I was born again in the reading of the Scriptures where I didn't see anything relating to this notion there.
Very true..
Many think they are following the word of God, when its that of man and his ideas. Need to study what God gives us..
You can listen to them, but you must be like the bereans who scoured and searched the scriptures to see if what was being taught/spoken was in line with scripture. If not, then we wouldn't have Paul's writings in scripture. One must exercise discernment.
There is no proof that it is false. When the evidence against has been shown to be lies, that doesn't leave much to say that it is false. However, if you read the early fathers, they only speak of the last 3 1/2 years, so the better question is, what is the first 3 1/.2 years? I could only say that it is apparently believed that persecution of the church is considered tribulation, and many people seem to believe that the church, perhaps because they consider themselves apart, will somehow avoid persecution. However, there is a major difference between persecution, and the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of which is great enough to make it Earth: population ZERO, if the time wasn't shortened. The early fathers, when speaking of this, put it as the last 3 1/2 years.
Preterists who have their own error and deceptions from the Jesuits and the Catholic Church. (Little know fact: Preterism didn't become mainstream in the United States until the 1970s. Long after Darby.)
It isn't so much taht it is a relatively recent development, but it is a different way of considering it. I don't know if it has its roots in the 19th century, but Darby certainly popularized it. In fact, it was before preterism entered the US, and even long before preterism had any level of popularity, followers in the US.
Their beliefs are rooted in scripture. I would say that yours are rooted in the mind of some Jesuit. (That is where preterism came from after all. The things found in preterism are foreign to the first half (or more) of church history. Premillennialism is present from the beginning, with amillennialism (non-preterist) coming in after Augustine had a break with the premillennialists. (chiliasts.) There is a seven year period that is called the tribulation. But one has to consider terms. Many people today consider any actual persecution against the church (the serious kind) will mark the tribulaion, and they don't want to face it. So... pre-trib rapture. Prior to Darby, it was all what we would call, mid-trib. Basically, the rapture will happen around the time that the antichrist is unveiled before the world, and God begins to dump the vats of His vengeful wrath upon the world. So perhaps a pre-wrath rapture?
Wait. Morgan Edwards wrote about it in 1744, and published in 1788.
THis is where you are wrong. It isn't a misinterpretation of Daniel 9. It may be a wrong belief, but it isn't because of a misinterpretation of Daniel 9. They believe there will be seven years of heavy persecution, and don't consider that even some of the early church fathers placed the "Great Tribulation" of Jesus as the last 3 1/2 years of the 70th week.) As far as the rebuilding of the temple and all of that, you can find that in the Pseudo Ephraem from around the 4th-6th century. There is actually a pretty good explanation in it. (I read the whole thing.)
Why does everyone ignore the first verse? Verse 24. There are seventy weeks. Very good. What are these 70 weeks about? Well, they are determined upon thy people and thy holy city. Ah, so this time period relates to that. Is that like when they say there is this much time allotted to a ball game to determine a victor, and that time includes overtime, and any delays that cause a pause? (Such as a rain delay, so the rest of the time allotted to the event has to happen another day?) Yeah. Just like that. Quickly:
There is debate, but it is very well established that one week equals 7 years.
The 1 week could not have started until AFTER "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". That happened in 70 AD, so you are off in that way. However, if the city and the sanctuary are destroyed, that is like a rain delay in sports. The time is paused until the requirements to continue are met. 1. It stops raining. 2. The time established by the powers that be for when the time will continue.
Wait a minute. There is something about a covenant (of peace) being made. If Jesus came to bring a sword and not peace, how does that fit in?
Actually, this event is when the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 62nd week, not the middle of the 70th week. You would think that Daniel would have placed the Messiah being cut off at the middle of the week if this is what he meant.
What you are missing is that the timer stopped when the Jews rejected Jesus and Jesus was cut off. This is why Daniel changes language at this point. He shows no space between the 7 weeks and the 62, but he builds a huge amount of time in before the 70th week. The Messiah is cut off not during the 70th week, but after the 62. We are still talking after the 62 and not in the "week" when the people of the prince to come destroy the holy city and the sanctuary. There is still more mentioned after this. This is all before the "week". Why? God's affection, God's attention left the Jews and Israel after their rejection. A rain delay on the time alotted to Israel. That rain delay doesn't cease until after Israel is a nation again with a holy city, the sanctuary is rebuilt, etc. And then God is the "power that be" that decides when the attention moves from the Gentiles and back onto the Jews for the final period, the final few minutes, the last week of the game. (If you can follow the allegory.)
Because the early church fathers did.
So Jesus is a violator/breaker of covenants. Understood. I'm surprised you didn't understand that the point being made is that there will be a covenant for a week, but the one who strengthens it will violate/break it. Did Jesus come to Earth to strengthen the Old Covenant with many. (That would technically include Gentiles. Yet, perhaps because people would make this mistake in the future, God threw in the encounter between Jesus and the Cushite woman, where Jesus makes His mission clear. He has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He didn't come to the Gentiles.) Even Jesus shows the division, when later "another flock that isn't His" is brought up. Why isn't it His? It isn't of the house of Israel, it's the Gentiles.
So the covenant made between Jacob and Laban was nothing? Covenants were made all the time. We still make them today. Of course, we call them treaties and accords, but they are still covenants.
This is where you misinterpret scripture. The covenant made with the many keeps religion and religious practices in place to keep the peace. It is a covenant of peace. Half way through, the covenant is violated when religious practice is forcibly ceased. So 3 1/2 years of peace, sacrifices, etc. 3 1/2 years of the person strengthening/making the covenant throwing about abominations. (That somehow doesn't sound like Jesus.) "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate". That also doesn't sound like peace.
