Why Daniel's 70th Week does NOT support Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism

Another two individuals that had a large influence in 19th Century futurism was Manuel De Lacunza who in 1812 published a book in
Spanish titled The coming of the Messiah in glory and majesty. The book was published under the pen name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra
He was also a Jesuit and admirer of Ribera's Revelation Commentary. I leave it to others to explain why he didnt use his own name!.

His book was translated into English by Edward Irving who was is credited as being the founder of the Pentecostal Movement.
A copy of his two volume translation can be bought on Amazon

Because he anticipated this nonsense about Jesuits creating Futurism.

It is interesting that people would rather resort to talking about past writers rather than focusing on the Scriptures themselves. The very fact that the Second Coming of Christ has not occurred should be sufficient to establish the validity of Futurism.

BTW those writers you quoted made some good observations based on Scripture.

Because he anticipated this nonsense about Jesuits creating Futurism.

It is interesting that people would rather resort to talking about past writers rather than focusing on the Scriptures themselves. The very fact that the Second Coming of Christ has not occurred should be sufficient to establish the validity of Futurism.

BTW those writers you quoted made some good observations based on Scripture.

Look, if you wanna keep believing that God still needs to see a dead lamb burning on an altar, you go right ahead. I'm not wasting time on such redonkulousness. I assure you Messiah the Prince - Jesus - caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease to have significance forevermore.

In the early 16th century, the "Protestant Reformation" was sweeping all across Europe. The Reformers were teaching a prophetic interpretation called "Protestant Historicism" which identified the Roman Catholic Papacy as the Antichrist - this idea was universally believed and taught throughout the Protestant world from the 16th Century until around the turn of the 20th century in America.

What is Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism?
The Greek "anti-Christos" literally means "take the place of Christ". Since the 6th century, the Papacy has blasphemously claimed to take the place of Christ as the arbiter of Salvation and Mediation and is why the Reformers were able to expose the Papacy as the prophesied Antichrist by sound Biblical exegesis. The resulting mass exodus of Catholics who joined up with the Reformation so devastated the Papacy that by the mid-16th century they desperately turned to the Jesuit Order for help. The "Counter-Reformation" was set in motion which aim was to destroy the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuits were commissioned to produce an alternative interpretation of prophecy which would exonerate the Papacy. Two Jesuit idea emerged:

1) Jesuit Preterism: Jesuit Luiz Alcazar claimed all Bible prophecy had been fulfilled in the 1st century and that the Antichrist had been Emperor Nero or some similar despot. This idea is generally unknown to most Christians.

2) Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism: Jesuit Francisco Ribera claimed Antichrist will be an evil man arising at the end of time during the "last seven years of tribulation", sit in a temple in Jerusalem, broker an Arab/Jew peace treaty, yada yada yada...sound familiar? Jesuit Ribera stole Daniel's 70th week from the OT and sent it down to the end of time as the "last seven years of tribulation". J. N. Darby later added the "Left Behind" secret rapture idea to it and now it seems the entire Protestant world has been swept away with Jesuit ideas. The Papacy essentially told the world, "If you're looking for the Antichrist, look to the past, to the future, ANYWHERE but at us."

I. WHAT IS THE 70 WEEKS PROPHECY?
The 70 Weeks prophecy is a prophetic time period where a prophetic day = a literal year aka the "day/year principle" established by Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6, Luke 13:32, etc. The 70 Weeks (490 days) = 490 literal years.

2) WHAT YEAR DOES THE PROPHECY BEGIN?
Daniel says it begins "...from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem..." While there are three decrees pertaining to this restoration - that of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes - only one is comprehensive enough to satisfy the demands of the 70 Weeks prophecy. Cyrus and Darius merely focused on temple restoration, but the angel Gabriel's words were "...restore and build Jerusalem...the street shall be built, even the wall..." which goes far beyond just temple restoration. Only Artaxerxes' decree covers all this ground. Furthermore, his decree provides for the establishment of a Judiciary and a Constabulary to enforce judicial decrees, as well. According to Ezra 7, Artaxerxes' decree was "in the seventh year reign" which archaeology has proven irrefutably to be 457 B.C. 457 B.C. is our starting point.

3) ARE THE 70 WEEKS DIVIDED INTO EVENT PERIODS?
Yes, the first "7 weeks" pertain to the 49 years that would pass before the street and walls were completed...then follows the period of the "threescore and two weeks" or 62 weeks, which is 434 years that would pass and bring us "unto Messiah the Prince". This refers not to His birth or death, but to His baptism - "Messiah" means "Anointed One" and it's at this time Jesus was anointed in baptism to lay aside His carpenter belt and go forth as the Messiah preaching the kingdom of God is at hand. Daniel's prophecy is clear that the completion of the 69 Weeks would be marked by Jesus' baptism...followed by the events of the 70th week. Jesus' earthly ministry commenced at the start of the 70th week.

4) 457 B.C. MINUS 483 YEARS BRINGS US TO 27 A.D. - IS THIS THE YEAR OF JESUS' BAPTISM?
Yes, Luke 3:21 records Jesus' baptism, and yet Luke 3:1 tells us what year that took place! There was only one year in history that Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, and Herod the Tetrarch reigned simultaneously. According to the Syro-Macedonian calendar -- which was the most commonly used calendar in that region and the one Luke would have used -- the year of that simultaneous reign was 27 A.D. Jesus was baptized at the exact time of the fulfillment of the 69 Weeks and is why He began His ministry by proclaiming, "The time is fulfilled..." which referred to the fulfillment of the 69 Weeks and the beginning of the 70th Week - the week that the Jesuit Ribera hacked out of the OT prophecy and sent down to the end of time as the mythological "last seven years of tribulation".

5) DID JESUS FULFILL ALL THE PREDICTED EVENTS OF THE 70TH WEEK?
Without a doubt, to the letter. The prophecy said Jesus would do the following:

• "finish the transgression" -- the word "transgression" here is the strongest word in the OT for sin and literally means "revolt" or "rebellion". The use of the definite article "the" shows this phrase is not referring to the general rebellion of mankind, but to a specific rebellion. To whom and what does this prophecy pertain? To "thy people and thy holy city." The "transgression" to which this refers is that of the "revolt" and "rebellion" of the Jews; those which God had held in highest esteem and expectation. Messiah would end their transgression either by their acceptance of Him or by bringing and end to their modified theocracy through casting them to the four winds of heaven, which He eventually did.
  
• "make and end of sins" -- Daniel didn't say Jesus would make an end of "sinning" but of sins - by bearing them on the Cross, He "put away sin" by the sacrifice of Himself, according to Hebrews 9:26-28.
  
• "make reconciliation for iniquity" -- "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself..." 2 Corinthians 5:19
  
• "bring in everlasting righteousness" -- By His faithfulness unto death, He is alive evermore as the "Lord of our Righteousness" and, notwithstanding the sinful world around us, we are ever righteous through faith in Him.
  
• "to seal up the vision and prophecy" -- Christ would "seal up" communicating by vision and prophecy with the rebellious Israelites forever for their disobedience and rejection of Him, because "where there is no vision the people perish, but he that keepeth the law, happy is he" (Proverbs 29:18). After the last prophet sent to Israel, Stephen, was rejected and martyred, the Spirit of Prophecy ceased among Israel and commenced with the church.
  
• "to anoint the Most Holy" -- This refers to Christ's commencement of His High Priestly ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The inauguration of the OT sanctuary saw the anointing of the High Priest, as well as the Holy Place and the Most Holy place. This was the case of the Heavenly Sanctuary, after which the earthly was modeled.
  
• "...and AFTER threescore and two weeks Messiah shall be cut off..." -- Jesus' was cut off AFTER the 7 and 62 weeks, which means AFTER the 69 Weeks, which means DURING the 70th! Historic events have already taken place during the 70th Week, which means that week is nailed down solid in past history, and no Jesuit or any other can hack it off and send it down to the end of time!
  
• "...the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy..." -- this refers to either the soldiers of prince Titus which destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. -- OR -- refers to the Jews of Prince Jesus who, through rebellion had caused God's hand of protection to be withdrawn from them, destroyed their own beloved city. No where is the Antichrist seen here. .

The Early Church Fathers were all Historicist. Futurism didn't exist until decades after Protestant Historicism when the Jesuits created it. It's a matter of history.

https://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com...-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/

Perhaps I shouldnt have used the term Futurism. Lacunzas book doesnt support Pre Tribulationalism although efforts have been made to prove he did. That was invented later by the likes of Darby and Scofield. The fact remains that the purpose of both Ribera and Lacunza was to discredit Protestant reformers not to 'make good observations'. If their obsevations were that good they wouldnt have remained Jesuits.

