Says you. Daniel's prophecy fits perfectly through history until the time of Christ, no huge gaps needed. But even if I believed Daniel had anything left to be fulfilled, that doesn't change the time frame statements of Daniel vs. Revelation. Unless you want to go all out and say that none of Daniel has been fulfilled, a laughable assertion.
The incongruencies vis a vis history, reality and Scripture are HUGELY WORSE BY MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE with Replacement Theology. I'm amazed that any smart people would be duped by it. It seems to plainly illogical on SO MANY points the whole length and breadth of it.
If you have a point, it is always best to make it quickly and succinctly, not over twelve pages of multicolored giant font. Nor is it necessary to describe your point. Just make it.
Why do you need an earthly kingdom? Christ Himself said that His kingdom was not of this world. You are making the same mistake that Jews make with regards to the kingdom. What part of "my kingdom is not of this world" do you not understand? For that matter, if God wanted an earthly kingdom, why did Christ reject the efforts to make Him an earthly kingdom after He fed the multitudes?
That is the simplest and best case made in this issue. Thank you.
Most Christians will say that they believe in the fundamentals of Biblical interpretation. Virtually all would agree that the more confusing passages should be interpreted in light of those passages that are crystal clear. Most would say that taking into consideration the audience to whom each book of the Bible was written is also important. But that simply isn't the case in dispensational premillennialism. For example, reading through Daniel's prophecy would never cause one to come away with the assumption that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—especially one of an indeterminate amount of time. Dispensationalists fail to take that passage of Scripture at face value. They also fail to recognize at whom that prophecy was directed. The Hebrews of the time would have never assumed that the fulfillment of those 70 weeks would be thousands of years in the future. Looking at the timeline of events that occured after Daniel's prophecy, we can see the 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
One of the interesting things about many dispensationalists is the almost rabid visciousness with which they defend their position. For them, questioning their eschatological beliefs is tantamount to questioning their salvation. A few months ago I read a post on FR that said, "If I can't trust God to keep His promises to Israel, how can I trust that He will keep His promises to me?" While this may sound like a reasonable approach, it isn't. Assuming that the dispensational model is true, how can anyone point to God's promises to Israel as examples of His faithfulness when those promises have not yet been fulfilled?
But don't expect rational thinking from such people. They have had this pounded into their brains for so long that it's absolutely inconceivable for them to imagine any other possible interpretation of even the most clear passages of Scripture. And I am convinced that the church has suffered as a result.
I have known dispensationalists who are so focused on Israel and the Jews that they ignore the needs of their brothers and sisters in Christ. I think that is wrong, and it goes against the ecclesiastical responsibilities laid out in the New Testament for the believer. If a Christian is led by the Holy Spirit to minister to the Jews, to bear witness to the gospel and evangelize Jewish unbelievers, that is an entirely different matter. However, that doesn't seem to be the focus of dispensational theology.
I am encouraged now that I have seen a number of others express their concerns with the prevailing eschatological school of thought in the church today. I believe this number will grow, especially as more false prophecies fail to pan out.
Jesus gave us the answer, in fact, right in the verse you quoted by didn't finish. Here is the entire verse of John 18:36:
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. KJV
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."NIV
Which part of now do you not understand?
. . . "'I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed
TIME OF THE END.
UHHHHHHH, I don't know how much more plain God could have made it. . . I suppose He could bore a hole and pour it in but He has this thing about free will.
8:23-25:
"In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked [obviously NOT talking about the U.S. or western Europe or . . . ], a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue [obviously NOT talking about the Anti-Christ because the Replacement theologians won't allow it], 24He will become very strong, but not by his own power [couldn't be by satan's power because that might mean he's the Anti-Christ instead of some pretender in an earlier era arrogantly stomping around largely in his own strength ], He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does [don't know anyone historically matching that overly well]. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people [Don't know any historical foot soldier fitting those criteria]. 25He will cause deceit to prosper [probably making Billdo and Shrillery look like rank amateurs], and he will consider himself superior [as in equal to God, demanding worship according to other parts of The Bible (mysteriously not the Bibles of Relplacement theologians however--or else certain eyes don't work when reading those passages)].
When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes [obviously that couldn't be at 3.5 years into traumas or at any other time fitting end time scenarios because Replacement theologians won't allow it. It sure couldn't be surprising the Israel's he's made a peace treaty with at the point when The Bible exhorts them to flee for the hills as he slaughters them between the porch and the altar and everywhere else he can lay demonic guided hands on them].
Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power [so, which of those ancient characters were destroyed by a sharp two edged sword from the Majestic Risen Christ in full view of the whole world--or some other supernatural way at the climax of history as we've known it IN THE END TIMES?].
Maybe we're reading different Daniels. The one I read has plenty yet unfulfilled.