Understanding the Prophecy of 70 Weeks

[EarlyActs]

3. v27a is about Messiah, the subject of the whole vision. However in 27b, he refers to the desolating person, which we met in Dan 8:13+. He was to lead a revolt against the 4th kingdom of the Dan 2 vision, repeated somewhat in ch 8.

 

[EarlyActs]

4. Checking the translations of 'cut off' and 'have no one' we find that he was to be killed, but the death is not for himself. It might be 'to have no one' by way of parallelism--to intensify the 'cutting off.' But back in v24 we were introduced to the value of the Gospel in this period, and as those things are of value to others, we have an answer that way.

 

[EarlyActs]

Dan 9:26-27 is a very condensed summary of NT history as it matters to Israel. It's a pretty complete picture. The antecedent jump in 27b is the only snag to watch out for. I don't know why more people don't return to Messiah as depicted in v24 when they read v27a, but many people think it is a place to depart from the intended subject, which should be the preferred reading. There is a person who destroys the country in 27b, and this also matches NT history.

The period completes on time--with the allowance that the 'end that comes like a flood' would stretch out to that generation, with God agonizing over the destruction that would take place.

 

[TMSO]

2. It isn't about a treaty with countries for 7 years. The new covenant was established during and after His ministry. A person can simply take all the NT references to the new covenant and form an answer.

This is not talking about those covenants. I understand there is a real desire to peg convenant breaker on someone. The covenant is confirmed for one week, and then violated half way through the week. This is not speaking of the new covenant. Try reading Irenaeus on the subject. He is pretty clear, and he was the disciple of one of John the apostles disciples.

 

[TMSO]

4. Checking the translations of 'cut off' and 'have no one' we find that he was to be killed, but the death is not for himself. It might be 'to have no one' by way of parallelism--to intensify the 'cutting off.' But back in v24 we were introduced to the value of the Gospel in this period, and as those things are of value to others, we have an answer that way.

Has nothing. Isaiah 53. But we shouldn't try to identify the Messiah and things about Him using Messianic prophecy correct? Bad precedent.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is not talking about those covenants. I understand there is a real desire to peg convenant breaker on someone. The covenant is confirmed for one week, and then violated half way through the week. This is not speaking of the new covenant. Try reading Irenaeus on the subject. He is pretty clear, and he was the disciple of one of John the apostles disciples.

There is no indication at all that it is violated. Coincidentally, you could call the entire Judaizing movement a breaking of the new covenant, and the new Moses did declare the consequences for that generation if it did not keep it.

The best sense of the paragraph is within it. He had just declared 6 things Messiah would do, so the new covenant he brings is not violated or lost or set aside. All 6 things were accomplished in the Gospel event of 31. It is glorious.

It is more important to preserve the imperative nature of the kingdom than to understand Irenaeus. But Dan 2 is simply not that hard: the kingdom comes during Roman rule and is not one of the ordinary human kingdoms. It will help if you read some of the Reformation papers on the Two Kingdoms. The 2nd is not in opposition but envelopes the other. This is how Western freedom was preserved through Christian faith.

 

[TMSO]

There is no indication at all that it is violated. Coincidentally, you could call the entire Judaizing movement a breaking of the new covenant, and the new Moses did declare the consequences for that generation if it did not keep it.

Yes, which is why that covenant can't be confirmed. It had been broken centuries prior. This covenant is a treaty confirmed by one man, and the many. It doesn't say Israel, or all Israel. It says the many. Not all. The Old Covenant was for all, not the many. Hence when those who were not of Israel (for cirumcision is that of the heart) loused things up, it loused it up for everybody else. They entered into that covenant along with everyone else. However, here, as I have read from some church fathers, the sacrifices and offerings to God are taken from them. The covenant apparently includes sacrifices and offerings, and as confirmed, should remain for the week. However, half way through the week, not only are the sacrifices stopped, but there is the abomination of desolation in the temple by this very same person. The Antichrist. (You can find this in the writings of some church fathers, such as Irenaeus in my other comment.)

The best sense of the paragraph is within it. He had just declared 6 things Messiah would do, so the new covenant he brings is not violated or lost or set aside. All 6 things were accomplished in the Gospel event of 31. It is glorious.

