• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Question on books of the bible dating

OK. The Messiah/Prince is cut off after the 69th week. It hasn't even gotten to the 70th week
LOL...What number do you think follows after the number 69? It's 70! Messiah the Prince who was to come was cut off in the middle of the 70th week by His crucifixion.

The very reason why Daniel was given a detailed, time-specific prophecy of the 490 years was to point directly to the exact year in which Christ Jesus as Messiah the Prince would begin His miraculous ministry, and then be crucified exactly in the middle of that last 70th "week" of 7 years. Christ Jesus fulfilled this to the letter, proving His divinity.

Jesus death and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are more than seven years apart.
That doesn't make a bit of difference. The final fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was never included as part of the six things that would be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, as listed in Daniel 9:24. Only the prophecies that foretold that eventual AD 70 destruction were given and "sealed up" within that 70 weeks - not the later fulfillment of that destruction by armies.

According to those using grammer, the he points back to the "prince who is to come". He strengthens a covenant.
The "Prince who is to come" in Dan. 9:26 is "Messiah the Prince" in Dan. 9:25 who was to come. Same Prince. Christ said He was sent "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". He was the prophesied "Messenger of the covenant" from Malachi 3:1, who "confirmed that covenant with many" of His own people (Daniel's people) during that last 70th week from AD 30-37. After that AD 37 year, the gospel emphasis exploded into the Gentile nations, since most of the Jews except for the believing "remnant" had been rejecting it.

Paul and Barnabas testified of this evangelistic transition to the Gentiles at the end of the 70th week in Acts 13:46-47. "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should FIRST have been spoken to you:" ("necessary" in order to fulfill Daniel's last 3-1/2 years of that 70th week). "But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us..."
 
Last edited:
The very reason why Daniel was given a detailed, time-specific prophecy of the 490 years was to point directly to the exact year in which Christ Jesus as Messiah the Prince would begin His miraculous ministry, and then be crucified exactly in the middle of that last 70th "week" of 7 years. Christ Jesus fulfilled this to the letter, proving His divinity.
I agree

I think the use of 7 is two fold literal. . compared to the spiritual . 7 in multiples 70. . . 700. . 7000 = perfect complete. . The veil was rent the ressurection sheep gate opened and will close on the last day under the Sun

7 times 7 = 49 . . . . . complete perfect

7 times 70 = 490 . . . . . grace, the peace of God surpasses our undestanding freely giving us His .

Matthew 18:21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
 
Daniel's angel told him that ALL the visions he had given Daniel were going to be fulfilled by the time God had "shattered the power of the holy people" (Daniel 12:7). That INCLUDED the fulfillment of ALL the prophecies regarding the 70 weeks, AND ALSO the destruction of Daniel's statue of empires. First-century Israel was shattered as a nation by the time Jerusalem was taken, and the temple was torn down to the last stone in AD 70. Even before then, the intact, no-gap 490 years of Daniel 9 (beginning in 454 BC) had already been completed by 37 AD. Because of Daniel 12:7, your interpretation of a modern-day fulfillment applied to this statue cannot possibly be correct.
You are way off base here. Take Daniel 12:1:
"“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued." This very much sounds like the final judgment in Revelation 20, where the book of life is open, and those found in it are saved, and those not in it are thrown into the lake of fire.

"10 Many will be purged, [k]purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but [l]those who have insight will understand. 11 From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the [m]abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days."

So the prophecies given by Daniel lead to many being purged, purified, and refined. Notice here how the time from the 70 weeks of Daniel adds up to 3 years and 7 months, not 3 1/2 years. Why? It will take that long for the many to be purged, purified and refined. This is Zechariah, where the people recognize Jesus, and they mourn for Him. All of that... 30 days. And there is the 1290 days. And then 1335 days. That will be for you to figure out.

And if you don't think the Jews understood these concepts, Daniel understood what God meant when He said "13 But as for you, go your way to the [n]end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the [o]age.”" The Jews were not lacking in their knowledge of death and resurrection. This understanding is why Abraham willingly carted off Isaac to sacrifice to God. He believed God would resurrect Isaac after Abraham sacrificed him. So even Abraham understood.
It is immaterial when Rome as an empire ceased. You are mistaking exactly what was crushed when that ENTIRE statue was turned into dust SIMULTANEOUSLY by the single blow of Christ the "Stone" kingdom. This was not the destruction of the civic, governmental agencies or monarchs that composed those empires, since each of those earlier pagan empires in the past (Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Greek) had already been phased out over the centuries before Rome arose to power, and had each been taken over by the subsequent pagan empire that replaced it.
It is very important when Rome ceased. I mean, you want that to go away because it runs contrary to your beliefs, not because prophecy says different. And I am not mistaking exactly what was crushed.
Daniel 2:
"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever." It is putting an end to the systems and kingdoms of men.
Instead, it was the ENTIRE Satanic realm of wicked angelic creatures which had been operating behind the scenes of every one of those empires which was destroyed simultaneously by Christ the "Stone" crushing that entire statue in a single blow. It was Christ's mission to destroy the Prince of the kingdoms of this world. As promised, Christ accomplished this by AD 70, which is why He is victoriously portrayed as wearing those "MANY crowns" of the kingdoms of this world in Revelation 19:12. Christ is already the reigning King of kings. We are not waiting for this to happen. He rules, even in the midst of His enemies. We believers as His ambassadors to the world, with His Holy Spirit within each of us, are living proof of that.
We are waiting. The final enemy has not been defeated, which is death. That does not happen until Revelation 20 when death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, along with all whose names are not written in the book of life. So it is very important that Rome still existed, which means it had not been crushed by the stone as God clearly stated would happen in Daniel, and is reflected in a literal interpretation of Revelation. Jesus shows up in Revelation 19 with the armies of heaven to crush the kingdoms of the Earth. It is at this time that He victoriously overcomes the enemies that the Father made His footstool, and His Kingdom is founded on Earth and fills the entire Earth. The Millennial Kingdom.
Of course there are four pagan empire Beasts in Daniel's image. But the "CLAY" in Daniel's statue is actually another "Beast" - specifically the Revelation 13 "Beast from the Land" (of Israel), which "exercised all the power of the first Beast" in the eyesight of that first Sea Beast (which was the Roman empire's governor stationed in Jerusalem). This blend of the "CLAY" of Jerusalem's religious leadership had been pandering to Rome in order to preserve their own position. This was a very unstable mixture. The Zealots' rebellion against Rome launched in AD 66 brought an end to that Israelite "clay" / Roman "iron" mixture.
There is no real differentiation made between the iron and the iron and ceramic other then:
"40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. 41 In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with [as]common clay. 42 As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle. 43 And in that you saw the iron mixed with [at]common clay, they will combine with one another [au]in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery."

