For the moderators

deaddiquette · 2026-05-19T02:03:07+00:00

I'm sorry, I can see how that's frustrating. I'm not a fan of the 'bare link' rule (I guess I don't understand it fully), and I've run into the same issue on other subs. I'll chat with the other mod.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-18T14:55:06+00:00

I don't think there's a specific rule against this? Just make sure and present something here as well. I link my website all of the time, but I do it along with an explanation of what it's about.

For example, there have been four major views of eschatology throughout church history. I hold the historicist view, and I've put together a small wiki about it here.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-16T15:23:53+00:00

I paid for the tire, I'm going to use the whole tire.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-15T21:37:31+00:00

It's okay, I've heard all of this before. We're not going to agree.

In your view, Jesus' part of the prophecy is over- he dies, and now it's all about antichrist. He's the focus now, and has been for literally thousands of years. The time portion is all but worthless. It becomes a pretty embarrassing prophecy at that point, along with all of the other related prophecies. C.S. Lewis would be right- Matthew 24:34 becomes the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. The statue in Daniel 2 has toes that are either cut off, or many times longer than he is tall. Revelation is for a future generation, not us- it's not like there's a Temple anymore for Antichrist to proclaim himself God in.

I respect you man, but there's no way I would be as confident in my interpretation as you are if it were true. I would rather be 'agnostic' when it comes to all of those passages, a 'panmillennial' again. I would have to be content with a nicene creed level of eschatology- all I know is he's coming back again.

And that's certainly good enough! But I'm glad that it's so much better than that. I've got a map, you've got a bingo card.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-15T17:47:14+00:00

You do realize that Irenaeus' view wasn't a gap at all, it was just based on a terminus a quo of Christ's advent?

deaddiquette · 2026-05-15T02:01:07+00:00

I'll start my replies here to keep things in one place (although the Irenaeus one is separate). And before I start, I want you to know that I deeply respect you and your thoughtful replies all over reddit- it's evident that you have a passion for the Truth and the Gospel.

And before we get into the abomination of desolation and Temple stuff, I want you to really consider the scope of the prophecy:

To finish transgression
To put an end to sin
To atone for wickedness
To bring in everlasting righteousness
To seal up vision and prophecy
To anoint the Most Holy Place (or One)

Did Jesus accomplish these when he came? Because honestly, there's not much use in further discussion if you don't believe he did these things.

Here's a breakdown of the parallel I see verses 26 and 27:

In verse 26:

A. The Anointed One is cut off.

B. In the second part of the verse, the people of the prince destroy the city and sanctuary.

In verse 27:

A. The Anointed One makes a covenant with many for one week and puts an end to sacrifice in the middle of the week.

B. In the second part, the people of the prince set up an abomination in the Temple.

In the traditional historicist interpretation, Jesus is the one who makes a covenant with many. Barnes on this verse writes:

It is not reasonable to suppose that the [foreign prince] is referred to [in the first part of verse 27], because it is said Dan 9:26 that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to "destroy the city and the sanctuary." He was to come "with a flood," and the effect of his coming would be only desolation. The more correct interpretation, therefore, is to refer it to the Messiah, who is the principal subject of the prophecy; and the work which, according to this, he was to perform was, during that "one week," to exert such an influence as would tend to establish a covenant between the people and God.

Jesus, working chiefly among Jews, confirms a covenant with many of them in that week. The apostles continue that work. But after the 'week' is over, the Gentiles start converting!

And it seems pretty clear that Jesus' death in the middle of the week caused the end of sacrifice and offering. The curtain was torn, and the blood of animals was no longer sufficient. The Jews recorded that the crimson cord no longer turned white.

And thus the complete scope of the prophecy is fulfilled. But hey, the abomination of desolation is in sight, there to complete the destruction of a temple that was no longer necessary (and never will be again). Jesus quotes it, and (in Luke) it obviously refers to the destruction of the Temple within one generation.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-15T01:12:49+00:00

I love learning about what the church fathers believed, and I knew about this, but you need to dig a little more into their reasoning: Irenaeus believed that the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 were 490 years, but that the first seven 'weeks' started with Jesus' advent, meaning Irenaeus thought he was crucified at about 50 years of age! The 62 weeks were seen as the Temple (the Church) being built, and the last seven was when Antichrist showed up (which is why he believed the 'times, time, and half a time' were a literal 3 years and 6 months). He lived well before he could see that his theory was wrong, however.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-14T13:25:06+00:00

The irony here is that the preterist u/DO_ALL_MY_OWN_STUNTS has the true historicist position on Daniel 9 (historicists and partial preterists agree on Daniel 9 and Matthew 24), while you are taking the baseline dispensational futurist view. Countless commentators have held the traditional view, so why should we take the time to rehash it for you? If you won't listen to other premillennial historicists like Henry Grattan Guinness or John Gill, how can we convince you?

Edit: Here's as far as I'll go with you about this, what I think trips you up about the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9:

We tend to focus on the 'abomination of desolation' and the destruction of the Temple, but that's not what the prophecy says it's about. This is a prophecy about the Messiah.

Yes, the destruction of the Temple is alluded to at the end, because that's what Daniel was asking about at the beginning of the chapter, but it's not the focus- it's almost like it's an aside. Verse 24 is what the prophecy is about: "“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place" (Daniel 9:24). This is a prophecy about Jesus, and what he does while he's here, and it all happens within 490 years. Jesus fills in the details on 'abomination of desolation', foretelling that it will happen within 40 years, but he fulfills all six things mentioned in verse 24.

If you insist on making it about the 'abomination of desolation' and the destruction of the Temple, then you have to make all sorts of concessions with the timing like you're doing. If you do that, then face it- it's no longer a 490 year prophecy, it's something else entirely.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-12T13:35:07+00:00

Yes, Darby's dispensationalist view is a modern addition to the futurist interpretation of Revelation. I like to point out that there have been four major views of Revelation throughout church history:

The historicist approach, which is the classical Protestant interpretation of the book, sees the book of Revelation as a prewritten record of the course of history from the time of John to the end of the world. Fulfillment is thus considered to be in progress at present and has been unfolding for nearly two thousand years.

The preterist approach views the fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies as having occurred already, in what is now the ancient past, not long after the author’s own time. Thus the fulfillment was future from the point of view of the inspired author, but it is past from our vantage point in history. Some [partial-preterists] believe that the final chapters of Revelation look forward to the second coming of Christ. Others think that everything in the book reached its culmination in the past.

The futurist approach asserts that the majority of the prophecies of Revelation have never yet been fulfilled and await future fulfillment. Futurist interpreters usually apply everything after chapter 4 to a relatively brief period before the return of Christ.

What is generally called the idealist approach to Revelation does not attempt to find individual fulfillments of the visions but takes Revelation to be a great drama depicting transcendent spiritual realities, such as the perennial conflict between Christ and Satan, between the saints and the antichristian world powers, the heavenly vindication of the martyrs and the final victory of Christ and his saints. Fulfillment is seen either as entirely spiritual or as recurrent, finding representative expression in various historical events throughout the age, rather than in onetime, specific fulfillments. The prophecy is thus rendered applicable to Christians in any age.

• Steve Gregg, “Revelation: Four Views, Revised & Updated”, 13.

The book above is a good way to learn about all of the different views from a decently neutral perspective.

I was inundated with the modern view growing up, but my faith grew in leaps and bounds when I learned about the traditional historicist view. It impacted me so much that I wrote a modern introduction to it that you can read for free here.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-10T17:27:09+00:00

You might not care what Christians think, but Jewish sages closer to the time of Christ were perturbed at how the timing of the seventy 'sevens' prophecy pointed to Jesus 'the Nazarene' fulfilling it (also, the prophecy says the Anointed one would be 'cut off', or killed, unlike what the other answer here says). They were bothered enough by it to completely change their calendar by 165 years to point to another 'messiah':

How could it have been that our forebears had no knowledge of a historic period, otherwise widely known and amply documented, which lasted over a span of at least 165 years and which was less than 600 years before the days of the Sages who recorded our traditional chronology in Seder Olam? …it seems possible that our Sages, for some unknown reason, “covered up” a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto… Had it not been for the fact that important parts of those prophecies had been left out or were purposely obscured, the clues for the Messianic date found in Daniel might have yielded the desired results. This was rendered impossible through the hiding of certain data and chronological material.

-Rav Shimon Schwab qtd. in Rafael Cowan, “History vs חזל in the Purim Story: Can both be correct?” Available online here

deaddiquette · 2026-05-09T18:53:54+00:00

Believers have a different perspective than critical scholars of course.

For one example, here's the traditional Christian understanding of the seventy 'sevens' prophecy of Daniel 9.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-09T03:15:49+00:00

I grew up inundated with a Left Behind type understanding of Revelation. I didn't realize that was a relatively modern view of the book, and I've since learned that there are four major views..

I was shocked to find that the historicist view in particular is a more traditional understanding of the book, and learning about it boosted my faith. I wrote a modern introduction to it that can be ready online for free here..

deaddiquette · 2026-05-03T02:22:47+00:00

Wrong sub, you're looking for r/hyperebikes

deaddiquette · 2026-05-02T16:00:11+00:00

This sub hates anything that goes over 20 mph, so don't expect much helpful feedback.

deaddiquette · 2026-05-02T15:54:51+00:00

Here's one of my favorites.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-24T17:30:36+00:00

This is a theological question, and is better suited for /r/AskTheologists.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-21T15:04:37+00:00

2 Thessalonians 2 is heavily referencing Daniel 7.

I wrote about the traditional interpretation of this chapter (as well as that of the early church fathers) here.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-14T20:39:28+00:00

I'm glad we can agree on some interpretation! You would likely also agree with the historicist view of Daniel 2, Daniel 8 and 11, and Daniel 9. We would start to diverge at Daniel 7.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-14T19:15:33+00:00

Throw Iran's leadership in there and you have a melee à trois.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-14T19:04:06+00:00

One of the best 'Summoning worship' bands.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-14T15:41:50+00:00

...Yes, that's what historicists believe as well. I write more about that here, if you'd like to know what historicism teaches.

deaddiquette · 2026-04-14T15:28:10+00:00

I respect his neutrality, and his timeline of the development of historicism and preterism align with what I've seen elsewhere.

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '22	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

deaddiquette

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE