Bible Scavenger Hunt

[1689Dave]

Here's Larkin's gap between the 69th and 70th week for any interested. Again, no direct quote from scripture supports this. (I broke it into paragraphs for easier reading.)

“While there was no break between the “Seven Weeks” and the “Threescore and Two Weeks,” there is a break between the “Sixty ninth” and “Seventieth Week,” in which several things were to happen.


First we read that “Messiah Was to Be Cut Off, But Not for Himself.” This refers to Christ’s rejection and crucifixion. He died for others. Then we read that the people of the “Prince That Shall Come” shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary. Note that it does not say that the “Prince” will destroy the City and Sanctuary, but the People of the Prince. The people who destroyed the City of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70 were the Romans, therefore the “Prince (Antichrist) must be a Roman Citizen.


This does not mean that he cannot be a Syrian Jew, for Syria will then be a part of the revived Roman Empire, and Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen as well as a Jew. We are then told that the desolation of the land of Palestine shall continue until the “End of the War” (probably Armageddon). As this “desolation” still continues we see that the “GAP” between the “Sixty ninth” and “Seventieth Week” takes in the whole of this PRESENT DISPENSATION.” Dispensational Truth, p. 71 Clarence Larkin.

 

[church mouse guy]

Luke interprets Matthew for us. They both speak of the same events. Jesus said "whoso readeth, let him understand". Luke provided the understanding for us.

I've already posted too much on this but let me ask you again about what Daniel said. You yourself quote Jesus as saying, "“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,...."

Now we know the Roman army was in Israel to rape, murder, destroy, steal, and enslave. They razed the Temple. So Jesus said to look out for the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, according to your quotation. Jesus said that that was what Daniel was talking about. So did the Romans do that, and if so, which one of them?

 

[1689Dave]

I've already posted too much on this but let me ask you again about what Daniel said. You yourself quote Jesus as saying, "“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,...."

Now we know the Roman army was in Israel to rape, murder, destroy, steal, and enslave. They razed the Temple. So Jesus said to look out for the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, according to your quotation. Jesus said that that was what Daniel was talking about. So did the Romans do that, and if so, which one of them?

The abomination of desolation = Jerusalem surrounded by armies according to Luke. Now, beyond that, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus (the Abomination of Desolation).

Destroying the temple as the Romans did in 70 AD is far worse than sacrificing a pig on the alter as Antiochus did. Again, if we use scripture to interpret scripture, Luke solves this for us.

 

[church mouse guy]

The abomination of desolation = Jerusalem surrounded by armies according to Luke. Now, beyond that, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus (the Abomination of Desolation).

Destroying the temple as the Romans did in 70 AD is far worse than sacrificing a pig on the alter as Antiochus did. Again, if we use scripture to interpret scripture, Luke solves this for us.

So Jesus was mixed up because He told people to watch out for something that happened 400 years before and when Jesus was talking about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (the Holy of Holies), Jesus was just plain wrong because no Roman ever did that in 70 AD?

 

[1689Dave]

So Jesus was mixed up because He told people to watch out for something that happened 400 years before and when Jesus was talking about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (the Holy of Holies), Jesus was just plain wrong because no Roman ever did that in 70 AD?

If you use scripture to interpret scripture, you're on safe ground. And Luke tells us what Jesus means by "Abomination of desolation". But you are making Jesus out to be Antichrist and robbing God of his glory in fulfilling Daniel's 70 weeks on time and on schedule to say otherwise.

 

[church mouse guy]

If you use scripture to interpret scripture, you're on safe ground. And Luke tells us what Jesus means by "Abomination of desolation". But you are making Jesus out to be Antichrist and robbing God of his glory in fulfilling Daniel's 70 weeks on time and on schedule to say otherwise.

Actually, Jesus defined abomination of desolation as going into the holy place and you yourself quoted it. Now you are saying that Luke is more authoritative than Jesus.

So when exactly did the Romans do this:

Daniel 9:27 (KJV) 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.

Anyway, Jesus was talking about the Blessed Hope, which you ignore:

Matthew 24:15-27 (KJV) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[1689Dave]

Actually, Jesus defined abomination of desolation as going into the holy place and you yourself quoted it. Now you are saying that Luke is more authoritative than Jesus.

So when exactly did the Romans do this:

Daniel 9:27 (KJV) 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.

Anyway, Jesus was talking about the Blessed Hope, which you ignore:

Matthew 24:15-27 (KJV) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke interprets Jesus for us. I believe Jesus used Antiochus as a symbol of the desolation. Because: Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:27 when he died on the cross in the middle of the 70th week. History verifies the fulfillment. This should be enough to prove the Jesuits wrong, ruling out any future interpretation assigning the role to Antichrist..

Also consider that when Jesus returns they will be marrying and giving in marriage = Zero Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation happened when Jesus said it would, in 70 AD.

Also Jesus said referring to the great tribulation “for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.” (Matthew 24:21) =

 

[church mouse guy]

So you don't think that the anti-Christ will be some Brit like Sadiq Khan or Jeremy Corbyn?

 

[1689Dave]

So you don't think that the anti-Christ will be some Brit like Sadiq Khan or Jeremy Corbyn?

Antichrist was already present in John's day. And Paul's man of sin easily fits Nero and the Papacy. Many Reformed Creeds identify the Papacy as Antichrist. Luther and Calvin both included Islam too.

If you begin with direct quotes from scripture and build from there, it all comes together. If you begin with an idea, and look for scripture to support it (Jesuits view of Daniel 9) all of your supporting texts will be twisted in order to make it come out.