"and part of it will be brittle". What is it? The kingdom of iron. It has taken on a different vestige. A revived Roman empire that is not as strong as the original. Part will be strong, and part will be brittle. How do we know? There is only a fourth kingdom mentioned here and it says "it will be a divided kingdom". The object of the word it is... "fourth kingdom". And no, the clay in the statue is not another beast. If you go over the description of the fourth beast, it is obvious that it embodies all of the fourth kingdom.

Daniel 9 "7 After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, [g]this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts."

The great boasts being uttered are blasphemies against the Most High God. Exactly what the early church fathers said that Antichrist would do in the temple.

"23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings."

So no, it isn't another beast. It is clear here that it is all the same beast. The ten toes are represented by the ten horns. And the fourth kingdom that the ten kings arise out of... ROME. And the kings arise, so this speaks of a revived kingdom, or a revived Roman empire.
 
LOL...What number do you think follows after the number 69? It's 70! Messiah the Prince who was to come was cut off in the middle of the 70th week by His crucifixion.
That isn't what the prophecy says. It says AFTER THE 69th week. In every other part of the prophecy that dealt with a specific time frame, that time frame is specifically mentioned. The 70th week is NEVER MENTIONED, until we see that he makes a covenant for a week. That is the 70th week. And the HE is specifically mentioned as the one whose people destroy the holy city and Jerusalem. So this event is AFTER 70AD. Which means the 70th week is after 70AD. You keep adding/changing what God has said. This is like a football game. It is determined that a football game is an hour long, which is why they are three hours long. Yet when all is said and done, it is an hour. Why? There are times when football isn't being played, so that time doesn't count towards the hour. Then end of the 69th week marks the beginning of the times of the gentiles where the gospel moves to the gentiles. The six given results of the prophecy have not happened yet. Why? That final 70th week occurs once the focus changes again from the Gentiles back to God purging, purifying and cleansing the remnant of Israel and making them the true Israel.
The very reason why Daniel was given a detailed, time-specific prophecy of the 490 years was to point directly to the exact year in which Christ Jesus as Messiah the Prince would begin His miraculous ministry, and then be crucified exactly in the middle of that last 70th "week" of 7 years. Christ Jesus fulfilled this to the letter, proving His divinity.
And no, Jesus was crucified after the 69th week. If it was during the 70th week, or the middle of the 70th week, God would have said that. However, He specifically stated it is after the 69th week. You know what even marks the end of the 69th week? The triumphal entry where Jesus is revealed to be the prince, and all the people cry out "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord". He is cut off not too long after. It wasn't 3 1/2 years after, so it couldn't be the middle of the 70th week. And the reason why Daniel was given this prophecy was God was, due to Daniel's position before God, being beloved by God, for God to tell Him when God would be done judging Israel. When the remnant would be saved. Daniel prayed to God at this time due to reading Jeremiah, and knowing that the 70 years prophesied for Israel's exile was coming to an end. He was praying that God would fulfill His word and bring the exile to an end.

"24 “Seventy [t]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [u]finish the transgression, to [v]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [w]prophecy and to anoint the most holy place."

Israel rejected the Messiah, so the Messiah was cut off after being recognized due to their rejection. So all of the above result of God's 70 week prophecy to Daniel has not yet been fulfilled. The result above is elect Israel, true Israel, accepting their Messiah and being saved by His crucifixion, just as we are. That has not happened yet, because we are on commercial break. It doesn't say that 70 weeks are determined for the whole world, but for Daniel's people and Jerusalem. Specifically the Jews. So if the focus moves from the Jews, then the timer stops. Since the focus is on the Gentiles and the church, the timer has stopped, and the 70th week is yet to come.

I am going to be honest with you right now. As I look at what is going on around us right now, I see possible signs. Using the Leviticus principle, the punishment of God against the Jews times seven, the Jews being spread out through the world was scheduled to end in... 1948. And what happened in 1948 against everyone who said it would never happen, right up to the moment it happened? Israel became a nation once again. Prophecy is not just words that we put meaning to. It is precise. And here it was... very precise. So was the 69 weeks. Someone calculated the end of the 69 weeks being the day of the triumphal entry. They weren't trying to debunk your claim that Christ was crucified 3 1/2 years into the 70th week. It just shows that that isn't what God said.


That doesn't make a bit of difference. The final fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was never included as part of the six things that would be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, as listed in Daniel 9:24. Only the prophecies that foretold that eventual AD 70 destruction were given and "sealed up" within that 70 weeks - not the later fulfillment of that destruction by armies.

The "Prince who is to come" in Dan. 9:26 is "Messiah the Prince" in Dan. 9:25 who was to come. Same Prince. Christ said He was sent "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". He was the prophesied "Messenger of the covenant" from Malachi 3:1, who "confirmed that covenant with many" of His own people (Daniel's people) during that last 70th week from AD 30-37. After that AD 37 year, the gospel emphasis exploded into the Gentile nations, since most of the Jews except for the believing "remnant" had been rejecting it.
"26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [aa]Messiah will be cut off and have [ab]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And [ac]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [ad]there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of [ae]abominations will come one who [af]makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who [ag]makes desolate.”"

