Crying For Peace And Safety,
Having a desire for it to Happen,
Where there is only more Confusion,
That will blossom into a great final War,
Likely to start some time twixt 2010 & 2015.
Many Now Still Waiting for 1260 Days of Peace,
Followed by last 1260 Days of Age of the Gentiles,
But there Shall be No 1260 days of Peace and Safety,
Only 1335 DAYS OF WAR Terminating at Second Advent!
December 2, 2009
Most believers are now waiting for a catching out (rapture) before 1260 days of peace and safety begins when the future Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel in the Middle East. This will be followed by 1260 days of great tribulation and war. I do not believe this is correct, but I am prepared for it.
I am also prepared for the other multiple positions taught among believers. The Church I pastor knows these multiple positions. It is prepared to go through none of the tribulation period, part of it, most of it, or all of it. I have never advocated making it a test of fellowship, but I have always advocated it a wise thing to present church members the different things taught on the subject, such that they are prepared for any eventuality.
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
The two Excerpts from the Khaleej Times and the Arab News, following our lead-in, give a description of the most confused peace scenario that has ever existed in the turbulent Middle East. I believe the one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the CRY WHERE THEY KEEP SAYING “PEACE AND SAFETY,” BUT IT IS DOOMED TO END IN “SUDDEN DESTRUCTION.”
I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. [4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
Daniel 12:12 – Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
I BELIEVE THE LAST 1335 DAYS OF THE GENTILE AGE BEGINS AT SOME POINT IN TIME BETWEEN 2010 AND 2015. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE “HE” IN DANIEL 9:27 IS ANTICHRIST – IT IS THE MESSIAH JESUS CHRIST!
Daniel 9:27 – 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.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FROM INITIAL ATTACK TO END OF THIS AGE
Event 1 – Israel is attacked 1335 days before the end of the Tribulation Period
Event 2 – 30 days later the two witnesses begin their testimony in Jerusalem
Event 3 – 45 days later Jerusalem falls as IDF withdraws south to Beersheba and the United Nations brokers a truce or hudna agreed to by Islam and Israel.
Event 4 – Israel remains surrounded in the Negev Wilderness for some 1260 days after the truce agreement.
Event 5 – Some 45 days before the end of the Age of the Gentiles the two witnesses will be killed by the Antichrist after having testified for 42 months (1260 days). The Antichrist will declare himself to be God on the Temple Mount – This is the abomination “that maketh desolate.”
Event 6 – Three and one half days later three events occur in rapid succession. They all three occur on the same day.
I call them boom, boom, boom.
Boom 1 – The two witnesses ascend up to heaven through the clouds.
Boom 2 – A great earthquake occurs in the same hour the two witnesses depart.
Boom 3 – The last trump (7th) Trump sounds and all the saved are caught up.
Event 7 – All the saved are judged in heaven while the seven vials of God’s wrath are poured out on unbelievers.
Event 8 – Christ returns with all the saved some 1335 days after the initial attack of Islamic forces against Israel.
Begin Archive Special Prophecy Update Number 147D
Special Prophecy Update Number 147D
November 25, 2003
THE THREE “HE’S” IN DANIEL 9:27
Have We Taken the Wrong Path in Prophecy?
Have We “Bought the Farm” in Prophetic Teachings?
It is absolutely amazing how the great majority of our prophetic teaching on the antichrist, and all the events associated with his arrival and departure during the last seven years of the Age of the Gentiles, is based on Daniel 9:27, and the understanding that the three “he’s” in it refer to the antichrist. All of the prevailing positions on the rapture, so widely differing among the brethren, the pre, mid, pre-wrath, post, split, and progressive positions are all based on the three “he’s” being the antichrist. All of our charts and diagrams are based on the antichrist being the three “he’s” in Daniel 9.27, showing two boxes, each one three and one half years in duration, which are supposed to be the final seven years of the Gentile Age.
Daniel 9:27 – 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.
There are times a part of me wishes I had never gone back in time to see what was believed, and what was taught, about the three “he’s” in Daniel 9:27. In all my years of research I have yet to find anyone teaching what is taught today prior to 1742
. The first expositors of the Church Age on the Old Testament all held in their writings that the three “he’s” in Daniel 9:27 were Jesus Christ. The idea that the “he’s” were the antichrist did not appear in any of their writings. Among the best known writers of the first four centuries, who believed the “he’s” were Jesus Christ were: Hippolytus, Clement of Alexander, Julius Africanus, and Eusebius.
The Catholic writers of the Dark Ages continued to state this belief in the Sargis DOAberga document and, in this period, Theodore Beza, Arnold of Villanova, and Pseudo Aquinas all continued to proclaim that the “he’s” were indeed Jesus Christ. I could find no writer among them that identified the “he’s” as referring to antichrist.
In the Protestant Reformation times both Martin Luther and Melanchthon said the “he’s” in Daniel 9:27 were the Christ, not antichrist. Melanchthon dated the 70 weeks of Daniel from the second year of the great Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus, with 69 weeks to the baptism of Christ, and placed the crucifixion of Christ in the midst of the 70th week, three years after Christ’s baptism. This is the position I hold today. I believe Christ fulfilled the covenant during his ministry in the first part of the last seven years, and we are waiting for the second half to be fulfilled following the attack of antichrist against Israel.
Other Reformation writers who held the three “he’s” were Jesus Christ were Georg Nigumus, Johann Funck, Jacques Cappel, John Tillinghast, Joseph Mede, and Heinrich Bullinger. And, once again, I was unable to find a single writer during the Protestant Reformation that identified the “he’s” as the antichrist. I am not saying one did not exist, but
I could not find him.
In the Post Reformation period Isaac Newton, Cocceius, Johann Petri, William Wilson, Heinrich Horch, Jahann Bengal, and the Belenburg Bible, all identified the three “he’s” in Daniel 9:27 as being Jesus Christ. And, once again, I could find no writings in this period that stated the “he’s” were the antichrist.
From the Post Reformation period to 1742, I could not find a writer that identified the three “he’s” as being the antichrist. Among American expositors who identified the “he’s” as being Christ were Samuel Langdon, John Davenport, Ephraim Huit, and Samuel Osgood. Among the Old World expositors, during this period, who held the “he’s” were Christ, were Bishop William Winston, William Hales, Louis Gaussen, Archibald Mason, and Edward Bukersteth.
So, the question I have been forced to address is a very simple one. Were they all wrong up to 1742? Should we have changed the teaching that the three “he’s” refer to Christ, and made them apply to the antichrist? I have made my choice – the old fellows were right, it is Christ! This teaching lasted well into the 20th century, and is still held by a minority in this present century. I was exposed to it as a young man many years ago, and I still believe it. One of the greatest Baptists of history, B.H. Carroll, who was born in the 19th century, carried this teaching into the 20th century. It began to decline in popularity after John Darby began to popularize the Pre-Trib Rapture position in 1827, but was still the majority belief until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, after which it became more and more of a minority belief.
There was a very popular song in my youth titled “What a Difference a Day Makes.” I assure you, that the title I ascribe to Daniel 9:27 is a most profound one – “What a Difference a HE Makes.” Which position is correct
? I could care less personally, because I am prepared for either one to be correct. How is that possible
? I both practice, and advocate to the church I pastor, to do the following:
Mark 13:34-37 – For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. [35] Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: [36] Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. [37] And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
Begin Excerpt from Khaleej Times via World News
Obama Needs Drama
Orly Azoulay
2 December 2009
When he entered the White House, Barack Obama declared that his administration will be characterised by different tones: without exaggerated zeal, without verbal disputes, and without a forceful attitude against political rivals.
He wanted an administration that conducts itself in agreeable ways and facilitates dialogue with the toughest enemies in order to resolve conflicts. He wanted reconciliation and appeasement—traits that fully reflect his complex personality; qualities that he drew from the Zen school of thought and that turned him into a level-headed and deep-thinking leader. One who thinks before he speaks. In a world at boiling point, with restless leaders travelling across the globe breathless, the American president’s aides refer to him as ‘No Drama Obama’. This is nice when it comes to tightening ties with Japan or Sweden.
However, in the Middle East, where the most common phrase is ‘let?s create a mess’, the American president needs to change his approach and prompt a turning point that will alter the game.
This is precisely the time for Obama to present a bombastic and grandiose move that cannot be ignored. He needs to present his peace plan, whose essence he revealed a few months ago already: A Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital alongside the State of Israel. Israel will be annexing the large settlement blocs, and in exchange it will provide the Palestinians with alternate land.
Obama needs to announce that there will be territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza (he endorsed the plan for a bridge) and that Hamas is a partner. Without Hamas alongside Fateh any deal would be worthless. A short while after PM Netanyahu arrived in Washington, I spoke with a senior US official engaged in mediation efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. He sounded despondent: with Bibi, with Abbas, and with the tied hands of America, which wishes to undertake a bold move in a place currently lacking in brave leaders.
He said that, just like his boss, he realises that such a process cannot be stimulated without a major constitutive event. For example, the release of Gilad Shalit and Marwan Barhgouti on the same day; for example, a media-covered flight by the secretary of state to Damascus, where she will bring Syrian President Assad aboard her plane and land with him in Jerusalem for a Knesset speech.
Obama needs to present to all sides in the Middle East his overall outline: finalising talks on the creation of a Palestinian state within two years and its establishment during his first term in office.
He mostly needs to explain to the sides what this comprehensive peace will look like: It’s not only about giving up east Jerusalem; it’s also about Israelis eating hummus near Damascus or going on a jeep tour near Riyadh. He needs to say out loud that there will be simultaneous dialogue with Syria, and later with Arab states and the Muslim world. After he presents his plan, the sides will have to declare whether they are going forward with him; it needs to be clear who is in favour, who is against, and who is trying to buy time. The most terrible moment will happen when Obama gives up and says there is no chance anymore. He tried, but did not succeed. This would mean the Palestinians will go with one of two options: the first is to unilaterally declare their state in line with the 1967 borders and elicit recognition, even if partial, by the world. The United States may not be the first to do so, but eventually it will recognise such a state.
The second Palestinian alternative would be a shift to the contingency plan endorsed by many of them and declare that the two-state vision has failed, and they do not want it anymore—they want one state. They wish to be equal citizens in one state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. For Israel, this would mark the end of the Jewish State. People who fail to see where this is going suffer from historical and diplomatic blindness. Yet Obama is not like that: a person who managed to win the presidency after half a term in the Senate and become the first black president in America’s history is one who can see far. This is Obama’s moment of truth in the Middle East. This time, he needs to create drama.
Orly Azoulay is the Washington correspondent for Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot and author of “Obama—He has a Dream.” Distributed by the Common Ground News Service with permission from Ynetnews
Begin Excerpt from Arab News (AP) via World News
Israel warns EU over Jerusalem
Wednesday 2 December 2009 (15 Dhul Hijjah 1430)
AP —
Tuesday against recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, saying such a move would damage Europe’s credibility as a Middle East mediator.
The warning came as Jewish settlers in the West Bank confronted government inspectors sent to enforce a ban on new construction on territory Palestinians claim for a future state.
No major violence was reported, but the images could boost the efforts of conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to portray himself as amenable to international demands for curtailing settlements.
Sweden, the current EU president, is floating an initiative to recognize East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported Tuesday that Sweden will seek approval at an EU meeting in Brussels next week.
In Stockholm, officials declined to confirm the proposal. But diplomats in Brussels said privately that Sweden has put the issue up for a debate by the EU governments.
Although the proposal is unlikely to pass, Israel’s Foreign Ministry issued a strongly worded statement urging the EU not to proceed.
“The move led by Sweden damages the ability of the European Union to take a role and be a significant factor in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” the statement said.
The dispute over East Jerusalem is the most intractable issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel captured the area in the 1967 Middle East war, immediately annexed it and claims all of Jerusalem as its eternal capital. But the annexation has not been internationally recognized, and the Palestinians want to make East Jerusalem the capital of a future state.
An explicit European endorsement of their claims to East Jerusalem would be a major diplomatic victory for the Palestinians.
It also would mark a significant break with tradition.
A Dutch diplomat called an EU decision on East Jerusalem “hard to imagine.” Major decisions require unanimous approval, and there are divisions among the 27 members over the Jerusalem issue. Other diplomats said the wording of any final proposal would likely change.
Palestinian presidential adviser Rafik Husseini accused Israel of trying to sabotage the Palestinian diplomatic efforts. “They are trying to make sure it never happens,” he said.
The Palestinians have refused to restart peace talks, which broke down nearly a year ago, until Israel halts construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The Palestinians have called Netanyahu’s offer of a 10-month halt to new West Bank construction insufficient because it excludes East Jerusalem, as well as 3,000 homes already being built in the West Bank.
Even so, Netanyahu, a traditional ally of the settlers, claims he has made a painful and unprecedented gesture to get peace efforts back on track — and Tuesday’s unrest could help back his position by allowing him to claim he is moving against wayward settlers.
Some 300,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, in addition to 180,000 Israeli Jews living in east Jerusalem.
Settlers have promised stiff resistance to the building freeze, and on Tuesday, Israeli radio stations reported unrest in at least four settlements where inspectors tried to enforce the government order.
There were no reports of injuries, but the reports said inspectors were blocked from entering the settlements.
In other unrest, a Jewish family took over a house in an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem, sparking a protest by rock-throwing Palestinians and a few Israeli and foreign activists who joined them, police said. One of the family members was lightly injured in the head when a protester hit him with a metal bar, and police arrested five people.
At the scene, Richard Miron, spokesman for UN Middle East envoy Robert Serry, urged Israel to halt settlement activity in east Jerusalem.
“Provocative actions such as these create inevitable tensions, undermine trust, often have tragic human consequences and make resuming negotiations and achieving a two-state solution more difficult,” he said.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.