistence is proof-texting, which leads to eisegesis. The rich merchants have attained power over the last two hundred years, never witnessed in history. That power is not a recent acquisition, as you falsely claim. The historical evidence that apostate Protestantism facilitated that rise vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

Are you done trying to falsely claim that Daniel does not relate a short time? Through Daniel, God cloaks a great amount of time in the symbolism of 490 days, a day-for-a-year, which vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism. Christ cloaks a great amount of time in imminence in the OD, too.

The passage in Daniel 9:25 says 7 weeks and 62 weeks. Dispensationalists have a problem adding. Let me help you, 62 plus 7 equals 69. The passage says after the 69th week, the Messiah will come. It doesn’t say after the 68th. Dispensationalists have the problem with syntax, not historicists.

You’re missing the point about the six goals! It’s your position that that’s one of the goals of the seventy weeks is the destruction of the temple when it’s not. Since it’s not, then one isn’t to look for it at the end of the seventy weeks. It can stand outside, which history affirms. The dispensationalist’s argument that it’s part of the seventy weeks is bogus.

As to the goals, Christ fulfilled all of them, when one grasps they were fulfilled for the elect, the chosen: many are called, few are chosen. When Christ remitted sin at the cross, all the transgressions of the elect were forgiven and ended in Christ. Christ made a complete reconciliation for the iniquity of the elect, which doesn’t have to be repeated when he returns. Christ established everlasting righteousness for the elect, which doesn’t have to be duplicated when he returns. Christ’s redemption sealed the prophecy and anointed the heavenly sanctuary when he ascended to the Father’s right hand, which doesn’t have to be accomplished again upon his return. Christ fully accomplished the purposes of the seventy weeks at the first advent.

Jamdoc · May 17, 2024

Jerryhuerta said:
The OD is not the only source of eschatological events in the NT. Your insistence is proof-texting, which leads to eisegesis. The rich merchants have attained power over the last two hundred years, never witnessed in history. That power is not a recent acquisition, as you falsely claim. The historical evidence that apostate Protestantism facilitated that rise vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism.

Are you done trying to falsely claim that Daniel does not relate a short time? Through Daniel, God cloaks a great amount of time in the symbolism of 490 days, a day-for-a-year, which vindicates historicism and destroys futurism and preterism. Christ cloaks a great amount of time in imminence in the OD, too.

The passage in Daniel 9:25 says 7 weeks and 62 weeks. Dispensationalists have a problem adding. Let me help you, 62 plus 7 equals 69. The passage says after the 69th week, the Messiah will come. It doesn’t say after the 68th. Dispensationalists have the problem with syntax, not historicists.

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.

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.

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.

Jerryhuerta said:
You’re missing the point about the six goals! It’s your position that that’s one of the goals of the seventy weeks is the destruction of the temple when it’s not. Since it’s not, then one isn’t to look for it at the end of the seventy weeks. It can stand outside, which history affirms. The dispensationalist’s argument that it’s part of the seventy weeks is bogus.

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.

Jerryhuerta said:
As to the goals, Christ fulfilled all of them, when one grasps they were fulfilled for the elect, the chosen: many are called, few are chosen. When Christ remitted sin at the cross, all the transgressions of the elect were forgiven and ended in Christ. Christ made a complete reconciliation for the iniquity of the elect, which doesn’t have to be repeated when he returns. Christ established everlasting righteousness for the elect, which doesn’t have to be duplicated when he returns. Christ’s redemption sealed the prophecy and anointed the heavenly sanctuary when he ascended to the Father’s right hand, which doesn’t have to be accomplished again upon his return. Christ fully accomplished the purposes of the seventy weeks at the first advent.

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.

Ammillennialism and Pretribulationism both fly against the Early Church

christian

Watching and Praying Always

christian

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Watching and Praying Always

Historicist

christian

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"​

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Watching and Praying Always

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"​

christian

Watching and Praying Always

christian

Historicist

Watching and Praying Always

Watching and Praying Always

Historicist

Watching and Praying Always

Similar threads

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"

"Covenantal theology (Catholic Church)"