Is The Holy Spirit Or The Church The Restrainer Of 2 Thess.?

[Major]

Sorry, but there is no mystic realm in time that exists between the 69th and 70th so that the 69th might fully expire before His death and that the 70th would remain yet to begin after His death, as you so desperately would like to have so. The word "after" means exactly that: AFTER the 69th week which by default means DURING the 70th week, which nails down the 70th week in the past. Do you really expect a boss to accept the excuse of his employee's 12:00 noon to 5:00 PM lunch "hour" as being that at 12:59 PM the clock stopped and a our hour "gap" ensued before starting again at 1:00 PM? Why are no other time prophechies in the Bible rearranged with "gaps" like Daniel's 70 weeks? Absolutely ludicrous Jesuit theology, which the ECF claim was NOT what Paul told them.

Courtesy of: "endtimelilgrame.org"...........

Why is there a "gap" in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel? Why 69 weeks, ....a gap, and then the resumption of the 70 weeks with the final 70th week some 2,000+ years later?
As it turns out the terminus of the 69 weeks would mark the day in which Messiah presented Himself to His covenant people and the world for the first time. But there would be two comings. On this first occasion He would come into His city as the Suffering Servant.

The House of Judah, the royal tribe out of the 12 tribes of Israel, with contingents from Levi and Benjamin were their to meet Him. Many of them received Him with joy. But the lost ten tribes of Israel were not there. They had been taken captive by the Assyrians 753 years before this. They were out there lost. At the time of the passion of Messiah they were wandering in their families in amongst the heathen goyim nations.

Messiah made His appearance. But it was a sad day and Jesus wept over His city. The hearts were hard, and the City of the Great King would not come into His Shalom/peace. Just as Isaiah had prophesied Israel's Suffering Servant was rejected by His own. (See Isa.53) And as Daniel had prophesied, Messiah was "cut off", ... executed. (See Dan.9:26)

A 'gap' period of two millennia would then pass by. During this time the message of the Gospel would go out to the nations. At the close of the age a final 70th week would usher in the climactic final seven years of this present age. The terminus of that 70th week would mark the Day of the Lord and herald the Second Coming of Messiah.

 

[Abdicate]

I often thought that if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, God the Father would have performed the sacrifice and then the 70th week would have commenced right then and there and the Millennial kingdom would have started. But because He was rejected, He had to go to the highways and byways to find those willing to hear Him, Matt 22.

 

[Euphemia]

I often thought that if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, God the Father would have performed the sacrifice and then the 70th week would have commenced right then and there and the Millennial kingdom would have started. But because He was rejected, He had to go to the highways and byways to find those willing to hear Him, Matt 22.

I think along those same lines, and that the Gentile would more than likely be forever excluded, and would remain separate.

 

[Phoneman777]

Seems to me that your argument is against the Catholic Church and not the Futurist position of exegesis of the Scriptures.

All the historical facts about the RCC is well documented and I think we all realize that it was not really the Christians in charge to begin with. The Roman Empire cozied up to the Christian faith when they saw that they did not steal rob and lie. It was a convenient marriage where men were able to use their religion as a weapon and obtain more power to do as they wished.

My comment would be that now, today, we all have copies of the Scriptures. There must be well over 100 translations and millions of books and commentaries. That is very unlike the day in which you are talking about when the only Scriptures were found in a Catholic church written in Latin which only the Priest could read and understand.

Today we all have the ability to read the works and thoughts of these older men but NOW we can rightly divide and grasp the meanings of the doctrines in those Scriptures for ourselves!!!! We, at least me have had the opportunity to a higher level of education and I have been able to study the differences between the views of others and make the correct determination for myself.

Having said that, it is in my opinion, having studied the Historical view that the Futurist approach is the one that allows all the Scripture to fall perfectly into place with absolutely no work to make it fit.

 

[Phoneman777]

Courtesy of: "endtimelilgrame.org"...........

Why is there a "gap" in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel? Why 69 weeks, ....a gap, and then the resumption of the 70 weeks with the final 70th week some 2,000+ years later?
As it turns out the terminus of the 69 weeks would mark the day in which Messiah presented Himself to His covenant people and the world for the first time. But there would be two comings. On this first occasion He would come into His city as the Suffering Servant.

The House of Judah, the royal tribe out of the 12 tribes of Israel, with contingents from Levi and Benjamin were their to meet Him. Many of them received Him with joy. But the lost ten tribes of Israel were not there. They had been taken captive by the Assyrians 753 years before this. They were out there lost. At the time of the passion of Messiah they were wandering in their families in amongst the heathen goyim nations.

Messiah made His appearance. But it was a sad day and Jesus wept over His city. The hearts were hard, and the City of the Great King would not come into His Shalom/peace. Just as Isaiah had prophesied Israel's Suffering Servant was rejected by His own. (See Isa.53) And as Daniel had prophesied, Messiah was "cut off", ... executed. (See Dan.9:26)

A 'gap' period of two millennia would then pass by. During this time the message of the Gospel would go out to the nations. At the close of the age a final 70th week would usher in the climactic final seven years of this present age. The terminus of that 70th week would mark the Day of the Lord and herald the Second Coming of Messiah.

We can't subjectively argue that the 69 weeks ended at the Cross. It says they would end at "Messiah the Prince". Messiah means "anointed One". Was Jesus "anointed" at the Cross? No. It was 3 1/2 years earlier at the Jordon. The 69 weeks ended and the 70th began when Jesus was baptized and 3 1/2 years later "in the midst of the week" He was crucified. He confirmed the covenant for "one week"- first 3 1/2 years in Person and the another 3 1/2 years "through them that heard Him" and God says that Satan, personified as Leviathon, will NOT make a covenant with anyone. "In the midst of the week" when He was crucified, He caused "the sacrifices and oblations to cease" to count for anything in the eyes of God. We don't have to insert a gap to explain the prophecy, and no other prophecy requires a gap to make it work. Have you heard of this version of the prophecy? BTW, the "people of the prince" doesn't refer to an Antichrist but to the Roman soldiers and prince Titus who destroyed the city and the sanctuary, by burning it to the ground in 70 AD.

 

[Euphemia]

We can't subjectively argue that the 69 weeks ended at the Cross. It says they would end at "Messiah the Prince". Messiah means "anointed One". Was Jesus "anointed" at the Cross? No. It was 3 1/2 years earlier at the Jordon. The 69 weeks ended and the 70th began when Jesus was baptized and 3 1/2 years later "in the midst of the week" He was crucified. He confirmed the covenant for "one week"- first 3 1/2 years in Person and the another 3 1/2 years "through them that heard Him" and God says that Satan, personified as Leviathon, will NOT make a covenant with anyone. "In the midst of the week" when He was crucified, He caused "the sacrifices and oblations to cease" to count for anything in the eyes of God. We don't have to insert a gap to explain the prophecy, and no other prophecy requires a gap to make it work. Have you heard of this version of the prophecy? BTW, the "people of the prince" doesn't refer to an Antichrist but to the Roman soldiers and prince Titus who destroyed the city and the sanctuary, by burning it to the ground in 70 AD.

It is so very obvious that you, among others are using your own intellect to discern spiritual matters. You do realize that is part of the flesh, don't you? submit your thinking to Holy Spirit and ask Him to show you the truth.