Jesus does not destroy Jersualem and the temple does He? His people, that is angels or the church, they don't destroy Jersualem and the temple. So who are these people who Jesus commands? Is Jesus the ruler of pagan Rome? Did He order them to be pagan? Everything here is part of the 70 weeks. The end of the 70th week is the end of verse 27. So again, there is way more than 3 1/2 years between the time Jesus was crucified, and when the city and the sanctuary were destroyed. Your interpretation DOES NOT FIT THE PROPHECY. Either God made a mistake, He lied, or it is as God told Daniel. It was after the 69th week, but it wasn't the 70th week. Why? The last 3 1/2 years of the 70th week is the time of Jacob's trouble. If you read the Old Testament prophecies on the time of Jacob's trouble, it hasn't happened yet. Which was worse, 70AD or the holocaust of the 1930's/1940's? I know. Too easy. The holocaust was MUCH WORSE. And what does scripture say about the time of Jacob's trouble? There will have been no worse time prior going all the way back to when the nation was founded. So... the Great Tribulation could not have happened yet.
Paul and Barnabas testified of this evangelistic transition to the Gentiles at the end of the 70th week in Acts 13:46-47. "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should FIRST have been spoken to you:" ("necessary" in order to fulfill Daniel's last 3-1/2 years of that 70th week). "But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us..."
Yes, this is the result of the rejection that had the Messiah cut off about a week after the 69th week ended. (Not 3 1/2 years after...) There is a pause, a gap, that even the early church fathers mentioned. Why? They had critical thinking abilities that put ours to shame. God was no longer dealing with Israel, but dealing with the Gentiles. The timer stopped at the end of 69 weeks. It stopped the moment Israel rejected their King. None of the results of the 70 weeks would come to pass for Israel, which was and is the intended recipient of the 70 weeks. Why? The 70th week has not happened yet.
 
That isn't what the prophecy says. It says AFTER THE 69th week. In every other part of the prophecy that dealt with a specific time frame, that time frame is specifically mentioned. The 70th week is NEVER MENTIONED, until we see that he makes a covenant for a week. That is the 70th week. And the HE is specifically mentioned as the one whose people destroy the holy city and Jerusalem. So this event is AFTER 70AD.
No, it's not. The "HE" that makes a covenant with many of Daniel's people was Christ Jesus, "the messenger of the covenant", as Malachi 3:1 termed Him. Christ announced the year when He was fulfilling the beginning of that 70th week in Mark 1:14-15. After John was put in prison in AD 30, Christ came into Galilee announcing "THE TIME IS FULFILLED, and the kingdom of God is AT HAND: repent ye, and believe the gospel." That "fulfilled" time Christ referred to was AD 30 - the beginning of the 70th week when the gospel emphasis was concentrated on "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" for that last 7 years of Daniel's prophecy, which ended in AD 37. After that, the gospel emphasis switched over to the Gentiles instead, as God commanded Paul in Acts 22:21.

It was the Jews who rejected their own prophesied "Messiah the Prince" - "the people of the Prince that shall come" (Christ the Prince's own people) - who destroyed the holy city and Jerusalem with their abominations. The Zealots and their competing leaders were responsible for the abominations taking place inside Jerusalem during those intervening AD 66-70 years, while Rome was absent from the city entirely from late AD 66 until Titus arrived in the spring of AD 70. The Jews were the nation of Israel's own worst enemy during that time - weakening their city's defenses, and preying upon its besieged inhabitants so that Rome was able to conquer it.

Honestly, you are all over the place with your interpretations. It would take a volume of encyclopedic length to address them all. And it would also be totally off the original subject of this post, which is the dating of the books of scripture. Why don't we stick to that subject?
 
No, it's not. The "HE" that makes a covenant with many of Daniel's people was Christ Jesus, "the messenger of the covenant", as Malachi 3:1 termed Him. Christ announced the year when He was fulfilling the beginning of that 70th week in Mark 1:14-15. After John was put in prison in AD 30, Christ came into Galilee announcing "THE TIME IS FULFILLED, and the kingdom of God is AT HAND: repent ye, and believe the gospel." That "fulfilled" time Christ referred to was AD 30 - the beginning of the 70th week when the gospel emphasis was concentrated on "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" for that last 7 years of Daniel's prophecy, which ended in AD 37. After that, the gospel emphasis switched over to the Gentiles instead, as God commanded Paul in Acts 22:21.
You ignore the grammer. The he refers back to the he for whom the evil, the workers of iniquity, destroyed the temple and the city. Would Jesus be the boss, the leader, of workers of iniquity? The he is not Jesus. It is the same person who strengthens the covenant, and then violates it. Has God ever been a covenant breaker? Has God ever violated a covenant He has made? Why do you believe He did? The time that is fulfilled is the time that John the Baptist preached of. The coming of the One whose sandal John the Baptist was not worthy to untie. That time was fulfilled when Jesus began His ministry in galilee. As Jesus is on Earth, so the Kingdom came with Him. So He did not lie when He said the Kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus, the prince, the Messiah, had come. And that is the fulfilled time Jesus referred to, which is not the 70 weeks prophecy, but was prophesied by Isaiah and others.
It was the Jews who rejected their own prophesied "Messiah the Prince" - "the people of the Prince that shall come" (Christ the Prince's own people) - who destroyed the holy city and Jerusalem with their abominations. The Zealots and their competing leaders were responsible for the abominations taking place inside Jerusalem during those intervening AD 66-70 years, while Rome was absent from the city entirely from late AD 66 until Titus arrived in the spring of AD 70. The Jews were the nation of Israel's own worst enemy during that time - weakening their city's defenses, and preying upon its besieged inhabitants so that Rome was able to conquer it.
Yes, they rejected their own prophesied Messiah. They had to. That was God's predetermined plan for this world. He didn't share it all with the Old Testament prophets, or they would have prophesied of the church. The church is the mystery of the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament. And, if you read the 70 weeks prophecies properly, and the prophecy of the four beasts that stood for the four empires, as the four divisions of Nebuchadnezzar's statue did, you would see that it was only ONE PERSON responsible for the abominations. And you completely ignored the prophecy that stated that all of Daniel's prophecies come to an end when all Israel is redeemed. Granted, that is 1/3 of the Jews, while 2 out of 3 Jews will die. That 1/3rd will become the true Israel. The remnant. They will have been thoroughtly purged, purified, and made white by the chastisement of God. That is what the prophecies of judgment against Israel are about. Chastisement. None of what you have said has anything to do with the 70 weeks, or, in fact, any of Daniel's prophecies.
Honestly, you are all over the place with your interpretations. It would take a volume of encyclopedic length to address them all. And it would also be totally off the original subject of this post, which is the dating of the books of scripture. Why don't we stick to that subject?
If you were to look at all the prophecies on eschatology, you would be incapable of addressing them all within your interpretation. The time of Jacob's Trouble could not have happened yet, and this is the Great Tribulation that Jesus spoke of. The Old Testament is clear about the time of Jacob's trouble, and Jesus expands upon it. The Old Testament says that it will be the worst time in history for the Jews, with nothing worse happening going back to the founding of the nation of Israel by God. Well, the holocaust of 1930s-1940s was so much worse then 70AD. As few as 500,000 Jews lost their lives in 70 AD. At least 6 MILLION Jews lost their life in the holocaust. At most, just a little over a million Jews lost their lives in 70 AD. And that doesn't even begin to line up with what Zechariah prophesied.

