Understanding the Prophecy of 70 Weeks

[EarlyActs]

You've "known the materials 50 years"? And yet, you are still mistaken in so many things. No wonder your ego can't fathom that you are incorrect.

Please review. I just read through several of your posts in the thread Daniel 9 with enough agreement.

Then if you have a specific issue here, let me know. I try to find agreement where possible!

 

[EarlyActs]

Here is why I can't find symmetry in the 70 weeks. There is 7 then 62 and then 1. This string is not symmetrical.

If we convert to years and keep the 'war til the end' in mind we are closer:
49 // 434 // 49

With the 'cutting off' at the end of the 434 in 30 AD, we would then need to go out to 79 AD. This is closer...it includes the Masada event in 72 but not the last gasp revolt of bar-Cochba. There are problems.

It does not seem that a symmetry is in mind.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are ignoring the context. He confirms a covenant for seven years. That does not sound like the new eternal covenant that God makes with Israel. And then, after 3 1/2 years, the one who confirmed/made the covenant will break it. Hence the word BUT, and not, AND. If the conjunction were and, then one could say that this was part of the covenant made. However, the conjunction used is BUT. This shows that what was done in the middle of the week was contrary to the confirmed covenant. A violoated/broken covenant. Also, the only weeks shown specifically to be congiguous, are the seven weeks, and the sixty-two weeks. The seventieth week isn't even named, but shown. There are those who believe that the he and the deolator are one and the same. They can be. It isn't simple to understand. To put it simply, the one who makes the covenant is killed, and Satan possesses this person, making it appear they resurrected, and steals the glory of God, pronounces himself God, and puts an end to the sacrifices and grain offerings. He calls only for the worship of himself. Again, simplistic in statement. However, there is a lot more to it then that.

Actually the the reason for the contrast is to show that the new covenant is surprising about the offerings; it brings them to a stop. It has nothing to do with Satanic possession etc. they were legitimately stopped says Hebrews.

 

[Hobie]

Or perhaps this one...

View attachment 689

Why not make a 'church age' of ten thousand years or stretch it past a million... No, a elastic 'church age' makes it changeable to any private interpretation, which is what we see here..

 

[EarlyActs]

Why not make a 'church age' of ten thousand years or stretch it past a million... No, a elastic 'church age' makes it changeable to any private interpretation, which is what we see here..

But it can be changed by Gods private decision.

 

[CrowCross]

Why not make a 'church age' of ten thousand years or stretch it past a million... No, a elastic 'church age' makes it changeable to any private interpretation, which is what we see here..

That's called eternity.

 

[TMSO]

Realizing Mt 24A and all its gore is not trying to figure a kingdom that hasn’t come.

The kingdom that came was mentioned many times from John onward. But you are one of these people who don’t get how ‘is at hand’ is a present reality. Or near or among you or within you. I can’t solve that for you.

At hand is imminence. Imminent simply means can happen at any moment, right? ANY moment. 2000 years from now? Sure. Doesn't make it any less ready to happen. It's just waiting for God to give the word.

 

[TMSO]

You are just belittling me. I have known the materials 50 years. I can see the cutting rebuke of kingdom seekers replaced by the kingdom of priest ministry he gave them. Why can’t you?

I'm sure Dave Hunt did a lot of reading on Calvinism prior to running smack into the wall of James White. It didn't replace anything. Jesus said, it isn't for you to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. Why can't you see that possibility? (Remember, discussion is what I am looking for. Someone said that premil, amil, and other beliefs don't matter. The wondrous nature is that all (hopefully) are looking to the glorious physical return of Christ. The details may be off, but the main point is what matters.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I'm sure Dave Hunt did a lot of reading on Calvinism prior to running smack into the wall of James White. It didn't replace anything. Jesus said, it isn't for you to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. Why can't you see that possibility? (Remember, discussion is what I am looking for. Someone said that premil, amil, and other beliefs don't matter. The wondrous nature is that all (hopefully) are looking to the glorious physical return of Christ. The details may be off, but the main point is what matters.

That verse doesn't mean what you think it means. You can blame the Greek translators of the original Aramaic text for that. English translations blindly followed the Greek out of ignorance.

 

[TMSO]

The question was whether your 2nd cent BC pagan event happened in the middle of the 70th week , which was 31 AD. The answer is no.

Consider the middle of the 70th week was NOT 31 AD, the answer is still no, but also yes. Dual/multi fulfillment prophecy. The actual abomination of desolation will parallel what happened in the 2nd century BC. Just as "Out of Egypt I called My Son" was fulfilled by Israel, but also had a future fulfillment in Jesus. And it was parallel, since Jesus life paralleled Israel's experience in places.

Jesus said in Mt 24:15 you (listeners) will see that person in the temple.