 

[1689Dave]

• 4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I [saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
• 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

It sure looks like a "millennial kingdom" to me, what with all of the talk about reigning with Christ for a thousand years and all.
I await your "proper" exegesis to enlighten me.

But, Satan attacks the kingdom when the 1000 years end = the 1000 years are not the kingdom.

 

[Covenanter]

Does scripture directly support any of today’s most popular doctrines?

The 7 year tribulation?

The pre-trib rapture?

The restored Roman Empire?

The rebuilt Temple?

The return to animal sacrifices?

Russia marching on Israel?

A Gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks?

I did a search on the thread for the obvious answer & got the expected result -
Uh oh! Unfortunately, we couldn't find any results for scofield.

So, NOBODY accused or mentioned Scofield as the originator/promoter of these doctrines.

NOBODY is of course absolutely correct.

In the early years of the 20th century, there were massive attacks on the truth & authority of Scripture, particularly from the German "higher criticism" movement & the Darwinian evolution teaching & other "scientific" attacks aimed at discrediting Scripture.

Scofield came out in support of the inerrancy & authority of Scripture. His one-volume commentary was accepted by the Bible colleges & I understand was free issue to students in the days when multi-volume commentaries were in libraries rather then on students' book shelves. This coincided with the WW1 which freed the Middle East from the Turkish Ottoman Empire & gave support for the rise in Zionism, also supported by the British Balfour Declaration.

The Fundamentalist movement seized on Scofield for support for the truth of Scripture & his teachings became fundamentalist orthodoxy, to such an extent that his doctrines are taught without reference to the source.

 

[1689Dave]

Scofield was the pack mule delivering these doctrines. But Larkin (Gap Heavyweight) says the Jesuits came up with the Gap to divert attention away from the Papacy as being the Antichrist in Reformed writings.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[church mouse guy]

What I don't understand about Fundamentalism--I was raised in Campbellism--is the link to Pentecostalism from Darby?

 

[1689Dave]

What I don't understand about Fundamentalism--I was raised in Campbellism--is the link to Pentecostalism from Darby?

I believe the Pentecostal Irvingites (Margaret MacDonald's visions) were instrumental in the pre-trib rapture theory. But it all goes back to the Jesuits.

 

[church mouse guy]

Scofield was the pack mule delivering these doctrines. But Larkin (Gap Heavyweight) says the Jesuits came up with the Gap to divert attention away from the Papacy as being the Antichrist in Reformed writings.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

Pope Leo X was a very evil man and calling him The anti-Christ proves that the Reformation thought that the anti-Christ was yet to come. He might be the head of the EU.

 

[church mouse guy]

I believe the Pentecostal Irvingites (Margaret MacDonald's visions) were instrumental in the pre-trib rapture theory. But it all goes back to the Jesuits.

I am talking about pre-trib. The Jesuit theory is today's preterism if you ask me.

 

[1689Dave]

I am talking about pre-trib. The Jesuit theory is today's preterism if you ask me.

This is correct. But Larkin says futurism is also of Jesuit origins. Read his quotes above.

 

[1689Dave]

Pope Leo X was a very evil man and calling him The anti-Christ proves that the Reformation thought that the anti-Christ was yet to come. He might be the head of the EU.

Many of the Reformed Creeds ID the Papacy as Antichrist. Luther and Calvin also included Islam.

 

[church mouse guy]

This is correct. But Larkin says futurism is also of Jesuit origins. Read his quotes above.

How could Luther have subscribed to a Jesuit theory that came after him that was constructed to take the heat off the awful Popes?

 

[atpollard]

I said:

• 4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I [saw] the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
• 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

It sure looks like a "millennial kingdom" to me, what with all of the talk about reigning with Christ for a thousand years and all.
I await your "proper" exegesis to enlighten me.

You responded:

But, Satan attacks the kingdom when the 1000 years end = the 1000 years are not the kingdom.

First Observation:
I was waiting for your "exegesis" of the verses claiming people will "reign with Him (Christ) for a thousand years" as somehow not meaning a "Millennial Kingdom". Your response is hardly an exegesis. Good grief, man ... it says in plain English that people will reign with Christ (very DEFINITION of a "kingdom") and that this will last 1000 years (the definition of a Millennium). You can argue that the "Millennial Kingdom" will not be as it is described in popular literature, but the existence of a Biblical claim of a "Millennial Kingdom" (the 1000 year reign of Christ) is obvious and irrefutable.

Second Observation:
Your refutation of the 1000 year reign of Christ being a Millennial Kingdom is the simple statement "Satan attacks the kingdom when the 1000 years end". Would this be the event that you are referring to:

[Revelation 19:11-21 NKJV]
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes [were] like a flame of fire, and on His head [were] many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He [was] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on [His] robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, "Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 "that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all [people], free and slave, both small and great."
19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

[Revelation 20:7-10 NKJV]
7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number [is] as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet [are]. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

In this "attack" (as you call it), the enemies of God gather to make war (Rev 19:19), then the beast and false prophet are captured and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20), and then Jesus kills the rest of the enemy army all by himself (Rev 19:21) and the birds feast on their corpses. That isn't really much of an attack, is it? Evil shows up and God handles it while the Church cheers God on! Not too different from salvation, if you think about it.

So what exactly is it about this afternoon distraction that nullifies the previous 1000 years of Christ reigning (Rev 20:4-6)?