So, to get on dates of books, Revelation was written after 70 AD. The reason why Jerusalem is not mentioned in Revelation is because Jerusalem is already gone. There is nothing new to prophesy about a city that no longer existed. Also, the Great Tribulation is not isolated to Israel along, according to Jesus. It comes upon the whole world, however, Israel faces extreme chastisement and is the focus of the time of Jacob's Trouble. If you have issues understand that when Jesus said that there would be a Great Tribulation, as such as never been seen before the time or after, meaning quality, look no further then the Old Testament prophecies. It means quality. It will be the worst time ever. No worse time prior or after. The Old Testament is more clear in pronouncing it will be the worst time ever in the history of Israel the nation, and Jesus was expanding on that.

So, my question is this. If John prophesied his visions exactly, and God actually showed him what is to come, why did John tell anyone that Jesus had already returned? I mean, John didn't die until after 100 AD. That's over 40 years that he could have told Peter, oh, by the way, guess when Jesus is coming back? Why didn't Peter mention it in his epistles. Why did he say the opposite? Jesus hasn't returned, and don't believe anyone who says he has. Written around 68 AD. John had 31 years to tell Peter, by the way, God told me Jesus returns when the city and temple are destroyed. Again, why didn't John write it in I, II, or III John. I mean, that is earth shattering news. Imagine the number of people who would come running in to Jesus, if they knew that the world itself was ending. Jesus made it clear the world ends when He returns.

So again, Revelation was written after 70 AD, and it wasn't Nero who banished John to Patmos. John was alive when the senate repatriated all those who had been exiled. He travelled around all the churches. Why didn't Polycarp say anything? John saw Polycarp before he died. Why didn't Polycarp pass it on to Papias and Ignatius, his disciples? Why wouldn't they pass it on to Irenaeus, who had connections with the disciples of Polycarp. I don't remember if it was Ignatius or not. If what you say is true, the John knew. Why wouldn't he tell anyone. God did not tell John to seal up anything.
 
That time was fulfilled when Jesus began His ministry in galilee. As Jesus is on Earth, so the Kingdom came with Him. So He did not lie when He said the Kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus, the prince, the Messiah, had come. And that is the fulfilled time Jesus referred to, which is not the 70 weeks prophecy,
You do err, not understanding the scriptures. The coming of Messiah the Prince when Jesus began His miraculous ministry in Galilee was exactly the fulfillment of the Daniel 9 prophecy - the beginning of the 70th week. You are contradicting yourself.

He didn't share it all with the Old Testament prophets, or they would have prophesied of the church.
YOU ARE SO WRONG. Peter said that every single one of the prophets had something to say about the early church days. Read Acts 3:18, 21, 24. Also 1 Peter 1:10-12. The prophets knew very well that what they were prophesying about was in regard to the salvation which the gospel would minister unto the church in those first-century days.
And, if you read the 70 weeks prophecies properly, and the prophecy of the four beasts that stood for the four empires, as the four divisions of Nebuchadnezzar's statue did, you would see that it was only ONE PERSON responsible for the abominations.
WRONG AGAIN. Daniel 9:27 wrote that it would be "the abominable ARMIES" which would create desolations until the end of the war. Which the Zealot armies did perform those desolations inside the city of Jerusalem between AD 66 and AD 70. That was not going to be a single individual responsible for this.

And you completely ignored the prophecy that stated that all of Daniel's prophecies come to an end when all Israel is redeemed.
WRONG AGAIN. "They are not all Israel which are of Israel", Paul wrote. Daniel 12:1 said that it would be "every one that shall be found written in the book" who would be redeemed in the bodily resurrection - not every single person in ethnic Israel. You are trying to make this salvation by one's racial descent. God has always scorned such an idea.

Daniel's angel said that ALL the visions would be finished by the time the power of the holy people was shattered (Dan. 12:7). That means ALL of Daniel is ancient history by now, because ethnic Israel was shattered in AD 70. Every one of the remnant of ethnic Israel that was found "written in the book" of life was bodily resurrected in AD 70.
If you were to look at all the prophecies on eschatology, you would be incapable of addressing them all within your interpretation.
WRONG AGAIN. The historical records and archaeological evidence all aligns with Revelation's predictions fulfilled in that first-century generation. Dates, people, evil characters, Beasts, battles - EVERYTHING is ancient history by now, with the exception of the "sealed up" prophecies of Revelation 10:4.

God did not tell John to seal up anything.
DEFINITELY WRONG. Read Revelation 10:4. "Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not." These were the lone prophecies in Revelation which were intended for times following AD 70 and into the distant future. The rest was all to be fulfilled by the time John's own first-century generation had passed away, as Christ had promised.