 

[Major]

We can't subjectively argue that the 69 weeks ended at the Cross. It says they would end at "Messiah the Prince". Messiah means "anointed One". Was Jesus "anointed" at the Cross? No. It was 3 1/2 years earlier at the Jordon. The 69 weeks ended and the 70th began when Jesus was baptized and 3 1/2 years later "in the midst of the week" He was crucified. He confirmed the covenant for "one week"- first 3 1/2 years in Person and the another 3 1/2 years "through them that heard Him" and God says that Satan, personified as Leviathon, will NOT make a covenant with anyone. "In the midst of the week" when He was crucified, He caused "the sacrifices and oblations to cease" to count for anything in the eyes of God. We don't have to insert a gap to explain the prophecy, and no other prophecy requires a gap to make it work. Have you heard of this version of the prophecy? BTW, the "people of the prince" doesn't refer to an Antichrist but to the Roman soldiers and prince Titus who destroyed the city and the sanctuary, by burning it to the ground in 70 AD.

My brother, we are going to have to stand in disagreement over this. IMO your understanding is Biblically flawed and we are not going to be able to come together.

I am going to withdraw now because it is clear we are just too far apart on some very fundamental things and we are just argueing the same thing over and over.

Do well, be good and we can talk again over another issue!

 

[Major]

I think along those same lines, and that the Gentile would more than likely be forever excluded, and would remain separate.

Not only do I agree with both of you, but that is what Daniel was saying.........."To anoint the most high God"!!!

That is why every day today is a day of grace that one more sinner can come to Christ and be saved!!!

 

[Major]

I often thought that if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, God the Father would have performed the sacrifice and then the 70th week would have commenced right then and there and the Millennial kingdom would have started. But because He was rejected, He had to go to the highways and byways to find those willing to hear Him, Matt 22.

BINGO! Another winner!

What else could Daniel 9:24 mean?????
"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."

The Messiah WAS "Cut Off"/Crucified and that event separated the first 69 weeks from the 70th week. It is during this 70th week that the Messianic work of God will be completed.

What does this mean??// God is not through with Israel!!!!

What thinketh thou???

 

[Phoneman777]

My brother, we are going to have to stand in disagreement over this. IMO your understanding is Biblically flawed and we are not going to be able to come together.

I am going to withdraw now because it is clear we are just too far apart on some very fundamental things and we are just argueing the same thing over and over.

Do well, be good and we can talk again over another issue!

IMO it is Jesuit Futurism which is fundamentally flawed for putting forth the idea that the Cross is an event that is not part of the 70th week, but exists somehow in limbo. Even if Christ died one nanosecond after the 69th week expired, it would still be the first nanosecond of the 70th week which would nail that week down in history, and no Jesuit living or dead can rip it up and send it down to the end of time. Alas, we'll have to agree to disagree. But, please take an objective look, perhaps for the first time, at Historicism and why the Reformers rejected Futurism when they were led out of the thousand year Roman Dark Age by Providence during the God ordained Protestant Reformation.

 

[Phoneman777]

It is so very obvious that you, among others are using your own intellect to discern spiritual matters. You do realize that is part of the flesh, don't you? submit your thinking to Holy Spirit and ask Him to show you the truth.

You mistake Holy Spirit discernment for that of another spirit. What the Holy Spirit told Daniel is the same thing He will lead us to understand today: that the Cross took place after the 69th week and even if it was one nanosecond AFTER the 69 weeks, it would still be the first nanosecond of the 70th week. The RCC ushered in a thousand years of darkness and the Lord raised up the Reformers to lead us out of it. Your insistence that the darkness of Jesuit Futurism is actually light is proof positive of what spirit you are led.

 

[Euphemia]

You mistake Holy Spirit discernment for that of another spirit. What the Holy Spirit told Daniel is the same thing He will lead us to understand today: that the Cross took place after the 69th week and even if it was one nanosecond AFTER the 69 weeks, it would still be the first nanosecond of the 70th week. The RCC ushered in a thousand years of darkness and the Lord raised up the Reformers to lead us out of it. Your insistence that the darkness of Jesuit Futurism is actually light is proof positive of what spirit you are led.

That is just wrong, and is itself on the very face of it catering to another spirit.

Read and may the Lord grant you His understanding:

Daniel 9:21-27 (AMP)
21 Yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the former vision, being caused to fly swiftly, came near to me and touched me about the time of the evening sacrifice.

22 He instructed me and made me understand; he talked with me and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give you skill and wisdom and understanding.

23 At the beginning of your prayers, the word [giving an answer] went forth, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved. Therefore consider the matter and understand the vision.

24 Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city [Jerusalem], to finish and put an end to transgression, to seal up and make full the measure of sin, to purge away and make expiation and reconciliation for sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness (permanent moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation) to seal up vision and prophecy and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies.

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the Anointed One, a Prince, shall be seven weeks [of years] and sixty-two weeks [of years]; it shall be built again with [city] square and moat, but in troublous times.

26 And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the Anointed One be cut off or killed and shall have nothing [and no one] belonging to [and defending] Him. And the people of the [other] prince who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood; and even to the end there shall be war, and desolations are decreed.

27 And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator.

 

[Phoneman777]

That is just wrong, and is itself on the very face of it catering to another spirit.

Read and may the Lord grant you His understanding:

Daniel 9:21-27 (AMP)
21 Yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the former vision, being caused to fly swiftly, came near to me and touched me about the time of the evening sacrifice.

22 He instructed me and made me understand; he talked with me and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give you skill and wisdom and understanding.

23 At the beginning of your prayers, the word [giving an answer] went forth, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved. Therefore consider the matter and understand the vision.

24 Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city [Jerusalem], to finish and put an end to transgression, to seal up and make full the measure of sin, to purge away and make expiation and reconciliation for sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness (permanent moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation) to seal up vision and prophecy and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies.

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the Anointed One, a Prince, shall be seven weeks [of years] and sixty-two weeks [of years]; it shall be built again with [city] square and moat, but in troublous times.

26 And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the Anointed One be cut off or killed and shall have nothing [and no one] belonging to [and defending] Him. And the people of the [other] prince who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood; and even to the end there shall be war, and desolations are decreed.

27 And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator.

It seems that your position is that the Messiah was cut off after the 69th week, which was not during the 70th week, but somehow in some other dimension of time. Where is this explicitly, not subjectively, proven in the Bible?

 

[Euphemia]

It seems that your position is that the Messiah was cut off after the 69th week, which was not during the 70th week, but somehow in some other dimension of time. Where is this explicitly, not subjectively, proven in the Bible?

In the verses I so decently provided for you.

 

[Where is the Messiah]

It seems that your position is that the Messiah was cut off after the 69th week, which was not during the 70th week, but somehow in some other dimension of time. Where is this explicitly, not subjectively, proven in the Bible?

I see what you are saying, but what's your avatar all about?

 

[Phoneman777]

In the verses I so decently provided for you.

I thank you for your kindness, but I just can't see anything in those verses that would refer to an alternate time dimension - it seems that the idea is a conclusion derived, not one that is explicitly mentioned. Can the "people of the prince that shall come" to destroy the city not refer to future devotees to Antichrist at all, seeing that he is not mentioned here, but to either 1) the Jews of the anticipated Messiah the Prince which, through unbelief, brought Roman destruction upon the holy city in 70 AD, or refer to 2) the armies of Rome led by prince Titus who destroyed it?

I see what you are saying, but what's your avatar all about?

The number 6 was an integral part of pagan religious ideas and concepts, such as the statue in Daniel 2 which was 6 cubits long by 6 cubits wide by 36 (6x6) cubits high or the number of the beast which is 666. In contrast, 7 is God's number found associated many times throughout the Bible with completion or perfection.

 

[Euphemia]

I thank you for your kindness, but I just can't see anything in those verses that would refer to an alternate time dimension - it seems that the idea is a conclusion derived, not one that is explicitly mentioned. Can the "people of the prince that shall come" to destroy the city not refer to future devotees to Antichrist at all, seeing that he is not mentioned here, but to either 1) the Jews of the anticipated Messiah the Prince which, through unbelief, brought Roman destruction upon the holy city in 70 AD, or refer to 2) the armies of Rome led by prince Titus who destroyed it?

No. That particular prince to come is the Antichrist.

 

[Phoneman777]

No. That particular prince to come is the Antichrist.

How can you be so sure? After all, we know that the people of the Prince Messiah who came destroyed Jerusalem by rejecting Jesus and with it the hedge of protection God had place around them. We also know that the Roman people of the Prince Titus who came in their soldiered ranks destroyed Jerusalem.

These two completely explicit, objective interpretations are complete harmony with Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem would fall before that generation in which He declared it would pass, yet we are to cast them aside in favor of a third which appears to be based solely on a subjective claim that the prince refers to a third figure who is yet to come? Surely, there must be more concrete evidence for rejecting both the testimonies of Daniel and Jesus in order to establish this third candidate who is yet to appear almost 2,000 years after the passing of that ancient generation, so please point me to such evidence.

 

[Euphemia]

How can you be so sure? After all, we know that the people of the Prince Messiah who came destroyed Jerusalem by rejecting Jesus and with it the hedge of protection God had place around them. We also know that the Roman people of the Prince Titus who came in their soldiered ranks destroyed Jerusalem.

These two completely explicit, objective interpretations are complete harmony with Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem would fall before that generation in which He declared it would pass, yet we are to cast them aside in favor of a third which appears to be based solely on a subjective claim that the prince refers to a third figure who is yet to come? Surely, there must be more concrete evidence for rejecting both the testimonies of Daniel and Jesus in order to establish this third candidate who is yet to appear almost 2,000 years after the passing of that ancient generation, so please point me to such evidence.

You have to study it and ask Holy Spirit for His guidance in understanding it and then He will show you. I did that, and He revealed it to me. When He does that, there are no more questions, because He satisfies us with the truth. It all fits.

 

[Abdicate]

How can you be so sure? After all, we know that the people of the Prince Messiah who came destroyed Jerusalem by rejecting Jesus and with it the hedge of protection God had place around them. We also know that the Roman people of the Prince Titus who came in their soldiered ranks destroyed Jerusalem.

These two completely explicit, objective interpretations are complete harmony with Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem would fall before that generation in which He declared it would pass, yet we are to cast them aside in favor of a third which appears to be based solely on a subjective claim that the prince refers to a third figure who is yet to come? Surely, there must be more concrete evidence for rejecting both the testimonies of Daniel and Jesus in order to establish this third candidate who is yet to appear almost 2,000 years after the passing of that ancient generation, so please point me to such evidence.

You're making assumptions.

Here are the verses to prove it:

Daniel 9:26-27 (KJV)
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. 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.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... NOT Titus, but the antichrist. How do we know? The next sentence: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Who is the he in this sentence? The prince that shall come. Titus did not make a covenant with the Jews for a week. Also he didn't make desolate the temple - he wanted to, but his rebellious soldiers burned it. But just for argument's sake, let's say this verse has a double meaning and this prince that shall come is Titus, we have to look at the people of the prince that actually destroyed the temple. They were not the loyal obedient Roman soldiers, but the conscripted Syrian and Alexandrian men - Arabs. If you bother to read the historical accounts of Josephus, Tactics you'll find the utter atrocities they committed against the Jews. "Roman" soldiers would not have done what was done, but the Arabs against the Jews would have, and did.

So if Titus isn't the prince, and it wasn't the abomination of desolation spoken by Jesus in Matt 24:15 then the one who does this is the antichrist yet to happen. Either way, the Catholics will have nothing to do with this event unless the Pope is the false prophet and then it would fit perfectly with the warped eschatology of Islam who will bring forth the antichrist, not Rome.

Some studies on this:
Where does the Antichrist come from? http://abdicate.net/blog/?p=63
Is the Roman Catholic Church involved in the end times? http://abdicate.net/blog/?p=22