Sure. Just like a football game is defined as a single block of time. However, there can be rain delays or other things that has the game start one day, and finish next month. I mean, even Gabriel split it up into three parts.
It wasn't called the 70th week. It was called "the week". The other two blocks are called by name. The last week was not. There is something VERY DIFFERENT about that last week.
See, that is where you are wrong. The passage starts specifically with a group of people/city covered by the 70 weeks, and it covers how it will be AFTER the 70 weeks are over. The time can be delayed, especially if the focus of events planned for these people and holy city, shifts to another group of people. At that point, there is a delay of game, until the focus shifts back. Even though one could say that game lasted a month, the actual game time was still only a few hours.
The focus of the prophecy is give in the very first verse. 70 weeks set aside for thy people and thy holy city to see certain things through. The focus is not the Messiah, the focus is not the antichrist, the focus is "thy people and thy holy city".
Actually, in the original language, a covenant was strengthened, not made. And it doesn't say that it was in the midst of the week, but the beginning of the week. It is what marks the beginning of the week. Half way through the week, this covenant is violated/broken.
Some believe that means the covenant does not include all the tribes of Israel.
Yet sacrifices continued until the sanctuary was destroyed. And if the temple were to be rebuilt (which, as things are going right now is quite possible) your interpretation goes "poof". Why? Because they are already prepared to start sacrificing again once the temple is rebuilt. One sacrifice happens, and your understanding is wrong. (Considering the sacrifices started again a few centuries later, and then lasted a few decades should have been enough.)
Since Jesus and the apostles (according to some) solidified the septuagint, here is what it says "27And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation." What is the desolation being put to an end. That which is from the abomination of desolations. The church fathers (some) taught this is when the antichrist declares himself to be the only god in the temple. So, at the end of time, this antichrist shall be put to an end, and thus the desolation caused by him will be put to an end.
Yet, this can't be because the sanctuary and the holy city have not been destroyed. That happened in 70 AD, and is here, written in plain english in the prophecy, and shown to occur at the end of the 69th week, prior to the 70th week.
That isn't what caused the gospel to go to the Gentiles. It was the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews that caused the gospel to go to the Gentiles. You should read Romans more. Paul is pretty clear on the order of events.
I really hate it when people add to the Bible.
Apparently you have not considered the plans Titus had for the temple that truly would have been an abomination of desolation, if God didn't have the temple destroyed first.
There can be/is a 7 year tribulation at the end of the world, spoke of to the churches at the beginning of Revelation. However, it doesn't say that they will avoid the persecution, just the hour of testing, or the judgement that comes upon the world. So, the more supported view appears to be a mid-trib rapture.
If the apostles didn't teach it (and they don't), indeed it does.
There is also this thread pertaining to the time of Noah.
So do tell, just how does God shield the church and His children from His vengeful wrath? The rapture (I would rather say, pre-Great Tribulation) is one of the methods that has been present in the church since at least the 4th/5th century, and those in the early church who mentioned any kind of gathering and removal, always mentioned Paul and Thessalonians. It isn't a new thing, though it is a new way of looking at it. The first time we see anything like "the rapture", that is, we see God taking action to shield HIs people/children from His wrath, is actually with the Israelites in Egypt. God put a separation between Goshen and Egypt, that while God's wrath was on display in Egypt, life was normal in Goshen. I believe another church father used this in explaining God separating the church from the events of the tribulation. (Again, the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of, not simple persecution.) Pre-millennialism is a belief that first started in the first/second century church. There were a few well known premillennialists at the time with Polycarp (disciple of John the apostle), Papias (student of Polycarp), Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc
This is where one must make a decision of what "God's wrath" is that the church (ie. believers) are kept from.
Does not address the NT apostolic teaching above authoritative to the church, and with which all interpretations of prophecy must agree.
That is not the wrath that comes upon the world prior to its destruction. The seven bowls of God's wrath. The second death is PUNISHMENT. There is not wrath in death, only torment. God isn't speanding His time after the end of the world visiting wrath upon people who are already facing their earned punishment.
Are you not coming against what you call a false dichotomy with one of your own? There is not a person alive who does not bring presuppositions into their interpretations. That does not mean none of them are right. They could all be wrong, and I suspect, when it comes to eschatology---the doctrine of last things and it reductionism in many circles to the book of Revelation, all views fall short of being perfect.
AMEN!
Back to this again. Numbers 12:8 is telling Miriam that anyone they chose to lead instead of Moses would only get riddles from God. God would only deal with Moses.
The early church was not amillennial until Augustine, as he was the one who came up with amillennialism. Prior, he was with the chiliasts, who were premillennialists. They had a falling out because Augustine believed in austerity, and the chiliasts were throwing garish parties because they believed Jesus second coming was at the door. They believed that Jesus would return after 6000 years (I believe, it may be 7000), with the millennium being a thousand years, and an analog to the seventh day that God rested. The accepted chronology for how many years after creation Jesus was born, put this at/near the time of Augustine. Prior to Augustine you were a premillennialist, or a heretic. (The other belief at the time was an eschatology based on gnosticism. There was going to be no physical second coming of Jesus, because Jesus didn't physically come to Earth the first time. This is because the flesh is evil, and anything dealing with flesh is evil. Therefore God would never come to Earth in the flesh. Some early premillennialists were Polycarp (disciple of the apostle John), Papias (student of Polycarp), Ignatius (another disciple of John), and Irenaeus (another student of Polycarp I believe.) If you want to read a martyrdom story that moves the heart, read about Polycarp's martyrdom.