Jesus made it clear the world ends when He returns.
WRONG. Jesus said "the consummation of the AGE" would end with His return. All of the NT writers spoke about those "last days", even that "last HOUR" which was then taking place in 1 John 2:18. There were going to be other subsequent AGES that followed Christ's second-coming return, as Christ Himself testified, along with Paul, Zechariah, Malachi, etc..
So again, Revelation was written after 70 AD, and it wasn't Nero who banished John to Patmos
TOTALLY WRONG. You are sweeping the identity of the then-living sixth "king" of Revelation 17 under the rug. This dates Revelation to a composition during the reign of Nero. We also have external evidence that speaks directly of Nero having John banished to Patmos, which you also conveniently ignore.

why did John tell anyone that Jesus had already returned? I mean, John didn't die until after 100 AD.
This is a different "John" you are referring to. There was more than one person named John operating as a leader in the early church, you know. Papias proved that. You are mistaking which particular "John" wrote the book of Revelation. It certainly was NOT the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.
 
It is still possible that Revelation was written after 70 AD, hence John didn't give an prophecies regarding what is to happen to Jerusalem. Why? It had already happened. Also, the purpose of the writing was to reveal the end of the world, not Jerusalem.

It is a revelation of Christ, not the end of the world.
 
You ignore the grammer. The he refers back to the he for whom the evil, the workers of iniquity, destroyed the temple and the city. Would Jesus be the boss, the leader, of workers of iniquity? The he is not Jesus. It is the same person who strengthens the covenant, and then violates it. Has God ever been a covenant breaker? Has God ever violated a covenant He has made? Why do you believe He did? The time that is fulfilled is the time that John the Baptist preached of. The coming of the One whose sandal John the Baptist was not worthy to untie. That time was fulfilled when Jesus began His ministry in galilee. As Jesus is on Earth, so the Kingdom came with Him. So He did not lie when He said the Kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus, the prince, the Messiah, had come. And that is the fulfilled time Jesus referred to, which is not the 70 weeks prophecy, but was prophesied by Isaiah and others.

Yes, they rejected their own prophesied Messiah. They had to. That was God's predetermined plan for this world. He didn't share it all with the Old Testament prophets, or they would have prophesied of the church. The church is the mystery of the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament. And, if you read the 70 weeks prophecies properly, and the prophecy of the four beasts that stood for the four empires, as the four divisions of Nebuchadnezzar's statue did, you would see that it was only ONE PERSON responsible for the abominations. And you completely ignored the prophecy that stated that all of Daniel's prophecies come to an end when all Israel is redeemed. Granted, that is 1/3 of the Jews, while 2 out of 3 Jews will die. That 1/3rd will become the true Israel. The remnant. They will have been thoroughtly purged, purified, and made white by the chastisement of God. That is what the prophecies of judgment against Israel are about. Chastisement. None of what you have said has anything to do with the 70 weeks, or, in fact, any of Daniel's prophecies.

If you were to look at all the prophecies on eschatology, you would be incapable of addressing them all within your interpretation. The time of Jacob's Trouble could not have happened yet, and this is the Great Tribulation that Jesus spoke of. The Old Testament is clear about the time of Jacob's trouble, and Jesus expands upon it. The Old Testament says that it will be the worst time in history for the Jews, with nothing worse happening going back to the founding of the nation of Israel by God. Well, the holocaust of 1930s-1940s was so much worse then 70AD. As few as 500,000 Jews lost their lives in 70 AD. At least 6 MILLION Jews lost their life in the holocaust. At most, just a little over a million Jews lost their lives in 70 AD. And that doesn't even begin to line up with what Zechariah prophesied.

So, to get on dates of books, Revelation was written after 70 AD. The reason why Jerusalem is not mentioned in Revelation is because Jerusalem is already gone. There is nothing new to prophesy about a city that no longer existed. Also, the Great Tribulation is not isolated to Israel along, according to Jesus. It comes upon the whole world, however, Israel faces extreme chastisement and is the focus of the time of Jacob's Trouble. If you have issues understand that when Jesus said that there would be a Great Tribulation, as such as never been seen before the time or after, meaning quality, look no further then the Old Testament prophecies. It means quality. It will be the worst time ever. No worse time prior or after. The Old Testament is more clear in pronouncing it will be the worst time ever in the history of Israel the nation, and Jesus was expanding on that.

So, my question is this. If John prophesied his visions exactly, and God actually showed him what is to come, why did John tell anyone that Jesus had already returned? I mean, John didn't die until after 100 AD. That's over 40 years that he could have told Peter, oh, by the way, guess when Jesus is coming back? Why didn't Peter mention it in his epistles. Why did he say the opposite? Jesus hasn't returned, and don't believe anyone who says he has. Written around 68 AD. John had 31 years to tell Peter, by the way, God told me Jesus returns when the city and temple are destroyed. Again, why didn't John write it in I, II, or III John. I mean, that is earth shattering news. Imagine the number of people who would come running in to Jesus, if they knew that the world itself was ending. Jesus made it clear the world ends when He returns.

So again, Revelation was written after 70 AD, and it wasn't Nero who banished John to Patmos. John was alive when the senate repatriated all those who had been exiled. He travelled around all the churches. Why didn't Polycarp say anything? John saw Polycarp before he died. Why didn't Polycarp pass it on to Papias and Ignatius, his disciples? Why wouldn't they pass it on to Irenaeus, who had connections with the disciples of Polycarp. I don't remember if it was Ignatius or not. If what you say is true, the John knew. Why wouldn't he tell anyone. God did not tell John to seal up anything.

Sorry TMSO, you 180 off reading Dan 9. The going interp was Josephus and Caiaphas. See my other threads, then we'll talk. Christ strengthened the new covenant, and dismissed the old.
 
TMSO, Revelation’s own internal witness proves beyond any doubt that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be written after AD 70. In fact, it is impossible for it to have been written any later than early AD 60.

The stated purpose for which John wrote is clearly stated in Revelation 1:1-3. It was to show God’s servants what would SHORTLY take place, because those things were then “at hand”. NOWHERE in Revelation does it state that any of these things were to take place at the end of the world.
@3 Resurrections

3Rs

One thing in Revelation has not happened yet. 1st verse in Rev 11:

NASB 1995
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
It has not happened yet ...
The word "new" in Revelation 21:1 is kainon, meaning "new in quality or fresh." Another word for "new" is neos, meaning "new in time." According to this verse, there will not be a sea on the new earth. The absence of a sea assures us this verse does not refer to the millennial earth, because during the millennium large bodies of water will exist (Isaiah 11:9; Ezekiel 47:8–10, 15, 17–20; 48:28; Zechariah 9:10; 14:8). It must describe the eternal earth.


The end” (Rev. ch 21 & 22

VS 1 Revelation concludes with a final vision of the marriage of heaven and earth where an angel shows John a stunning bride that symbolizes the new creation that has come forever to join God and his covenant people. God announces that He's come to live with humanity forever and that He's making all things new.

VS 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

VS 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,

The city's light is the Lord Himself: "And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there." (Revelation 21:22-25). The Lord God and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, will serve as temple and light, providing for every need of the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem.

It has not happened yet. It is a future event. Jesus DID NOT fulfill some prophesy of himself in 70AD.

Some things that he prophesied simply did not occur in 70AD. Yes, he was spot on about the temple but he did not appear...... then (Sorry, my bold is stuck)

 
You do err, not understanding the scriptures. The coming of Messiah the Prince when Jesus began His miraculous ministry in Galilee was exactly the fulfillment of the Daniel 9 prophecy - the beginning of the 70th week. You are contradicting yourself.
It can't be, because Jesus was crucified at the end of the 69th week.
Daniel 9:
" 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [aa]Messiah will be cut off and have [ab]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And [ac]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [ad]there will be war; desolations are determined."

The Messiah is cut off after the 7 and then 62 weeks. That is Jesus crucified. However, that is AFTER the 62 weeks. The triumphal entry is at the 62 week mark. At this time, Jesus is recognized as prince/king, which means He can't be the prince who is to come. Jesus was already here.
YOU ARE SO WRONG. Peter said that every single one of the prophets had something to say about the early church days. Read Acts 3:18, 21, 24. Also 1 Peter 1:10-12. The prophets knew very well that what they were prophesying about was in regard to the salvation which the gospel would minister unto the church in those first-century days.

WRONG AGAIN. Daniel 9:27 wrote that it would be "the abominable ARMIES" which would create desolations until the end of the war. Which the Zealot armies did perform those desolations inside the city of Jerusalem between AD 66 and AD 70. That was not going to be a single individual responsible for this.
Those verses say nothing of the church. I read it. When the church may seem to be speaking, it is always of YOU, not as though there was a church existing in the Old Testament.

And the church reveal "25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God [l]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 For you first, God raised up His [m]Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”" If the church was past, why would Peter says "It is you..."

"and on the wing of [ae]abominations will come one who [af]makes desolate," I see ONE person. The abomination of desolation is ONE PERSON.
WRONG AGAIN. "They are not all Israel which are of Israel", Paul wrote. Daniel 12:1 said that it would be "every one that shall be found written in the book" who would be redeemed in the bodily resurrection - not every single person in ethnic Israel. You are trying to make this salvation by one's racial descent. God has always scorned such an idea.
God's calling is irrevocable says Paul. And it was God who said that 2/3rds of the people would die, and 1/3rd would be saved and become the true Israel. Don't deny what God has set in motion. The 70 weeks prophecy is solely for the Jews. The chastisement of the times of Jacob's trouble is for the Jews. I mean, it is right in the name. Time of Jacob's trouble. It was Israel God sought to purge, purify, and make white/holy. It is all over the Old Testament. And Paul speaks to it when he speaks to and so shall all Israel be saved. True Israel. The 1/3rd, which are the remnant/elect of God in Israel.
Daniel's angel said that ALL the visions would be finished by the time the power of the holy people was shattered (Dan. 12:7). That means ALL of Daniel is ancient history by now, because ethnic Israel was shattered in AD 70. Every one of the remnant of ethnic Israel that was found "written in the book" of life was bodily resurrected in AD 70.
You really do need to stop isolating scripture from its context. 7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, [d]as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a [e]time, [f]times, and half a [g]time; and as soon as [h]they finish shattering the [i]power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. Apparently you don't think that Daniel 12:1 is part of all these events. And where can we find time, times, and half a time? All over the time of Jacob's trouble.
WRONG AGAIN. The historical records and archaeological evidence all aligns with Revelation's predictions fulfilled in that first-century generation. Dates, people, evil characters, Beasts, battles - EVERYTHING is ancient history by now, with the exception of the "sealed up" prophecies of Revelation 10:4.
Except your interpretation is wrong, so all of that is wrong. However, you are free to follow the Jesuits.
WRONG. Jesus said "the consummation of the AGE" would end with His return. All of the NT writers spoke about those "last days", even that "last HOUR" which was then taking place in 1 John 2:18. There were going to be other subsequent AGES that followed Christ's second-coming return, as Christ Himself testified, along with Paul, Zechariah, Malachi, etc..
No. Apparently you don't understand the definition of consummation of the Age. That is where everything comes together (hence SUM is part of the word), and comes to an end. The age of man ends, and the age of eternity begins. The millennium precedes the ending of the age. The final judgement is the consummation of the age. And you don't care about I John 2:18 because you don't believe in the antichrist.
TOTALLY WRONG. You are sweeping the identity of the then-living sixth "king" of Revelation 17 under the rug. This dates Revelation to a composition during the reign of Nero. We also have external evidence that speaks directly of Nero having John banished to Patmos, which you also conveniently ignore.
Except those aren't "kings", but nations ruled by kings, with Rome being sixth and seventh, and the Antichrist's Kingdom, whom is the beast, is the eighth. Symbolism, remember. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek, Rome, Rome revived, Antichrist.
This is a different "John" you are referring to. There was more than one person named John operating as a leader in the early church, you know. Papias proved that. You are mistaking which particular "John" wrote the book of Revelation. It certainly was NOT the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.
I did find some place that spoke of John of Patmos was different from John the apostle, and John the apostle died several decades before John of Patmos, which means there is no way that John of Patmos could have written the book of Revelation before 70 AD. That would make John of Patmos well over 100 years old when he died. 80 years (several decades being counted as 50 years, plus the 30 from 70AD to 100AD. Considering he would probably be over the age of 18 before being captured and exiled by Domitian, at least written in 96AD.
 
It is a revelation of Christ, not the end of the world.
It is the Revelation of Christ as what? Next door neighbor? No, King. Scripture states this doesn't happen until Jesus has destroyed the final enemy. That enemy is death, and that enemy is defeated in Revelation 20. If the final enemy is defeated, then has not the world ended?
 
Sorry TMSO, you 180 off reading Dan 9. The going interp was Josephus and Caiaphas. See my other threads, then we'll talk. Christ strengthened the new covenant, and dismissed the old.
Um, use the proper terms. He violated the old. The covenant was set for seven years. If He didn't keep it for seven years, then He violated it. God/Jesus doesn't violate covenants.
 
It is the Revelation of Christ as what? Next door neighbor? No, King. Scripture states this doesn't happen until Jesus has destroyed the final enemy. That enemy is death, and that enemy is defeated in Revelation 20. If the final enemy is defeated, then has not the world ended?

As the first page of it says, it was expected very soon. There is lots of evidence they thought so. And no wonder because the resurrection was his enthronement. The apostles didn't waste time trying to find the "right" sequence but proclaimed his position based on Ps 2 and 110: that everyone should honor the Son, lest He be angry.

If you are one of a million just thinking it is about the "right" sequence, I pity you for having missed so much of what it was about.
 
Um, use the proper terms. He violated the old. The covenant was set for seven years. If He didn't keep it for seven years, then He violated it. God/Jesus doesn't violate covenants.

No it's nothing like that. Christ rolled out confirmed the new one, and set aside the old like Hebrews says.

In Gal 3:16, as well as Hebrews, we find that Judaism replaced what was actually there, so really, we are talking about a human distortion when we are talking about the old. That needed to be set aside. But the new one, with its 6 features in 9:24, was in force.

The vision has an unfortunate shift (in v27) from Christ and to the awful person of ch 8. If that is not tracked, it's quite confusing. Please see many earlier posts that take a person all through the steps. 9:24-27 is a miniature of the 1st century generation, if you know the 1st century well enough. Christ, the Roman forces and the opposition to Christ--all three are there.
 
One thing in Revelation has not happened yet. 1st verse in Rev 11:

NASB 1995
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
It has not happened yet ...
Rella, it is your own perception of this new heaven and new earth and the sea that is erroneously dictating when you think this event was to happen. When John wrote that "there was no more sea", he was not speaking of the literal ocean waters such as the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Black Sea, etc. He was speaking in the sense of how a person with Jewish descent would understand what the "Sea" was.

"The sea" in the Jewish mindset was always linked with the pagan Gentile world, and "the land" with their own Promised Land of Israel. This is why Daniel's Beasts representing those ancient pagan empires (Chalden, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman) came up out of the "Sea". Those pagan empires came up out of the pagan Gentile world. This is also the way Isaiah referred to the "Sea" in Isaiah 60:5, "the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee." This was speaking of the conversion of the Gentile nations to the gospel in the days of the early church in the book of Acts, when "the Gentiles shall come to thy light..."

God got rid of the segregation between the Jew and Gentile categories under the reality of the New Covenant - there was "no more sea". As Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Under the New Covenant, these former things which had caused division were not to have any preferment in how God related to humankind.


As for the New Heavens and the New Earth, Hebrews 12:26-27 tells us the timing for when that reality would be openly revealed to all. God had "NOW" promised to shake not only the earth, but the heavens also, so that what could not be shaken would remain. The "weak and beggarly elements" which had already been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ's blood were dead, and the "trash" needed to be taken out. God did just that by shaking the heavens and the earth in the AD 66-70 period - removing everything that was not part of His New Covenant.

Isaiah spoke of when the "heavens and earth" were established, in Isaiah 51:16. "And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth: and say unto Zion, Thou art my people." This was symbolic language for when God establishes a people for Himself, that the earth and the heavens are involved.

God spoke in Deuteronomy 30:19 using the same covenantal terms under Moses' ministry, just before the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan under Joshua, saying, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"

The "New Heavens and New Earth" which Isaiah 65:17-25 once described in detail are not referring to the planet's physical existence during the ages of eternity. They describe elevated conditions for humanity when the children of faith are manifested as the people of God under the New Covenant in Christ's blood.


Rella, when you deny that the Revelation 21-22 New Jerusalem reality has not been ushered in yet, you essentially are denying that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer and that we "reign in Christ", as Paul described for the believers of his days (Romans 5:17). Christ today "reigns in the midst of His enemies" via His ambassadors in this world - we believers who have His indwelling Holy Spirit. You are reigning in Christ as one who dwells in the New Jerusalem even now, whether you realize it or not. You are a princess as a sister of Christ, and a daughter of the Most High God.
 
Last edited:
Rella, when you deny that the Revelation 21-22 New Jerusalem reality has not been ushered in yet, you essentially are denying that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer and that we "reign in Christ", as Paul described for the believers of his days (Romans 5:17). Christ today "reigns in the midst of His enemies" via His ambassadors in this world - we believers who have His indwelling Holy Spirit. You are reigning in Christ as one who dwells in the New Jerusalem even now, whether you realize it or not. You are a princess as a sister of Christ, and a daughter of the Most High God.
We shall continue to disagree.

The world had never been destroyed other then in the flood.

A temple and a few building were, but the new earth will be home to the believers.... If this is it... stop the world I want to get off.

If Christ today "reigns in the midst of His enemies" via His ambassadors in this world we sure are doing a lousy job for Him.
The new heavens and earth have not happened yet. The new Jerusalem has not come down. YET.
And In Rev 21:1 John sees something spectacular: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...” This new earth and new heavens are sometimes referred to as the “eternal state.” As seen in Revelation chapters 21-22, the new earth will be the eternal dwelling place of believers in Jesus Christ.

