Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
[Enoch]No you are not willing to learn or be corrected! As is true for all those who refuse to allow the Bible to show them the truth.
That's judgmentalism. All I can do is tell you I'm willing to be corrected, and am seeking more proof that a "future" interpretation of Daniel's 70th Week existed *all through Christian history?*
Rather than divert this discussion into something personal, why don't you deal with this question?
[Enoch]
I showed you from Scripture why the Gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is a divine necessity. And you continue to post this garbage about Francisco Ribera. And then add "Catholic" for good measure, as though Catholics are never able to grasp Bible truth.
You are reading info into my post that I *did not say,* nor did I even infer it. I as a habit rely on a lot of Catholic material, despite the fact I am a Protestant. There is no necessary "gap" between the 69th and the 70th weeks. That is irrational, in my opinion. But to say it is a "divine necessity" goes over the top! Now you're turning a reasonable discussion into a mandate from God with you being the prophet?
[Enoch]
The fact of the matter is that the Protestant Reformers continued to teach the false doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding Bible prophecy. But Ribera actually studied the Bible and exposed the falsity of your beliefs. Here is what he proposed, which is totally scriptural:
"Then, he proposed,the antichrist, a single individual, would:
Apologize for what? I didn't address those things--I was addressing the "Gap" notion regarding the 69th and 70th Weeks! ;)
I never said I had a problem with Catholic Ribera--*you* said that! My problem with him is that he proposed this "Gap" theory of Daniel's 70th Weeks. I don't even have the book--I wish I did!
I'm fully on board with his Futurism. I don't agree with my fellow Protestants in history who believed the Catholic Church was THE Antichrist--the Antichrist was, as yet, future in that time!
I am indeed a futurist, just as Ribera was. And I'm thankful for his contribution. I'm also grateful for Darby's contribution to the future hope of Israel. And yet, I would criticize his Pretrib doctrine, as well. I can chew gum and walk at the same time. I can criticize somebody and like some things they said at the same time.
That's judgmentalism. All I can do is tell you I'm willing to be corrected, and am seeking more proof that a "future" interpretation of Daniel's 70th Week existed *all through Christian history?*
Rather than divert this discussion into something personal, why don't you deal with this question?
[Enoch]
I showed you from Scripture why the Gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is a divine necessity. And you continue to post this garbage about Francisco Ribera. And then add "Catholic" for good measure, as though Catholics are never able to grasp Bible truth.
You are reading info into my post that I *did not say,* nor did I even infer it. I as a habit rely on a lot of Catholic material, despite the fact I am a Protestant. There is no necessary "gap" between the 69th and the 70th weeks. That is irrational, in my opinion. But to say it is a "divine necessity" goes over the top! Now you're turning a reasonable discussion into a mandate from God with you being the prophet?
[Enoch]
The fact of the matter is that the Protestant Reformers continued to teach the false doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding Bible prophecy. But Ribera actually studied the Bible and exposed the falsity of your beliefs. Here is what he proposed, which is totally scriptural:
"Then, he proposed,the antichrist, a single individual, would:
- Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
- Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
- Abolish the Christian religion.
- Deny Jesus Christ.
- Be received by the Jews.
- Pretend to be God.
- Kill the two witnesses of God.
- Conquer the world."
Apologize for what? I didn't address those things--I was addressing the "Gap" notion regarding the 69th and 70th Weeks! ;)
I never said I had a problem with Catholic Ribera--*you* said that! My problem with him is that he proposed this "Gap" theory of Daniel's 70th Weeks. I don't even have the book--I wish I did!
I'm fully on board with his Futurism. I don't agree with my fellow Protestants in history who believed the Catholic Church was THE Antichrist--the Antichrist was, as yet, future in that time!
I am indeed a futurist, just as Ribera was. And I'm thankful for his contribution. I'm also grateful for Darby's contribution to the future hope of Israel. And yet, I would criticize his Pretrib doctrine, as well. I can chew gum and walk at the same time. I can criticize somebody and like some things they said at the same time.
Last edited: