Saudi Arabia held off on signing for this specific moment. Watch - soon they will sign which puts Qatar under pressure to sign. If Iran's new leadership signs too there will be peace in the middle east.
Thus confirming my suspicions! The reason Israel is not mentioned is....(literal spoiler alert for all 'Israel for last' means Israel's destruction propagandists) peace with Israel is essentially the cornerstone of what President Trump wants to accomplish in the Middle East. It began with the Abraham Accords (Morocco, UAE, Bahrain) and is spreading hopefully to the rest of the ME, including Iran. The Iranian (aka Persian) people themselves are already pre-disposed to align with Israel, there was a huge grassroots campaign at one time called Iran Loves Israel, Israel Loves Iran that was mentioned by me here: (BTW, an Israeli started this, an Iranian responded, and the rest is history!)
Hmm, Apart from Israel, the nations that are members of the Abraham Accords are UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. If Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Jordan join, that will make 10 arab nations... strange coincidence 🤔
It's important to remember too that the "middle east peace treaty" comes from dispensationalism and John Nelson Darby. It's a very recent interpretation of Daniel (only dating back to the mid 1800s), and a great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 to refer to a literal 7 year peace treaty brokered by the antichrist. Dispensationalism is very widespread here in the states, which is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created in the first place.
Darby’s Specific Contribution: John Nelson Darby systematized the specific doctrine of a future seven-year covenant (Daniel 9:27) brokered by a future "Prince" (Antichrist) specifically with ethnic Israel. Before Darby, most Protestants interpreted this "covenant" as the New Covenant confirmed by Christ
The "Invention" Myth vs. Early Affirmation: However, the claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false.
Early Church Affirmation: Fathers like Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD) explicitly taught that the Antichrist would "make a covenant with many for one week" at the end of the age. Irenaeus also implied a future 70th week initiated by the Antichrist. (These ideas died out over time with the apparent failure of the millennial age to materialize.) Thus, the idea of a future treaty is not distinct to Darby; it is an ancient futurist view.
Jesuit Roots: The futurist framework was revived by Jesuit scholars Francisco Ribera (1585) and Manuel Lacunza (c. 1790) to counter the Protestant Historicist view that the Pope was the Antichrist.
Pre-Darby Futurism: Lacunza’s work, translated by Edward Irving in 1827, directly influenced the Albury Park conferences where Darby formulated his views.
The Real Distinction: What is distinct to Darby is not the treaty itself, but the mechanism explaining its delay: the dispensational gap. Darby provided the theological architecture (the Israel/Church distinction) that explained why this ancient expectation hadn't happened yet, transforming it from a failed immediate expectation of the early church into a structured future prophecy.
2. The Claim: "It's a very recent interpretation... only dating back to the mid 1800s."
Analysis: Misleading via Chronological Snobbery.
System vs. Substance: While the dispensational system is mid-19th century, the hermeneutical foundation (literal futurism) has ancient roots.
Early Church: Fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus held futurist views, though they lacked Darby’s specific "gap" theory.
The "Gap" Innovation: Darby’s unique contribution was inserting a chronological gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel to accommodate the Church Age. This specific mechanism is a 19th-century innovation, but it was built upon the older futurist foundation laid by early church fathers, and later by Ribera and Lacunza.
The Role of Imminence: The early fathers did not have a "gap" in their theology because they expected the end soon. This was not an error but a feature of God’s design: believers in every age are commanded to live as though Christ could return at any moment (imminence), even if the actual event was 2,000 years away.
The Gap as Historical Necessity: As time passed and the end did not come, a "gap" became chronologically evident (progressive revelation). Darby did not "invent" a delay; he provided the theological explanation for the delay that history had already revealed. He showed that the early church’s expectation of a soon millennium was valid (as an imminent hope) even though the timeline included a mystery pause (the Church Age) unknown to them.
Critique of the Statement: By labeling it "only" mid-1800s, the statement implies the view is arbitrary or novel. In reality, it is a recovery and synthesis of ancient futurist strands that were marginalized during the dominance of Amillennialism and Historicism.
3. The Claim: "A great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 [this way]."
Analysis: Factually Correct but Logically Irrelevant to Truth.
Majority vs. Minority: It is true that Catholic, Orthodox, and many mainline Protestant traditions (Amillennial, Preterist) reject this view. They typically see Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled by Christ’s death (ending sacrifice) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
The Hermeneutical Divide: The disagreement is not about popularity but method.
Non-Dispensationalists: Often use a "redemptive-historical" method where the New Testament reinterprets Old Testament promises spiritually (e.g., "Israel" = the Church).
Dispensationalists: Argue that a consistent literal-grammatical-historical hermeneuticrequires a future fulfillment for ethnic Israel because the New Testament does not explicitly cancel the unconditional land and kingdom covenants.
Relevance: The persistence of dispensationalism is not due to conspiracy or novelty, but because it is the only view that preserves the inerrancy and effectiveness of the Old Testament promises without spiritualizing them away. The majority view’s rejection of this does not invalidate the hermeneutical consistency of the futurist position.
4. The Claim: "Dispensationalism... is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created."
Analysis: Conflates Correlation with Causation (Genetic Fallacy).
Creation of Israel (1948): The primary drivers for Israel’s creation were secular and geopolitical (the Holocaust, British Mandate collapse, UN Resolution 181). Dispensationalism provided a theological reception for the event among evangelicals, but it was not the architect of the state. Attributing the state's creation to Darby’s theology is a historical overstatement.
US Political Sway: The statement is accurate regarding modern US politics. Groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and the theological framework of dispensationalism have created a massive voting bloc that unconditionally supports Israel.
Logical Flaw: However, citing this political influence as a critique of the theology is a genetic fallacy. Whether dispensationalism influences politics has no bearing on whether its interpretation of Daniel 9 is exegetically correct. A true doctrine can have complex political effects, and a false one can have none. The legitimacy of the view stands or falls on hermeneutics, not geopolitics.
Final Verdict
The statement is a rhetorical critique that relies on logical fallacies rather than a precise historical analysis.
It fails historically by ignoring the early church’s futurist affirmations of a future covenant (Hippolytus, Irenaeus), falsely presenting the concept as a Darbyite invention rather than a recovery.
It fails exegetically by conflating the systematization of a doctrine with its origin, dismissing the literal hermeneutic that produces the "peace treaty" view simply because its modern framework is recent, rather than engaging the actual interpretation of Daniel 9:27.
It fails logically by using "novelty," “majority opinion,” and "political consequences" as proxies for theological truth, thereby bypassing the actual hermeneutical debate: Does a literal reading of the Old Testament covenants require a future fulfillment for ethnic Israel?
Okay first of all you can't use AI to refute arguments because 99% of the time it makes shit up. I've seen this happen COUNTLESS times
Secondly I'll have to go over all this slop when I get to work tonight but Jesuits of all people interpreting the passage to refer to the antichrist's peace treaty seems HIGHLY unlikely
These are my arguments which I fed into the AI, it just organized them into bullet points and used its own wording. I spent 4 hours feeding it, making clarifications, and formatting, but if any use of AI is verboten for you, feel free to ignore me.
If that's true, then you clearly didn't read the sources you cited. I'll go through it and explain why the claims are bs.
1: "The claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false". Essentially what you/the AI are doing is citing figures who spoke of the antichrist and using that to claim that they believed in the concept of a future treaty.
"Fathers like Hippolytus explicitly taught that the Antichrist would "make a covenant with many for one week" at the end of the age."
Well let's just see, shall we? I actually bothered to look up what Hippolytus claimed since you apparently didn't in your "four hours" of research: "For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, “Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time.” But to Christ it was not said “seal,” but “loose” the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, “They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;” which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: “After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.” For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,1316 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such." -Commentary on Daniel
NO. MENTION. OF. A. PEACE. TREATY. NONE. What he DOES say is that the Antichrist will come to stop the sacrifices "which now are offered to God in every place by the nations." In the 3rd century, church fathers commonly viewed Christian prayer, the Eucharist, and global worship as the spiritual "sacrifice and oblation" offered by the nations. Hippolytus is saying the Antichrist will sweep across the earth to abolish Christian worship and replace it with demonic self-worship.
I did the same with Irenaeus:
"And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Daniel 9:27 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet Matthew 24:15 (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge." -Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 25)
Hmm, isn't that strange? Again, no mention of a peace treaty anywhere. Irenaeus identifies the people who are targeted by the antichrist as "they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God". I.E. Christians who fulfill Malachi 1:11. Irenaeus was fighting the Gnostics (specifically Marcionites and Valentinians). The Gnostics claimed that the God of the Old Testament (the Creator/Demiurge) was an evil, lesser deity, and that Jesus came from a different, higher, loving God to rescue us from the physical world. Irenaeus is using Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 as a theological hammer to prove that the Old Testament and the New Testament are completely unified. His argument is: "Look, Daniel's prophecy about the end times is explicitly validated by Jesus in the Gospels, and interpreted by Gabriel, the same angel who announced Jesus to Mary. Therefore, the God of Daniel is the exact same God as the Father of Jesus."
Irenaeus also speaks that the saints were forced to run, which contradicts the dispensationalist view of a pre-tribulation rapture. The early church fathers believed the church would go through that tribulation. They had no concept of a secret, pre-tribulation Rapture where Christians vanish before the treaty is signed. They did not teach a sharp division between Israel and the Church, or a 'parenthesis' Church Age. Those specific ideas, which are required to get the modern 'Middle East Peace Treaty' prophecy framework, were created by Darby in the 19th century. Even if Irenaeus and Hippolytus DID predate Darby in creating the idea of a peace treaty (they didn't), that doesn't reflect a greater trend on how the early church interpreted this passage, because the early church did not teach dispensationalism.
"The futurist framework was revived by Jesuit scholars Francisco Ribera (1585) and Manuel Lacunza (c. 1790) to counter the Protestant Historicist view that the Pope was the Antichrist. Lacunza’s work, translated by Edward Irving in 1827, directly influenced the Albury Park conferences where Darby formulated his views." This, again, is INCREDIBLY misleading. It's also a bait and switch. This argument conflates a general timeline (futurism theology) with a highly specific, modern political interpretation (the 7-year Middle East peace treaty). Lacunza and Ribera were futurists, yes, but I can't find ANYTHING that says they believed the idea that the antichrist would broker a seven year peace treaty. This idea came much later. All Lacunza and Ribera did were use scriptural prophecies about the antichrist to refute the protestant claim that the pope is the antichrist (which can't be the case, since the antichrist will claim to BE the true Messiah and reject Christ, unlike the pope/bishop of Rome, who claims to be Christ's vicar and the successor of Peter). Essentially all Lacunza and Ribera did to influence the the Albury Park conferences and dispensationalism were to emphasize that the antichrist wasn't alive yet. Jesuits are not dispensationalists, buddy. Trust me on this. The day you'll see a dispensationalist Jesuit is the day you'll see a Jewish rabbi at a rib-fest.
2: "Misleading via Chronological Snobbery". Calling Darby's "gap theory" a minor tweak or a "historical necessity" is wild theological gymnastics. Before Darby, virtually no one in church history taught that God had two separate plans for two separate peoples (Israel and the Church) and that the Church was a "parenthesis" or a "mystery pause" in God's timeline. The system of Dispensationalism, the exact timeline taught in books like The Late Great Planet Earth or the Left Behind series, is absolutely a recent interpretation dating back to the 1830s. Saying it has "ancient roots" is like saying the modern automobile isn't a recent invention because the Romans used wheels. As established by their own texts (Against Heresies and Commentary on Daniel), both men believed that the 70th week of Daniel was an event slated for the absolute end of the world, featuring a literal, final Antichrist figure. If that makes them futurists, sure. But the AI admitting that they "lacked Darby’s specific 'gap' theory" is a vast understatement. They didn't just lack the gap theory; their entire worldview left absolutely no room for it. The early Church Fathers expected the 70th week to occur immediately at the end of history as the natural culmination of human events. They did not view the Church as a "parenthesis" or a "mystery stop-gap" that paused God's real clock for Israel as dispensationalists interpret it. You cannot use the early church writers to justify dispensationalism, because their theology doesn't line up with it at all. The "gap theory" is a 19th-century invention. Before John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830s, this structural concept just plain did not exist in orthodox Christian theology.
3: "Dispensationalism is the only view that preserves the inerrancy and effectiveness of the Old Testament promises without spiritualizing them away". Your AI literally admitted I was right about the vast majority of Christians both worldwide today and historically do not interpret the Bible the way dispensationalists do, but then it turns around and claims that dispensationalism is the "only view" that is consistently literal and preserves biblical truth? That is a highly partisan, dogmatic statement, not to mention a matter of OPINION. Non-dispensationalists (once again, the vast majority of Christians) argue quite fiercely that they are the ones who are truly honoring the Bible by letting the New Testament define how Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled, which makes a lot more sense than Darby's nonsensical OT interpretations.
4: "Attributing the state's creation to Darby’s theology is a historical overstatement." That's just flat out wrong. American politicians who supported the creation of the State of Israel were heavily motivated by Christian Zionism, which is heavily linked to dispensationalist theology. They were motivated to create the state of Israel to fulfill a dispensationalist interpretation of scripture. Harry Truman, influenced by his evangelical upbringing, literally compared himself to KING CYRUS (the Persian ruler who returned the Jews to Jerusalem) after his administration recognized the state of Israel, but it's a "historical overstatement"? The president of the United States was motivated by dispensational ideology to create the state of Israel so he could be the modern day Cyrus but it's a Genetic Fallacy? You're telling me you put four hours of research into this? lmao
The vast majority of Christians worldwide and throughout history do not read Daniel 9 this way. For almost 2000 years, the dominant view of Daniel 9:27 was that Jesus Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant through his death, putting an end to the need for animal sacrifices. In the middle of this week (3.5 years, roughly the length of his earthly ministry), Jesus puts an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. His crucifixion, the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, supersedes and renders the Temple sacrifices obsolete. The abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel is typically interpreted to refer to the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD under the Roman general Titus and his father, emperor Vespasian. Jesus warned his followers to flee when they see this desolation unfold during their lifetimes.
The tl;dr is that Darby's nonsensical interpretation of Daniel 9 is very recent and a dispensationalist view not held by the vast majority of Christians in the world, in the Catholic, Orthodox and protestant churches.
Saudi Arabia held off on signing for this specific moment. Watch - soon they will sign which puts Qatar under pressure to sign. If Iran's new leadership signs too there will be peace in the middle east.
👍🙂🙏🏻
Comments on X are very negative and skeptical about this pronouncement. I hope they are proven wrong.
I could well be wrong.
Recognize, however, that there are millions of bot accounts on X which are used by bad actors like China to demoralize Americans.
Along with Russia, Qatar and Iran. Many paid influencers. Many.
They probably just dont like larps
Thus confirming my suspicions! The reason Israel is not mentioned is....(literal spoiler alert for all 'Israel for last' means Israel's destruction propagandists) peace with Israel is essentially the cornerstone of what President Trump wants to accomplish in the Middle East. It began with the Abraham Accords (Morocco, UAE, Bahrain) and is spreading hopefully to the rest of the ME, including Iran. The Iranian (aka Persian) people themselves are already pre-disposed to align with Israel, there was a huge grassroots campaign at one time called Iran Loves Israel, Israel Loves Iran that was mentioned by me here: (BTW, an Israeli started this, an Iranian responded, and the rest is history!)
https://thepeacefactory.org/
👌🙏🏻🙏🏻
London banks staggered.
For how long?
Seven years, perhaps?
Some book warned us about that.
Hmm, Apart from Israel, the nations that are members of the Abraham Accords are UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. If Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Jordan join, that will make 10 arab nations... strange coincidence 🤔
First we've got to get Iran to agree to it which looks like it's not going very well.
I wouldn't worry too much about the "Trump is muh antichrist" theory
Probably.
It's just that whenever I hear about a "Middle East peace treaty," I keep thinking back to that prophecy, no matter who's involved.
It's important to remember too that the "middle east peace treaty" comes from dispensationalism and John Nelson Darby. It's a very recent interpretation of Daniel (only dating back to the mid 1800s), and a great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 to refer to a literal 7 year peace treaty brokered by the antichrist. Dispensationalism is very widespread here in the states, which is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created in the first place.
I have a few critiques regarding what you said, here is an AI overview/analysis -
1. The Claim: "The 'Middle East peace treaty' comes from dispensationalism and John Nelson Darby."
Analysis: Historically Incomplete regarding "Distinctiveness."
Darby’s Specific Contribution: John Nelson Darby systematized the specific doctrine of a future seven-year covenant (Daniel 9:27) brokered by a future "Prince" (Antichrist) specifically with ethnic Israel. Before Darby, most Protestants interpreted this "covenant" as the New Covenant confirmed by Christ
The "Invention" Myth vs. Early Affirmation: However, the claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false.