The current heavens and earth have long been subject to God’s curse because of mankind’s sin. All creation “has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth” ..Rom 8:22 as it awaits the fulfillment of God’s plan and “the children of God to be revealed” (verse 19). Heaven and earth will pass away ... Mark 13:31, and they will be replaced by the new heavens and the new earth. At that time, the Lord, seated on His throne, says, “I am making everything new!” ... Rev. 21:5). In the new creation, sin will be totally eradicated, and “there shall be no more curse” ... Rev. 22:3

The new heaven and new earth are also mentioned in ... Is 65:17, Is 66:22 and 2 Peter 3:13.... Where Peter tells us that the new heaven and new earth will be “where righteousness dwells.” Isaiah says that “the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” Things will be completely new, and the old order of things, with the accompanying sorrow and tragedy, will be gone.
It has not happened yet.
A major feature of the new earth will be the New Jerusalem, where Jesus will rule...John calls it “the Holy City . . . coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” ... Rev 21:2. This glorious city, with its streets of gold and pearly gates, is situated on a new, glorious earth. The tree of life will be there ... Rev 22:2

This city represents the final state of redeemed mankind, forever in fellowship with God: “God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. . . . His servants will serve him. They will see his face” ... Rev 21:3, 22:3-4


It has not happened yet.

Now, you believe the second coming was in 70 AD. I am not arguing that at this point. You know your bible and dates better then anyone else I have run across on that, and better then 95% of the preachers I have known.

But The creation of the new heavens and new earth brings the promise that God “will wipe every tear from their eyes”... Rev 21:4. From what I have read and studied This event comes after the tribulation, after the Lord’s second coming, after the millennial kingdom, after the final rebellion, after the final judgment of Satan, and after the GREAT WHITE THROWN JUDGEMEWNT AND

AND if you are correct that Jesus came the 2nd time in 70 AD... the other stuff has not happened.



Those things just have not happened yet.
BTW, there is nothing in my beliefs that even hint at "are denying that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer.
 
No it's nothing like that. Christ rolled out confirmed the new one, and set aside the old like Hebrews says.

In Gal 3:16, as well as Hebrews, we find that Judaism replaced what was actually there, so really, we are talking about a human distortion when we are talking about the old. That needed to be set aside. But the new one, with its 6 features in 9:24, was in force.

The vision has an unfortunate shift (in v27) from Christ and to the awful person of ch 8. If that is not tracked, it's quite confusing. Please see many earlier posts that take a person all through the steps. 9:24-27 is a miniature of the 1st century generation, if you know the 1st century well enough. Christ, the Roman forces and the opposition to Christ--all three are there.
The verse clearly states that He makes a covenant (strengthens actually) for seven years. To not go all seven years is to violate the covenant made. It is stronger then a promise. It is a covenant. Paul already warned the Gentiles NOT to set aside the old, that is the Jews and their place as God's chosen people. Hence we have the natural branches (Jews) and the foreign branches (Gentiles). Paul said it is easier to rip off the foreign branches and reattach the natural.

The main focus is what Christ did, which is where it says that He was cut off after the 62 weeks. And no, the 70 weeks starts with the decree to rebuild both the temple and Jerusalem, and the 690 weeks ends at the triumphal entry, when Jesus is recognized as Prince/Messiah. Notice how Jesus is cutoff (crucified) after 69 weeks, but Jerusalem is not destroyed 7 years later, but almost 40. So either God made a mistake, or you did.
 
The verse clearly states that He makes a covenant (strengthens actually) for seven years. To not go all seven years is to violate the covenant made. It is stronger then a promise. It is a covenant. Paul already warned the Gentiles NOT to set aside the old, that is the Jews and their place as God's chosen people. Hence we have the natural branches (Jews) and the foreign branches (Gentiles). Paul said it is easier to rip off the foreign branches and reattach the natural.

The main focus is what Christ did, which is where it says that He was cut off after the 62 weeks. And no, the 70 weeks starts with the decree to rebuild both the temple and Jerusalem, and the 690 weeks ends at the triumphal entry, when Jesus is recognized as Prince/Messiah. Notice how Jesus is cutoff (crucified) after 69 weeks, but Jerusalem is not destroyed 7 years later, but almost 40. So either God made a mistake, or you did.

It’s referring to a covenant but not one for 7 years.

Go ahead and list all antecedents in the vision so I can see what you have.

The weeks also have a break at 7 for no reason, so I’m not at all concerned that the last week is stretched out into a generation. It’s Gods merciful decision, Mt 24. The most decisive week of Israel’s life!

Building on the vile person of ch 8 and his ‘rebellion that desolates,’ ch 9s vision matches the 1st cent generation exactly.

The destruction could have happened in just 7 more years, but God was redemptive patient, Acts 13.

Paul was much more disturbed that Israel had replaced the Promise with the Law; this took place during the IT period which he grew up in. Rom 9-10, Gal 3.

There are not two programs in the Bible, like Disp’ism insists. Just faith in Christ, Gal 3. Like Abraham. The olive tree of Rom 11 is by faith; descendancy is nought. Thus there is another Israel in 9:6.
 
The verse clearly states that He makes a covenant (strengthens actually) for seven years. To not go all seven years is to violate the covenant made. It is stronger then a promise. It is a covenant. Paul already warned the Gentiles NOT to set aside the old, that is the Jews and their place as God's chosen people. Hence we have the natural branches (Jews) and the foreign branches (Gentiles). Paul said it is easier to rip off the foreign branches and reattach the natural.

The main focus is what Christ did, which is where it says that He was cut off after the 62 weeks. And no, the 70 weeks starts with the decree to rebuild both the temple and Jerusalem, and the 690 weeks ends at the triumphal entry, when Jesus is recognized as Prince/Messiah. Notice how Jesus is cutoff (crucified) after 69 weeks, but Jerusalem is not destroyed 7 years later, but almost 40. So either God made a mistake, or you did.

When requesting a complete list of the antecedents, I meant the antecedent pronouns (he, it, etc.). Futurist dispensationalism makes an unwarranted shift in it, because of the momentum of its 2 programs myth.
 
Back
Top