So, for discussion sake:

"15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[a]let the [b]reader understand—"

Why does God, through the author, interject with "let the reader understand"? What is there for the reader to understand if the event has already happened? I mean, it would make sense if the author knew that it was going to happen after he wrote the book, and after it had been read by a number of people. It's like saying, make sure you understand in case you see it. How does one understand. Recognize that what happened in 2nd BC was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies, and that what Jesus is speaking about will parallel that. It won't be exactly the same, as Israel is a country and Jesus was God's Son. So there are similarities, while not being exactly the same. So while pigs were sacrificed in 2nd century BC, in the latter fulfillment, the Antichrist will proclaim himself God inside of the holy place, and declare that he alone is to receive all worship. So, literally standing in the holy place.

It was not a 2nd centBC event by a hostile pagan which your God blamed on Israel. Israel’s Judaizers ruined their country by not becoming missionaries of Messiah and by fighting for freedom like their Maccabean models.
That was the desolating abomination, and they were warned of this in Luke and Acts 3.

I have read Acts 3, and your interpretation destroys the actual message of Acts 3. That is not at all what Peter was trying to get across. Consider the last two verses (I chose two to keep this shorter): "25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.” Salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile.

 

[TMSO]

You are simply wrong. That's all I'll say until you display an open and seeking mind.

Wow. Since I said what Jesus said, and what the gospels say, if you say I am wrong, then you are saying they are wrong.

 

[TMSO]

That verse doesn't mean what you think it means. You can blame the Greek translators of the original Aramaic text for that. English translations blindly followed the Greek out of ignorance.

So if it doesn't mean it isn't for us to be all up in the Father's business, then it means we are to be all up in the Father's business?

 

[EarlyActs]

At hand is imminence. Imminent simply means can happen at any moment, right? ANY moment. 2000 years from now? Sure. Doesn't make it any less ready to happen. It's just waiting for God to give the word.

It did happen; that is the point. It was also not seen by familiar indicators.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm sure Dave Hunt did a lot of reading on Calvinism prior to running smack into the wall of James White. It didn't replace anything. Jesus said, it isn't for you to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. Why can't you see that possibility? (Remember, discussion is what I am looking for. Someone said that premil, amil, and other beliefs don't matter. The wondrous nature is that all (hopefully) are looking to the glorious physical return of Christ. The details may be off, but the main point is what matters.

"It" didn't replace anything? The kingdom of priests replaced a government; that is why it was called a kingdom; that's the kingdom he meant. They were to go out to the whole world as the new temple and make the whole place a worship site.

I don't know how you read Acts 2-4 and not catch the magnitude of the present imperative kingdom. Eph 1, Heb 1, Phil 2 certainly did.

All of this has to do with realizing he was the Son of David who needed to be raised and given the throne, and who deserves to have his enemies crushed; they will be. But we are to proclaim this position now as the reason why people should be in obedience to him. What is there to differ on about that?

 

[EarlyActs]

Consider the middle of the 70th week was NOT 31 AD, the answer is still no, but also yes. Dual/multi fulfillment prophecy. The actual abomination of desolation will parallel what happened in the 2nd century BC. Just as "Out of Egypt I called My Son" was fulfilled by Israel, but also had a future fulfillment in Jesus. And it was parallel, since Jesus life paralleled Israel's experience in places.

So, for discussion sake:

"15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[a]let the [b]reader understand—"

Why does God, through the author, interject with "let the reader understand"? What is there for the reader to understand if the event has already happened? I mean, it would make sense if the author knew that it was going to happen after he wrote the book, and after it had been read by a number of people. It's like saying, make sure you understand in case you see it. How does one understand. Recognize that what happened in 2nd BC was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies, and that what Jesus is speaking about will parallel that. It won't be exactly the same, as Israel is a country and Jesus was God's Son. So there are similarities, while not being exactly the same. So while pigs were sacrificed in 2nd century BC, in the latter fulfillment, the Antichrist will proclaim himself God inside of the holy place, and declare that he alone is to receive all worship. So, literally standing in the holy place.

I have read Acts 3, and your interpretation destroys the actual message of Acts 3. That is not at all what Peter was trying to get across. Consider the last two verses (I chose two to keep this shorter): "25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.” Salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile.

re 2nd BC
No connection at all. Zip. Also has nothing to do with 'out of Egypt.'

 

[TMSO]

Actually the the reason for the contrast is to show that the new covenant is surprising about the offerings; it brings them to a stop. It has nothing to do with Satanic possession etc. they were legitimately stopped says Hebrews.

However, it is clear that the sacrifices and grain offerings are concurrent with the confirmed covenant. To stop them is to violate that covenant. It wasn't confirmed for centuries, or millennia, but only for one week. The point is, the temple will be restored. However, the temple has to be destroyed first. That is after the 69th week, and before the 70th, however, that is also 70AD and not 31AD.

 

[EarlyActs]

Consider the middle of the 70th week was NOT 31 AD, the answer is still no, but also yes. Dual/multi fulfillment prophecy. The actual abomination of desolation will parallel what happened in the 2nd century BC. Just as "Out of Egypt I called My Son" was fulfilled by Israel, but also had a future fulfillment in Jesus. And it was parallel, since Jesus life paralleled Israel's experience in places.

