The gap in the 70 weeks is not absurd

[_Sean]

I put a gap there because it is allowable and it makes logical sense considering the age of the church following the resurrection of Chirst in which Israel is no longer exclusively dealt with by God. Preterism changes the meaning of the word "cease" to fit their agenda.

You believe the gap goes there because you were told it was there. How do you suppose it was ever discovered if the bible doesn't say so?

Remember our discussion about tithing? You said to show you where it said tithing ended?

Show me were it says there is a gap. Show me were it says "he" is the antichirst, when there is no mention of this anywere in the context.

No, it isn't what's in view. If so why would it say he causes the sacrifices to cease. Jesus didn't do that. You find references of temple sacrifices in the book of Acts so it did not cease. The fact that the sacrifices were no longer God's way of covering sin because of Jesus' perfect sacrifice did not make the vast majority of Jews stop offering sacrifices. You are changing the meaning of a word when you say that.

This is one I would like you to answer Aaron,
In our tithing discussions you said we have to tithe but not offer sacrifices. When I asked you where you get the idea that we don't have to offer sacrifices you quoted Hebrews 10 to prove the ceasing of sacrifices.

Amazingly, now you quote the same passage to prove animal sacrifices did not cease!

Which is it Aaron, do we need to offer animal sacrifices or not?

If Jesus became our high priest and replaced the sacrificial system by changing the law (as Hebrews says) and offering HIMSELF as a once for all sacrifice, then what validity would there have been in the continuation of the sacrifices made by the Jews?

On the one hand you say we don't have to offer animal sacrifices because Jesus fulfilled that requirement. On the other hand you say that Jesus didn't put an end to sacrifice and offering because they were still offered.

"sacrifice and offering" refer to the whole sacrificial system.

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins...

Following that logic, you might as well say that Jesus can't be the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world because sin still exists! How can it be said that Jesus saves His people from their sins if there is still sin?

In the same sense that Jesus took away the sins of the world, He also put and end to sacrifice and offering. You said so yourself in the tithing thread and then say that Steve changes his interpretation to suit his preferences. Interesting.

The bottom line is that dispensationalism is something you get by being taught it. You don't get it by reading the text. You get it by importing a lot of specific details that aren't in the bible at all. Like a "gap" in Daniel 9 corresponding with a supposed church age, were church is defined other than the bible defines it (Eph 2-3).

[_Sean]

An interesting read on Daniel 9 and Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke21 can be found here: http://www.historicist.com/mauro/

It's a book called: The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation

[Guest]

Aaron,

Did you read my last question? Do you believe Ezekiel 40-48, a picture of a temple with sacrifices, is yet future?

Thanks,
JD

[Guest]

Hey Aarondisney..Check out Dr. Thomas Ice intelligent view of the whoe idea...its smokin hot bro...

http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=10


Maranatha

Crusader

Thank you Crusader.

I'll be sure and check that out. These Steve Gregg cronies would do good to check it out as well. I actually got tangled up in this garbage until I started researching the dispensational understanding of it and began to realizt that the Steve Gregg Mavericks on here are just wanting to be different and cannot accept that their position is non-sense. Gregg is smooth with his explanations but they are really just his way of trying to stand out.

JD,
what I was saying is that the sacrifices (obviously) did not cease until 70 AD. You all want to make the clear understanding of the word "cease" mean something else. You guys have fun wasting your time with foolish false Steve Gregg doctrine. That's fine. I can't wait to dig into some Tommy Ice teaching.

Thanks again Crusader

[Guest]

These Steve Gregg cronies would do good to check it out as well. I actually got tangled up in this garbage until I started researching the dispensational understanding of it and began to realizt that the Steve Gregg Mavericks on here are just wanting to be different and cannot accept that their position is non-sense. Gregg is smooth with his explanations but they are really just his way of trying to stand out.

I would advise caution in attempting to ascertain why Steve or his "cronies" are not dispensational. Only God knows the heart.

Secondly, you assume that many on this forum believe what they do because Steve told them too. Could it be that we've searched (and are still searching) the Scriptures for what God has to say and our consciences have led us to similar conclusions? Remember, we could easily label you a "crony" of Thomas Ice, Hal Lindsey or your pastor but that is easier and less honorable than discussing the Scriptures at hand.

Responses to your original objection:
1)

I thought I already answered Crusader on this one. The 69 1/2 week Jesus is crucified. 3 1/2 years (half a "week") go by were God deal directly with Israel. When the final week passes, Peter is given his vision and Paul/Saul is converted. This best explains the gap of time were only Jews were converted in the early part of Acts and there was only the Jerusalem Church. When the 70th week expired, it was not longer Jews only that were offered enterance into the Church. It was "first to the Jew, then to the Gentile".

2) Even if there is a 40 year gap (I think the above response is more plausible), it does much less violence to the original text than does a 2000+ year gap.

All:
Finally, remember - This is a secondary issue between Christians. Beware of arrogance!

[Guest]

Schoel,
If there is a 40 year gap, that's still a gap and you guys are saying there can be no gap. However without that 40 year gap you have to make cease mean "become powerless". That's not the same thing. They either ceased or they didn't - they didn't until 70AD. So in my understanding you have to fit 70 AD into the 70 weeks and it doesn't work.

Plus, when they finally did cease, that was when God was dealing with the Church and not exclusively Israel, so that doesn't make sense either.

To me dispensationalism is the only logical way to view it.

[Guest]

If there is a 40 year gap, that's still a gap and you guys are saying there can be no gap. However without that 40 year gap you have to make cease mean "become powerless". That's not the same thing. They either ceased or they didn't - they didn't until 70AD. So in my understanding you have to fit 70 AD into the 70 weeks and it doesn't work.

It could very well mean powerless in fact that is the likely meaning. If you think about it sacrifices continued after 70AD did'nt they. Muslims did animal sacrifices and Aztec indians did them in the 1300s and many other pagans still performed them as well as possibly some jews in secret.
So from God's point of view the sacrifices did cease because they became powerless because it became outside His covenant and an abomination to Him.
In God's eyes Christ's sacrifice was the final sacrifice.

[_djeaton]

These Steve Gregg cronies would do good to check it out as well. I actually got tangled up in this garbage until I started researching the dispensational understanding of it and began to realizt that the Steve Gregg Mavericks on here are just wanting to be different and cannot accept that their position is non-sense. Gregg is smooth with his explanations but they are really just his way of trying to stand out.

I may be out of line here, as a very new member of this forum, but can we stop with the ad-hominem attacks? I've just started listening to Steve's lectures and have found them to be very even-handed on the treatment on other interpretations. I think that it is quite natural, some would even suggest gnostic, for us to come across some new truth or understanding of something that everyone else doesn't "get" and want to hold on to it. The problem is that as more and more people join the new interpretation, it becomes the norm. And the people that feel special because they have it all figured out and were original in thinking outside the box are now in the box of what is the norm and casting dispersions on those that are "mavericks" and are now thinking outside the box. They don't realize that it was the very "maverick" mindset that got them to where they are today. If Darby had not been a "maverick" with the desire to share his "different" views, where would we be today? Would there even be a "box"?
D.

[Guest]

It is obvious that it isn't talking about Muslim sacrifices or whatever. He is speaking about Daniel's people.
This person will put an end to the sacrifices....

Here are some other things that are said to "cease" from the Bible......

Ps 46:9
9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
(KJV)

Prov 18:18
18 The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.
(KJV)

Isa 16:10
10 And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease.
(KJV)


Josh 5:12
12 And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.
(KJV)

Josh 22:25
25 For the LORD hath made Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and children of Gad; ye have no part in the LORD: so shall your children make our children cease from fearing the LORD.
(KJV)

2 Chr 16:5
5 And it came to pass, when Baasha heard it, that he left off building of Ramah, and let his work cease.
(KJV)

Neh 4:11
11 And our adversaries said, They shall not know, neither see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease.
(KJV)

^^^all from the same word.......
shabath (shaw-bath')

In which of these instances does it not mean to put to an end?

[_djeaton]

If there is a 40 year gap, that's still a gap and you guys are saying there can be no gap. However without that 40 year gap you have to make cease mean "become powerless". That's not the same thing. They either ceased or they didn't - they didn't until 70AD. So in my understanding you have to fit 70 AD into the 70 weeks and it doesn't work.

This may seem to be out in left field, but bear with me. Another thread came to mind. Jonah prophesied that God was going to destroy Nineveh. He didn't. Did this make Jonah a false prophet? God has a history of withholding judgement when men repent. As Sean posted, If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7 - 8 ) Could it be that as long as Jews were accepting Christ, God withheld His judgement? There is also a history of God taking the prayers of the saints into account. Could God have been withholding judgement because of the fervent prayers of a righteous man? I don't know preterism well enough to know if this "fits" or not, and have not seen it addressed anywhere else, so I just offer it as an idea that could explain a possible delay.
D.