2. The Claim: "It's a very recent interpretation... only dating back to the mid 1800s."
Analysis: Misleading via Chronological Snobbery.
3. The Claim: "A great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 [this way]."
Analysis: Factually Correct but Logically Irrelevant to Truth.
4. The Claim: "Dispensationalism... is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created."
Analysis: Conflates Correlation with Causation (Genetic Fallacy).
Final Verdict
The statement is a rhetorical critique that relies on logical fallacies rather than a precise historical analysis.
Okay first of all you can't use AI to refute arguments because 99% of the time it makes shit up. I've seen this happen COUNTLESS times
Secondly I'll have to go over all this slop when I get to work tonight but Jesuits of all people interpreting the passage to refer to the antichrist's peace treaty seems HIGHLY unlikely
These are my arguments which I fed into the AI, it just organized them into bullet points and used its own wording. I spent 4 hours feeding it, making clarifications, and formatting, but if any use of AI is verboten for you, feel free to ignore me.
You spent 4 hours on that? LOL
If that's true, then you clearly didn't read the sources you cited. I'll go through it and explain why the claims are bs.
1: "The claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false". Essentially what you/the AI are doing is citing figures who spoke of the antichrist and using that to claim that they believed in the concept of a future treaty.
"Fathers like Hippolytus explicitly taught that the Antichrist would "make a covenant with many for one week" at the end of the age."
Well let's just see, shall we? I actually bothered to look up what Hippolytus claimed since you apparently didn't in your "four hours" of research: "For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, “Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time.” But to Christ it was not said “seal,” but “loose” the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, “They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;” which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: “After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.” For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,1316 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such." -Commentary on Daniel
NO. MENTION. OF. A. PEACE. TREATY. NONE. What he DOES say is that the Antichrist will come to stop the sacrifices "which now are offered to God in every place by the nations." In the 3rd century, church fathers commonly viewed Christian prayer, the Eucharist, and global worship as the spiritual "sacrifice and oblation" offered by the nations. Hippolytus is saying the Antichrist will sweep across the earth to abolish Christian worship and replace it with demonic self-worship.
I did the same with Irenaeus:
"And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Daniel 9:27 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet Matthew 24:15 (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge." -Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 25)
Hmm, isn't that strange? Again, no mention of a peace treaty anywhere. Irenaeus identifies the people who are targeted by the antichrist as "they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God". I.E. Christians who fulfill Malachi 1:11. Irenaeus was fighting the Gnostics (specifically Marcionites and Valentinians). The Gnostics claimed that the God of the Old Testament (the Creator/Demiurge) was an evil, lesser deity, and that Jesus came from a different, higher, loving God to rescue us from the physical world. Irenaeus is using Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 as a theological hammer to prove that the Old Testament and the New Testament are completely unified. His argument is: "Look, Daniel's prophecy about the end times is explicitly validated by Jesus in the Gospels, and interpreted by Gabriel, the same angel who announced Jesus to Mary. Therefore, the God of Daniel is the exact same God as the Father of Jesus."
Irenaeus also speaks that the saints were forced to run, which contradicts the dispensationalist view of a pre-tribulation rapture. The early church fathers believed the church would go through that tribulation. They had no concept of a secret, pre-tribulation Rapture where Christians vanish before the treaty is signed. They did not teach a sharp division between Israel and the Church, or a 'parenthesis' Church Age. Those specific ideas, which are required to get the modern 'Middle East Peace Treaty' prophecy framework, were created by Darby in the 19th century. Even if Irenaeus and Hippolytus DID predate Darby in creating the idea of a peace treaty (they didn't), that doesn't reflect a greater trend on how the early church interpreted this passage, because the early church did not teach dispensationalism.
"The futurist framework was revived by Jesuit scholars Francisco Ribera (1585) and Manuel Lacunza (c. 1790) to counter the Protestant Historicist view that the Pope was the Antichrist. Lacunza’s work, translated by Edward Irving in 1827, directly influenced the Albury Park conferences where Darby formulated his views." This, again, is INCREDIBLY misleading. It's also a bait and switch. This argument conflates a general timeline (futurism theology) with a highly specific, modern political interpretation (the 7-year Middle East peace treaty). Lacunza and Ribera were futurists, yes, but I can't find ANYTHING that says they believed the idea that the antichrist would broker a seven year peace treaty. This idea came much later. All Lacunza and Ribera did were use scriptural prophecies about the antichrist to refute the protestant claim that the pope is the antichrist (which can't be the case, since the antichrist will claim to BE the true Messiah and reject Christ, unlike the pope/bishop of Rome, who claims to be Christ's vicar and the successor of Peter). Essentially all Lacunza and Ribera did to influence the the Albury Park conferences and dispensationalism were to emphasize that the antichrist wasn't alive yet. Jesuits are not dispensationalists, buddy. Trust me on this. The day you'll see a dispensationalist Jesuit is the day you'll see a Jewish rabbi at a rib-fest.