I do focus on scripture but so far the discussion has been on these Jesuit writers. I should add that the focus is more often not on scripture but individual interpretation of isolated text. Often the plain meaning appears to be distinctly unfocused to some. Perhaps
they rely on Joseph Smiths magic glasses.

Well, I will stick by what the Bible says about Jesus and the sacrifices and sacrificial system.

What do you mean by early father not futuris?
Did early Father believe Jesus altpready come?

Jesuit doctrine of pre trib was lie, but it doesn't mean futuris wrong.

All Bible prophecy had been fulfilled in the 1st century. Its why Jesus said "it is finished". Completed the perfect had come with a warning no to add or subtract

if He came in 70AD why are we still practicing communion? ________________

Jesuit Futurism insists a future rebuilt Jewish temple in which blasphemous sacrifices will be offered is what God meant by "temple of God" rather than believing what God has identified the only temple He left to His people, the church.

None of the Early Church Fathers believed Antichrist would arise at the end of time. Please listen closely, friend:

Every single ECF who had anything to say about it said Antichrist would arise right after the fall of the Roman Empire, NOT THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER at the end of time. Let that sink in for a minute.

Historic tradition says that despite being thrown to the lions, burned at stake, hunted like wild animals, etc., the early church actually PRAYED for the continuation of the Roman Empire, because they knew from the OT and NT Scriptures that as soon as Rome fell, a far worse system would arise in the midst of the church and make Rome's persecution of the faithful look like child's play....

None of the Early Church Fathers believed Antichrist would arise at the end of time. Please listen closely, friend:

Every single ECF who had anything to say about it said Antichrist would arise right after the fall of the Roman Empire, NOT THOUSANDS OF YEARS LATER at the end of time. Let that sink in for a minute.

Historic tradition says that despite being thrown to the lions, burned at stake, hunted like wild animals, etc., the early church actually PRAYED for the continuation of the Roman Empire, because they knew from the OT and NT Scriptures that as soon as Rome fell, a far worse system would arise in the midst of the church and make Rome's persecution of the faithful look like child's play...they would even seek to dethrone Jesus as our Lord, Savior, and High Priest. The Papacy arose on the heels of the fallen Roman Empire and fulfilled the prophecies to the letter as the predicted Antichrist system.

This is all correct, that the Roman Pontiff is the anti-Christ.

But then this would have to mean that the temple of God which Paul talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2 would have to be the Vatican, or more precisely Old St. Peters Basilica (until it was replaced by St. Peter Basilica).

So this temple which Paul talks about exists now, it exists in Rome/Vatican. What you say?

if He came in 70AD why are we still practicing communion? ________________

None of the Early Church Fathers believed Antichrist would arise at the end of time.

Daniel 7 says the kingdom that Preterists insist is in the here and now is not handed over to the saints until after Judgment Day. If Judgment Day already happened, how come the Democrat Party is still in power?

P.S. - Jesuit Preterism is a false 16th century idea from Jesuit Luiz Alcazar...please google it.

There's a progression from stone to flesh in the relationship between the Almighty and man.

In (what we call) the OT, the law was written on stone tablets...the temple was made of hewn stone...the city was a grouping of stone houses.

But as we know, all of these things were shadows; forms of the true version.

So in (what we call) the NT, the law was written on tablets of flesh...each believer is a living stone, with the chief cornerstone (and capstone) of that temple being the messiah...and the city becomes the congregation.

The prophecy says that a man of sin will sit in the temple of the Almighty proclaiming he is god...and at the same time this very same prophecy speaks about a "falling away" of believers from the true faith. These two events are purposely linked.

The issue is about who believers allow to mediate between them and the Almighty, as the heart is the true throne and the body is the true temple. Who do people believe is their true mediator?

One who considers himself our mediator in place of the Messiah usurps our true mediator and make himself anti-christ. The Greek preposition "Anti" means "instead of", "substitute", or "in place of".

So it's not about where the papacy physically lives or where his stone residence is. It's about him claiming he is "god in the flesh" and "christ vicariously", outlawing the ownership of bibles and requiring that all had to go through him/them for the forgiveness of sins.

This wasn't/isn't a small thing. This was/is utter blasphemy of the highest order.

This is all correct, that the Roman Pontiff is the anti-Christ.

But then this would have to mean that the temple of God which Paul talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2 would have to be the Vatican, or more precisely Old St. Peters Basilica (until it was replaced by St. Peter Basilica). So this temple which Paul talks about exists now, it exists in Rome/Vatican. What you say?