I'll admit that some of the thinking of the Reformers may have been flawed, but please consider that the author of Jesuit Futurism, Francisco Ribera, believed that the Pope "is God on Earth"; "is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of human flesh"; "holds upon this Earth the place of God Almighty"; "has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ"; "is King of heaven, of Earth, and of Purgatory", just to name a few. He also believed that if the Pope and the Holy Scriptures were to contradict one another, "the Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside." He believed in the Transubstantiation and sanctioned the penalty of death to those who denied it (which was the most common reason for the 75 -150 million executions ordered by the church); that forgiveness is imparted not by Christ, but by the Church; that no one can ever be saved unless they fully submit to the supreme authority of the Pope and participate in Confession and the Sacraments. One cannot hope that such a mind so filled with active, compounded delusion could have ever simultaneously achieved spiritual enlightenment. Nevertheless, as it is said, "only time will tell."
Yes, time is the culprit. Futurism was struck a death blow by the Reformation as soon as it was sent out into the world by the RCC in the 16th century and wasn't heard from until its resurrection in the 19th century, as the persecutions by the Roman Church for the past 14 centuries began to wind down and the Protestant Reformation began to lose steam as a result (for there is nothing like ease to make us complacent in our faith). Samuel Maitland, Librarian to the Archbishop of Cantebury, likely discovered an old, dust covered copy of Jesuit Ribera's Futurism writings and began spreading them around England and Europe, which was followed by John Nelson Darby's 6 voyages to America bringing with him the same, but expanded ideas such as the secret rapture, to the now complacent Protestants of the New World. Further dissemination and popularizing of these ideas here in America through Scofield's Reference Bible, Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth, the Left Behind books and movies, and an explosion of Futurism-based end time prophecy media have left Historicism as an all but forgotten foe to what Protestants now consider to be sound Bible doctrine.Don't you think that Time has had a lot to do with changing the view?
The Futurists believe that the Historical/Preterist is false and of course the opposite is the case with the Historical view.
Personally....It seems to me that the teaching of Preterism or the Historical view of Escotology destroys the stated plan of God for the times in which we now live by teaching that the Bible’s prophecies have nothing to do with us today. Consequently, Preterism runs counter to God’s expressed intention for endtime revival. Therefore, it should not be believed or taught.
Yes, many people have claimed that "Vatican II" of the 1960s altered the RCC's stance on things, but Pope Benedict, who was previously head of The Congregation For Doctrine And Faith (which was previously known as the Office of the Inquisition and even convened in the same ancient building where so many forfeited their lives for their faith) affirmed every single previously held doctrine of the RCC, including all writings that bear the stamp of the Imprimatur which means "absolutely no heresy to be found therein". My aforementioned quotes all come from such RCC sources.Isn't that the stance of the RCC today as well????
Just recently, in 2004, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said this:
"It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross."
The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this:
"But to believe that our Lord God the Pope the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical".
You'd see that Jesus died in 27AD if you bother to take into account everything, not just one piece of the puzzle.What matters is what Luke considered to be his 15th year reign, and not what even Tiberius or any others consider it to be. Overwhelming historical/Biblical chronological evidence points to the likelihood that Luke used of the Syro-Macedonian calendar, including his use of it in other places where he reckoned time. Such use would place his 15th year/start of John's ministry at about 27 AD, with Jesus' death 3 1/2 years later.
We agree that the phrase "unto Messiah the Prince" is an event that concludes the 69 week segment of prophetic time. How can His death be that conclusion of the 69 week segment of time if it is clearly spoken of as happening after that 69 week segment of time? The conclusion of a thing can only exist as part of the thing which it concludes and not after the thing has expired. There has not been a movie filmed yet where the conclusion of it takes place 5 minutes after the lights go out and everyone has left the theater. Yet, Futurism somehow demands that the conclusion of the 69 weeks is Jesus' death and that it takes place after the 69 weeks concludes.You'd see that Jesus died in 27AD if you bother to take into account everything, not just one piece of the puzzle.
Even if your assertion was correct, it would STILL prove that the last week began ticking off the clock 13 days prior to His death. How can the 70th week be ripped up and sent down to the end of time when part of that week is firmly rooted in history? Should we stop referring to the "7 years of tribulation" as such and start referring to it as the "6 years, 11 months, and 17 days of tribulation"? Besides, only Luke's reckoning matters and he used the Syro-Macedonian calendar which would make Tiberius' 15th year reign and the year of Jesus' baptism 27 AD, and not the year of His death. You seem to be refusing Luke's likely method of reckoning and allowing some other uninspired writer's method to provide occasion to make 27 AD the year of Jesus' death.I don't know how many times you want me to repeat it... 483 years 13 days after the decree Jesus died... that's after 69 weeks... don't know what more to say but if we get into the meaning of what is is I'm out of here
See now you're picking and choosing verses instead of allowing them all to be placed in order... I didn't discard Luke's account, I included it, but you're using ONLY his account which is why you're wrong. I don't care it's the 70th week happened 2000 years ago or is next year, the last seven years of history are spelled out - whether they're connected to the 69 weeks or not doesn't really matter now does it? No. I'm not the one preaching they're connected, but you're preaching they are not connected. The problem I see with you is you're fixed on altering the prophecy, for whatever reason, so the clock ends at Jesus' baptism and not His death, which is what the prophecy is about. There is so much about the timing of Jesus death that is could ONLY have happened in 27AD, all you have to do is study the Jewish calendar to see that. I had to write a book to show all the nuances in order to show why. Now you can either take the time and read it or just move on because I'm not going to paste 206 pages... people don't even read 2 paragraphs for the most part on this site.Even if your assertion was correct, it would STILL prove that the last week began ticking off the clock 13 days prior to His death. How can the 70th week be ripped up and sent down to the end of time when part of that week is firmly rooted in history? Should we stop referring to the "7 years of tribulation" as such and start referring to it as the "6 years, 11 months, and 17 days of tribulation"? Besides, only Luke's reckoning matters and he used the Syro-Macedonian calendar which would make Tiberius' 15th year reign and the year of Jesus' baptism 27 AD, and not the year of His death. You seem to be refusing Luke's likely method of reckoning and allowing some other uninspired writer's method to provide occasion to make 27 AD the year of Jesus' death.
See now you're picking and choosing verses instead of allowing them all to be placed in order... I didn't discard Luke's account, I included it, but you're using ONLY his account which is why you're wrong. I don't care it's the 70th week happened 2000 years ago or is next year, the last seven years of history are spelled out - whether they're connected to the 69 weeks or not doesn't really matter now does it? No. I'm not the one preaching they're connected, but you're preaching they are not connected. The problem I see with you is you're fixed on altering the prophecy, for whatever reason, so the clock ends at Jesus' baptism and not His death, which is what the prophecy is about. There is so much about the timing of Jesus death that is could ONLY have happened in 27AD, all you have to do is study the Jewish calendar to see that. I had to write a book to show all the nuances in order to show why. Now you can either take the time and read it or just move on because I'm not going to paste 206 pages... people don't even read 2 paragraphs for the most part on this site.
Dear brother, I'm not trying to show that the clock stopped with His baptism, I'm trying to show that the clock didn't stop at all! The 69 weeks ended with His baptism (...unto Messiah the prince) and the 70th week began ticking off the clock immediately afterward when His public ministry began and continued ticking off the clock until it was over. The plot has certainly thickened here LOL.
Hello again, bro! I agree that His birth is not the event which concludes the 69 weeks. And scholars who claim His death is that event ignore simple logic in order to advance Futurism. Why? His death occurs after the conclusion of the 69 weeks (after [7weeks and] threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off). If His death concluded the 69 weeks, then His death would have taken place during the 69 weeks and be the conclusion of the 69 weeks, just as the conclusion of a book, play, or movie is understood to be a part of these, as well. Think about it. If Jesus' death is the conclusion of the 69 weeks, then how is it that Daniel says He is cut off after the 69 weeks has concluded?BUT......if that is the case, then we will have to tear out of the Bible Daniels' words in 9:26...."Shall Messiah be cut off".
The terminus of the 1st 69 weeks was unto the Messiah the Prince in verse 25 indicating some point in His life, NOT His birth because of the chronology involved. This is usually seen as a reference to His entry to Jerusalem. Sometime after the fulfillment of the 483 year period shall Messiah be cut off and "have nothing".
The crucifixion of Christ is what coincides with Daniel's prediction as nearly all Bible scholars agree on. In other word......
the clock did stop with the crucifixion and the 7 years left will be the Tribulation Period.
Hello again, bro! I agree that His birth is not the event which concludes the 69 weeks. And scholars who claim His death is that event ignore simple logic in order to advance Futurism. Why? His death occurs after the conclusion of the 69 weeks (after [7weeks and] threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off). If His death concluded the 69 weeks, then His death would have taken place during the 69 weeks and be the conclusion of the 69 weeks, just as the conclusion of a book, play, or movie is understood to be a part of these, as well. Think about it. If Jesus' death is the conclusion of the 69 weeks, then how is it that Daniel says He is cut off after the 69 weeks has concluded?
The event that concludes the 69 weeks is His baptism, according to Luke 3. Why? We know Luke appealed to the Syro-Macedonian calendar for his reckoning of other chronological events, so we have no reason to believe that Luke would have not done so regarding his reckoning of Tiberius' 15th year reign. And, what year would that be? 27 AD, which is the end of the 69 weeks! After his baptism, His 3 1/2 year ministry commenced as the 70th week commenced, leaving no clock stoppage and no occasion to allow Daniel 9 to be the subject of Futurism's antichrist.
Well, I can not agree with that my brother.
Christ's Triumphal entry into Jerusalem was followed 7 days later with His crucifixion. It is clear to me that Messiah was "cut off" or crucified which began the church age which we live in today. Christ died FOR the church so it stands to reason and logic in addition to the written Word that the Crucifixion of Christ for the sins of man would then begin the Church.
Then to put a lid on this, historical calculations by several well know establishments date Daniel's prophesy of 70 weeks to the exact DAY of Christ's crucifixion.
1. From 3-14-445 B.C. (Decree from Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem). to.....
A. says that Jesus came to Jerusalem and presented Himself as their Messiah.
B. Verse 37 says that His disciples recognized Him as Messiah but the people refused Him (vs. 39-40).
C. Verses 41-44 tells us that Jesus wept over the city and Israel ignored its time of visitation.
D. As a nation they choose to "CUT OFF their Messiah". This cutting off was the rejection and death of Christ.
2. That death has been given and accepted by scholars as April 6, 33 A.D. which is exactly 173,880 days or 483 years exactly as Daniel said!
3. When Israel rejected Christ as their Messiah, one part of God's prophetic clock stopped and He postponed their Kingdom where Messiah would rule and reign.
4. During that time, between the 69th and 70th week God created the Church. It would be made up of Jews and Gentiles to witness and spread the Gospel to the whole world.
Bro, how can you calculate 483 years from 445 BC and arrive at 33 AD? Are you using Common Core math?
Here's how I see it:
(Futurist scholars admit to Luke's affinity for this calendar, but choose to set it aside when reckoning Luke 3 because Futurism cannot possibly survive when this calendar chronicles the 15th year of Tiberius, which is the year of Jesus' baptism, as being 27 AD.)
- Artaxerxes' decree: 457 BC
- Add 483 years: 27 AD
- 27 AD: The year of "unto Messiah the prince" of Daniel 9, when Jesus was "anointed" by the Holy Spirit in dove form in the Jordan River, according to Luke 3 and the use of his favorite calendar, the Syro-Macedonian.
- "Unto Messiah the prince", the event in which our Lord is anointed in the Jordan, is the conclusion of the 69 weeks.
- The 70th week commenced with Jesus coming up out of the water and beginning His public ministry by calling His disciples.
- "After threescore and two (and the seven) weeks, or the 69 weeks, "Messiah (was) cut off but not for Himself" which was during the 70th week, and specifically, was in the midst of the 70th week after 3 1/2 years of ministry.
- "In the midst of the week, He (caused) the sacrifices and oblations to cease" to have any value in the eyes of God when He was crucified.
- No clock stoppage
My brother, please get out your calculator and type in -445 + 483 and tell me what you get. It is NOT 33! Besides, 445 is NOT the year of Artaxerxes' decree, it is 457 BC, which 69 weeks later brings us to 27 AD, the year of His baptism.360 days per year.
7 weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (62 x 7 = 434 years) which total 69 weeks of years. 69 x 7 = 483 Bible years. That is a period of 173,880 days.
Daniel said that after 483 years or 173,880 days, the Messiah would be cut off.
That was fulfilled exactly as Daniel stated when caculated as stated from 3/14/445 BC to 4/6/33 AD.
That is when Jesus entered Jerusalem as their King and was rejected.
The prophecy of Daniel states that the Anointed One (or, in his reference, "Messiah the Prince") would come at the end of 69 (i.e., 7 + 62) weeks of years.
When Jesus came to the city, He wept as he approached it. WHY???? Because most of the people had failed to understand the timing of His coming (Luke 19:41-44), which they should have recognized from Daniel 9:25.
According to the prophecy, after 69 weeks of years (which was on Palm Sunday of Holy Week), the Anointed One would come. Soon after that (a few days later), He would be cut off (crucified).
CLOCK stops!
"In the midst of the week he causes the sacrifices to and oblations to cease."
IMO you have made a grave error. The "he" you keep referring to in Daniel 9:27 as the Messiah IS NOT THE MESSIAH my brother.
The "he" there is a pronoun in the Hebrew and therefore it must refer to its nearest antecedent......"the prince that shall come" which is the Antichrist in verse #26.
Therefore, IMO the correct interpretation is that the beginning of the 70th week happens when the Antichrist makes a peace covenant with the Jews for a seven period .
It is then that the "he", the Antichrist will stand in the temple at the 3 1/2 year mark and break that agreement and "he" causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease., that is put and end to the Jewish worship and declare himself as God!
I know you do not agree with that but I do! That is why I said we are not going to agree because you have some serious interpretational problems in your understanding. I realize that you will say the say thing about my understanding. So there you have it. we will be in disagreement !