2: "Misleading via Chronological Snobbery". Calling Darby's "gap theory" a minor tweak or a "historical necessity" is wild theological gymnastics. Before Darby, virtually no one in church history taught that God had two separate plans for two separate peoples (Israel and the Church) and that the Church was a "parenthesis" or a "mystery pause" in God's timeline. The system of Dispensationalism, the exact timeline taught in books like The Late Great Planet Earth or the Left Behind series, is absolutely a recent interpretation dating back to the 1830s. Saying it has "ancient roots" is like saying the modern automobile isn't a recent invention because the Romans used wheels. As established by their own texts (Against Heresies and Commentary on Daniel), both men believed that the 70th week of Daniel was an event slated for the absolute end of the world, featuring a literal, final Antichrist figure. If that makes them futurists, sure. But the AI admitting that they "lacked Darby’s specific 'gap' theory" is a vast understatement. They didn't just lack the gap theory; their entire worldview left absolutely no room for it. The early Church Fathers expected the 70th week to occur immediately at the end of history as the natural culmination of human events. They did not view the Church as a "parenthesis" or a "mystery stop-gap" that paused God's real clock for Israel as dispensationalists interpret it. You cannot use the early church writers to justify dispensationalism, because their theology doesn't line up with it at all. The "gap theory" is a 19th-century invention. Before John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830s, this structural concept just plain did not exist in orthodox Christian theology.
3: "Dispensationalism is the only view that preserves the inerrancy and effectiveness of the Old Testament promises without spiritualizing them away". Your AI literally admitted I was right about the vast majority of Christians both worldwide today and historically do not interpret the Bible the way dispensationalists do, but then it turns around and claims that dispensationalism is the "only view" that is consistently literal and preserves biblical truth? That is a highly partisan, dogmatic statement, not to mention a matter of OPINION. Non-dispensationalists (once again, the vast majority of Christians) argue quite fiercely that they are the ones who are truly honoring the Bible by letting the New Testament define how Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled, which makes a lot more sense than Darby's nonsensical OT interpretations.
4: "Attributing the state's creation to Darby’s theology is a historical overstatement." That's just flat out wrong. American politicians who supported the creation of the State of Israel were heavily motivated by Christian Zionism, which is heavily linked to dispensationalist theology. They were motivated to create the state of Israel to fulfill a dispensationalist interpretation of scripture. Harry Truman, influenced by his evangelical upbringing, literally compared himself to KING CYRUS (the Persian ruler who returned the Jews to Jerusalem) after his administration recognized the state of Israel, but it's a "historical overstatement"? The president of the United States was motivated by dispensational ideology to create the state of Israel so he could be the modern day Cyrus but it's a Genetic Fallacy? You're telling me you put four hours of research into this? lmao
The vast majority of Christians worldwide and throughout history do not read Daniel 9 this way. For almost 2000 years, the dominant view of Daniel 9:27 was that Jesus Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant through his death, putting an end to the need for animal sacrifices. In the middle of this week (3.5 years, roughly the length of his earthly ministry), Jesus puts an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. His crucifixion, the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, supersedes and renders the Temple sacrifices obsolete. The abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel is typically interpreted to refer to the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD under the Roman general Titus and his father, emperor Vespasian. Jesus warned his followers to flee when they see this desolation unfold during their lifetimes.
The tl;dr is that Darby's nonsensical interpretation of Daniel 9 is very recent and a dispensationalist view not held by the vast majority of Christians in the world, in the Catholic, Orthodox and protestant churches.
https://nitter.net/WarClandestine/status/2058937219423801537
💕🕊️💪🇺🇸💕
I don't see any representative of the IRGC agreeing to bupkis.
Yea, turn an enemy into a friend…. I’m pretty sure Iran is tired of being fucked with?