Again, a covenant is being confirmed. This covenant is more of a treaty, as it is among the many, and not the whole. The reason the sacrifices and offerings cease is because the Antichrist, the one who confirmed the covenant, now stands in the temple declaring himself God, and rules from the temple. (According to Irenaeus and others.)

It is more important to preserve the imperative nature of the kingdom than to understand Irenaeus. But Dan 2 is simply not that hard: the kingdom comes during Roman rule and is not one of the ordinary human kingdoms. It will help if you read some of the Reformation papers on the Two Kingdoms. The 2nd is not in opposition but envelopes the other. This is how Western freedom was preserved through Christian faith.

If you read other church fathers, you would find out that the prevailing belief was that since the Roman empire was still around, Jesus second coming was delayed. It would not happen until after the Roman Empire falls.

Tertullian "1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the flesh, chapter 24)

Tertullian "For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth-- in fact, the very end of all things threatining dreadful woes-- is only retarted by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration." (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 32)

According to a footnote in the book, the church fathers believed that the Antichrist would not come until the Roman Empire was destroyed. It has the writings of a few that show this.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, which is why that covenant can't be confirmed. It had been broken centuries prior. This covenant is a treaty confirmed by one man, and the many. It doesn't say Israel, or all Israel. It says the many. Not all. The Old Covenant was for all, not the many. Hence when those who were not of Israel (for cirumcision is that of the heart) loused things up, it loused it up for everybody else. They entered into that covenant along with everyone else. However, here, as I have read from some church fathers, the sacrifices and offerings to God are taken from them. The covenant apparently includes sacrifices and offerings, and as confirmed, should remain for the week. However, half way through the week, not only are the sacrifices stopped, but there is the abomination of desolation in the temple by this very same person. The Antichrist. (You can find this in the writings of some church fathers, such as Irenaeus in my other comment.)

Again, a covenant is being confirmed. This covenant is more of a treaty, as it is among the many, and not the whole. The reason the sacrifices and offerings cease is because the Antichrist, the one who confirmed the covenant, now stands in the temple declaring himself God, and rules from the temple. (According to Irenaeus and others.)

If you read other church fathers, you would find out that the prevailing belief was that since the Roman empire was still around, Jesus second coming was delayed. It would not happen until after the Roman Empire falls.

Tertullian "1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the flesh, chapter 24)

Tertullian "For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth-- in fact, the very end of all things threatining dreadful woes-- is only retarted by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration." (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 32)

According to a footnote in the book, the church fathers believed that the Antichrist would not come until the Roman Empire was destroyed. It has the writings of a few that show this.

I can’t do mile long post. Can you please do one answer per post.

Re the violating of covenant
I don’t know what you are reading but my hunch is that you have no experience with what I’m saying, whereas I have 50 years with yours .

Get the centuries earlier nonsense out of there. You are disregarding the fact that he is in the mid 70th in his details and it makes you sound ridiculous.

The new covenant is confirmed by Messiah esp in the 40 days of teaching and Acts 2–4. How on earth that has anything to do with some modern 7 year period is out of the question. Even 7 years would be wrong, for the sake of argument. Only 3.5 left. The operations of the temple stopped in the destruction of it.

How would 2 Cor 3-5 and Heb fail to say something—anything—close to your scheme? Bc they sure did.
I don’t know where you are failing to correct your antecedents but it is the whole problem. The thing has no future look. It is NT history compressed tightly.

It would help if you went through v26-27 sayin who was who.

It has been commented that the “end of the ages” in Hebrews is likely the end of the 70 , re ch 9.

 

[EarlyActs]

Hey T, I’m sure that if your version of a millennium is true it does not depend on braking the ordinary meaning of Daniel 9:24-27. Please leave it alone in further mention of your mill doctrine.

 

[EarlyActs]

There are 2 dispensations that matter: the child trainer and the maturity in the Gospel; Gal 4; Col 2; Heb 8-10

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It's so sad to see people keeping on arguing about things they know nothing about. Truly sad.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, which is why that covenant can't be confirmed. It had been broken centuries prior. This covenant is a treaty confirmed by one man, and the many. It doesn't say Israel, or all Israel. It says the many. Not all. The Old Covenant was for all, not the many. Hence when those who were not of Israel (for cirumcision is that of the heart) loused things up, it loused it up for everybody else. They entered into that covenant along with everyone else. However, here, as I have read from some church fathers, the sacrifices and offerings to God are taken from them. The covenant apparently includes sacrifices and offerings, and as confirmed, should remain for the week. However, half way through the week, not only are the sacrifices stopped, but there is the abomination of desolation in the temple by this very same person. The Antichrist. (You can find this in the writings of some church fathers, such as Irenaeus in my other comment.)

Again, a covenant is being confirmed. This covenant is more of a treaty, as it is among the many, and not the whole. The reason the sacrifices and offerings cease is because the Antichrist, the one who confirmed the covenant, now stands in the temple declaring himself God, and rules from the temple. (According to Irenaeus and others.)

If you read other church fathers, you would find out that the prevailing belief was that since the Roman empire was still around, Jesus second coming was delayed. It would not happen until after the Roman Empire falls.

Tertullian "1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the flesh, chapter 24)

Tertullian "For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth-- in fact, the very end of all things threatining dreadful woes-- is only retarted by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration." (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 32)

According to a footnote in the book, the church fathers believed that the Antichrist would not come until the Roman Empire was destroyed. It has the writings of a few that show this.

The apostles eschatology is not about locating who is where and when in time slots. That was forbidden.

They were give the authoritative message that Christ was enthroned in the resurrection, proving that God would later judge the world through him. But the present impact was that all rulers and fishermen alike were to honor the Son.

“You will be clothed (as priests are) with authority ( to declare who owns the world).” Acts 1, in response to trying to figure out when Israel gets a kingdom back.

If you will not absorb my book, I will not read you. It is disrespect.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Yes, which is why that covenant can't be confirmed. It had been broken centuries prior. This covenant is a treaty confirmed by one man, and the many. It doesn't say Israel, or all Israel. It says the many. Not all. The Old Covenant was for all, not the many. Hence when those who were not of Israel (for cirumcision is that of the heart) loused things up, it loused it up for everybody else. They entered into that covenant along with everyone else. However, here, as I have read from some church fathers, the sacrifices and offerings to God are taken from them. The covenant apparently includes sacrifices and offerings, and as confirmed, should remain for the week. However, half way through the week, not only are the sacrifices stopped, but there is the abomination of desolation in the temple by this very same person. The Antichrist. (You can find this in the writings of some church fathers, such as Irenaeus in my other comment.)

Again, a covenant is being confirmed. This covenant is more of a treaty, as it is among the many, and not the whole. The reason the sacrifices and offerings cease is because the Antichrist, the one who confirmed the covenant, now stands in the temple declaring himself God, and rules from the temple. (According to Irenaeus and others.)

If you read other church fathers, you would find out that the prevailing belief was that since the Roman empire was still around, Jesus second coming was delayed. It would not happen until after the Roman Empire falls.

Tertullian "1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, that is, the word of false prophets, or by letter, that is, the letter of false apostles, as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away, he means indeed of this present empire, and that man of sin be revealed, that is to say, Antichrist, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sits in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Do you not remember, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what detains, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7 What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the flesh, chapter 24)

Tertullian "For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth-- in fact, the very end of all things threatining dreadful woes-- is only retarted by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration." (Tertullian, Apology, chapter 32)

According to a footnote in the book, the church fathers believed that the Antichrist would not come until the Roman Empire was destroyed. It has the writings of a few that show this.

The big fallacy is assuming that the early church fathers were more correct in their views just because they were closer to the time of the Biblical events. Within a relatively few lifetimes, some of them had views just as error-filled as modern views. Actually we have so much more accurate information about subjects than they ever had access to. This is especially true once the Jews lost access to their temple and their homeland and Christianity sank into the anti-semitism of the early Roman Catholic era. This is particularly evident as the facts of the timing of the Passion Week got messed up. Even though the New Testament narrative and the words of Jesus are very clear, still Church tradition developed the erroneous belief that the crucifixion happened on a Friday - and not on a Wednesday.

 

[TMSO]

The apostles eschatology is not about locating who is where and when in time slots. That was forbidden.

So why are you locating who is where and when in time slots? Are you different? This just happens to be around a specific time slot you have mentioned for a person, where they are, and what they do. I am hear saying we don't know, and we can't know. It is future, and it stands as it always has, as imminent. That is, it has been ready to happen at any time, and is still ready to happen at any time... and we can't/don't know when. Always soon, always imminent, but not nailed down.

They were give the authoritative message that Christ was enthroned in the resurrection, proving that God would later judge the world through him. But the present impact was that all rulers and fishermen alike were to honor the Son.

Acts 1 " 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

What is there witness? Matthew 28 "19 [g]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [h]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [i]always, to the end of the age.”"

“You will be clothed (as priests are) with authority ( to declare who owns the world).” Acts 1, in response to trying to figure out when Israel gets a kingdom back.

In response to trying to figure out when the kingdom will be restored to Israel "7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority;" To make it clearer, it is not for you to know the appointed time when the kingdom is restored to Israel (among periods of time/appointed times). It is the Father's business, and being His business, you can be sure it is going to happen. However, it is not for us to know when.

If you will not absorb my book, I will not read you. It is disrespect.

Again, I find your pushing of your own books as the entry condition for conversation on a forum disrespectful. Why is money the floor of entry? Is this forum some kind of formal debate site?

 

[TMSO]

The big fallacy is assuming that the early church fathers were more correct in their views just because they were closer to the time of the Biblical events.
Within a relatively few lifetimes, some of them had views just as error-filled as modern views. Actually we have so much more accurate information about subjects than they ever had access to.

So, if they said that the orthodox belief of the 1st/2nd century, since that is when they were alive, was a physical kingdom in Israel, then were they error-filled? I mean, Polycarp (disciple of the apostle John), Papias and Irenaeus (disciples of Polycarp) were premillennialists who believed in said physical kingdom. And, even worse, they held in a view of Israel that was almost on par with dispensational premillennialism. (Which even Eusebius pointed out, and he didn't like it.) [Ecclesiastical History of the Church] I read some of it some time ago. And I am not sure how any information we have rises above having the apostles themselves, or having access to their disciples? Justin Martyr was born before John the apostle died. He is the one who said that the orthodox belief, presumably passed on by the apostles before they died, was a physical kingdom in Jerusalem.

This is especially true once the Jews lost access to their temple and their homeland and Christianity sank into the anti-semitism of the early Roman Catholic era. This is particularly evident as the facts of the timing of the Passion Week got messed up. Even though the New Testament narrative and the words of Jesus are very clear, still Church tradition developed the erroneous belief that the crucifixion happened on a Friday - and not on a Wednesday.

Except that that is completely false given the gospels:
Luke 23 "50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God— 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was a [aa]preparation day, and a Sabbath was about to [ab]begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes."

Jesus was buried on the same day He was crucified. The preparation day that it was, is Friday. Day 1. The Sabbath is Saturday. Day 2.

Luke 24 "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."

First day of the week, Sunday. Day 3.

Matthew 27: "62 Now on the next day, that is, the day which is after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and they said, “Sir, we remember that when that deceiver was still alive, He said, ‘After three days I am rising.’ 64 Therefore, give orders for the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise, His disciples may come and steal Him, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 And they went and made the tomb secure with the guard, sealing the stone."

What was the sign that Jesus gave for who He was? No sign except the sign of Jonah, who on the third day was vomited back on land by the big fish.

Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, and rose again on the first day of the week. Friday is the day of preparation, where food for the Sabbath is cooked, and anything else that needed to be completed prior to the Sabbath is completed. Jesus had to be removed from the cross prior to sun down, as that would be the beginning of the Sabbath, and it would not be permitted for any work, to include burying someone, is to be done. The day after preparation is the Sabbath, so that is when Pilate gave the priests a guard. Being as they were Romans, and not Jews, they were not bound to follow the rules of the Sabbath.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

So, if they said that the orthodox belief of the 1st/2nd century, since that is when they were alive, was a physical kingdom in Israel, then were they error-filled? I mean, Polycarp (disciple of the apostle John), Papias and Irenaeus (disciples of Polycarp) were premillennialists who believed in said physical kingdom. And, even worse, they held in a view of Israel that was almost on par with dispensational premillennialism. (Which even Eusebius pointed out, and he didn't like it.) [Ecclesiastical History of the Church] I read some of it some time ago. And I am not sure how any information we have rises above having the apostles themselves, or having access to their disciples? Justin Martyr was born before John the apostle died. He is the one who said that the orthodox belief, presumably passed on by the apostles before they died, was a physical kingdom in Jerusalem.

Except that that is completely false given the gospels:
Luke 23 "50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God— 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was a [aa]preparation day, and a Sabbath was about to [ab]begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes."

Jesus was buried on the same day He was crucified. The preparation day that it was, is Friday. Day 1. The Sabbath is Saturday. Day 2.

Luke 24 "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."

First day of the week, Sunday. Day 3.

Matthew 27: "62 Now on the next day, that is, the day which is after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and they said, “Sir, we remember that when that deceiver was still alive, He said, ‘After three days I am rising.’ 64 Therefore, give orders for the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise, His disciples may come and steal Him, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 And they went and made the tomb secure with the guard, sealing the stone."

What was the sign that Jesus gave for who He was? No sign except the sign of Jonah, who on the third day was vomited back on land by the big fish.

Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, and rose again on the first day of the week. Friday is the day of preparation, where food for the Sabbath is cooked, and anything else that needed to be completed prior to the Sabbath is completed. Jesus had to be removed from the cross prior to sun down, as that would be the beginning of the Sabbath, and it would not be permitted for any work, to include burying someone, is to be done. The day after preparation is the Sabbath, so that is when Pilate gave the priests a guard. Being as they were Romans, and not Jews, they were not bound to follow the rules of the Sabbath.

The first part of your answer can not be answered in generalizations. Each "church father" must be treated separately in their particular views. Some had views which were according to Scripture. Some didn't. Even during the time of the apostles, some had views matching Scripture-some didn't. That is the story of Acts.

As to your views of the crucifixion narrative, you are simple mistaken. Your assumptions are not according to Jewish religious practice nor according to the Jewish calendar of that year. If you are interested in knowing more (and examining absolute proof for all of this), I have several hours of videos which go through this all in great detail.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

---deleted--- Don't have the ability to remove a post.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

3. v27a is about Messiah, the subject of the whole vision. However in 27b, he refers to the desolating person, which we met in Dan 8:13+. He was to lead a revolt against the 4th kingdom of the Dan 2 vision, repeated somewhat in ch 8.

Actually, no. The whole "pattern" that was given is about Jerusalem and the temple. Gabriel says that specifically. Btw, the word used specifically means "pattern" or "blueprint" and NOT a vision or ecstatic dream.

 

[EarlyActs]

So why are you locating who is where and when in time slots? Are you different? This just happens to be around a specific time slot you have mentioned for a person, where they are, and what they do. I am hear saying we don't know, and we can't know. It is future, and it stands as it always has, as imminent. That is, it has been ready to happen at any time, and is still ready to happen at any time... and we can't/don't know when. Always soon, always imminent, but not nailed down.

Acts 1 " 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

What is there witness? Matthew 28 "19 [g]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [h]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [i]always, to the end of the age.”"

In response to trying to figure out when the kingdom will be restored to Israel "7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority;" To make it clearer, it is not for you to know the appointed time when the kingdom is restored to Israel (among periods of time/appointed times). It is the Father's business, and being His business, you can be sure it is going to happen. However, it is not for us to know when.

Again, I find your pushing of your own books as the entry condition for conversation on a forum disrespectful. Why is money the floor of entry? Is this forum some kind of formal debate site?

Please one topic per post:

Locating times. Really? I don’t do anything like figure out all the details of the Rev.

There’s nothing to figure out about the imperative kingdom; he answered it with a hundred references in the Gospel narratives and in Acts 1:8.

 

[EarlyActs]

So why are you locating who is where and when in time slots? Are you different? This just happens to be around a specific time slot you have mentioned for a person, where they are, and what they do. I am hear saying we don't know, and we can't know. It is future, and it stands as it always has, as imminent. That is, it has been ready to happen at any time, and is still ready to happen at any time... and we can't/don't know when. Always soon, always imminent, but not nailed down.

Acts 1 " 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

What is there witness? Matthew 28 "19 [g]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [h]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [i]always, to the end of the age.”"

In response to trying to figure out when the kingdom will be restored to Israel "7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority;" To make it clearer, it is not for you to know the appointed time when the kingdom is restored to Israel (among periods of time/appointed times). It is the Father's business, and being His business, you can be sure it is going to happen. However, it is not for us to know when.

Again, I find your pushing of your own books as the entry condition for conversation on a forum disrespectful. Why is money the floor of entry? Is this forum some kind of formal debate site?

I can read Acts 1 and Mt 28. You seem to be just doing to to avoid the real question.