So, for discussion sake:

"15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[a]let the [b]reader understand—"

Why does God, through the author, interject with "let the reader understand"? What is there for the reader to understand if the event has already happened? I mean, it would make sense if the author knew that it was going to happen after he wrote the book, and after it had been read by a number of people. It's like saying, make sure you understand in case you see it. How does one understand. Recognize that what happened in 2nd BC was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies, and that what Jesus is speaking about will parallel that. It won't be exactly the same, as Israel is a country and Jesus was God's Son. So there are similarities, while not being exactly the same. So while pigs were sacrificed in 2nd century BC, in the latter fulfillment, the Antichrist will proclaim himself God inside of the holy place, and declare that he alone is to receive all worship. So, literally standing in the holy place.

I have read Acts 3, and your interpretation destroys the actual message of Acts 3. That is not at all what Peter was trying to get across. Consider the last two verses (I chose two to keep this shorter): "25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.” Salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile.

Let the reader
No connection to 2nd cent. BC. There is nothing (except) in the negative for what the Pharisee movement became. It was trying to compensate for past failures; to put God in debt.

It makes sense that these instructions to the group-reader (most people did not) that they were going to look for something new--other than what was done in the past. It was very different. That's why Dan 8:13 is so important--that the expression was originally 'the rebellion that desolates.' A rebellion takes a leader; that leader was the man of sin; the son of perdition; the guy in Thess.

 

[EarlyActs]

However, it is clear that the sacrifices and grain offerings are concurrent with the confirmed covenant. To stop them is to violate that covenant. It wasn't confirmed for centuries, or millennia, but only for one week. The point is, the temple will be restored. However, the temple has to be destroyed first. That is after the 69th week, and before the 70th, however, that is also 70AD and not 31AD.

No, he made them void. There are several of these kinds of expressions in the NT; in Mt 23, he says your house is left to you desolate. Well it wasn't actually in the real time of the declarations at the temple, nor even when the gospel was written down after being verbal for years.

The same is true of Paul in 2 Thes 2: 'the wrath of God has come upon them completely.' This was declared maybe 15 years earlier.

In both cases, we are dealing the stretch Dan 9 called 'the end' (war will continue to the end). It wasn't in 31 or 31+3.5. But there was revolt and war and it did finally get torn down.

Hebrews' letter also says the old is discarded and disappearing. It is already acknowledging the past system has no value.

It is certainly not about a distant future temple with the worship system built up and running again.

 

[EarlyActs]

Consider the middle of the 70th week was NOT 31 AD, the answer is still no, but also yes. Dual/multi fulfillment prophecy. The actual abomination of desolation will parallel what happened in the 2nd century BC. Just as "Out of Egypt I called My Son" was fulfilled by Israel, but also had a future fulfillment in Jesus. And it was parallel, since Jesus life paralleled Israel's experience in places.

So, for discussion sake:

"15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[a]let the [b]reader understand—"

Why does God, through the author, interject with "let the reader understand"? What is there for the reader to understand if the event has already happened? I mean, it would make sense if the author knew that it was going to happen after he wrote the book, and after it had been read by a number of people. It's like saying, make sure you understand in case you see it. How does one understand. Recognize that what happened in 2nd BC was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies, and that what Jesus is speaking about will parallel that. It won't be exactly the same, as Israel is a country and Jesus was God's Son. So there are similarities, while not being exactly the same. So while pigs were sacrificed in 2nd century BC, in the latter fulfillment, the Antichrist will proclaim himself God inside of the holy place, and declare that he alone is to receive all worship. So, literally standing in the holy place.

I have read Acts 3, and your interpretation destroys the actual message of Acts 3. That is not at all what Peter was trying to get across. Consider the last two verses (I chose two to keep this shorter): "25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 God raised up His [k]Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.” Salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile.

re Acts 3
Nothing has been destroyed about the meaning. The mission is the blessing. They were asked to be missionaries to bless the world, before Gentiles were asked the same thing.

I'm aware that 'restoration of everything' has a certain ring to it that might sound Judaic. But there are reasons against this:
1, don't try to figure out the kingdom. Why would he pop this in when he had just been told not to--when at the end of 40 DAYS of instruction, nothing had been said about Israel's kingdom?
2, the signs and wonders of Acts 2 where the latter rains, the last days, the outpouring
3, there are many cases when 'everything' is used but is limited in actuality.
The main thing though is that translation mistake about ' Jesus being kept'. Not at all. He is being honored in a reception, as the comparisons from 2 Cor 10 show. And he goes and does several things in various forms all through Acts, the last being to support Paul in prison in late stages.

 

[TMSO]

"It" didn't replace anything? The kingdom of priests replaced a government; that is why it was called a kingdom; that's the kingdom he meant. They were to go out to the whole world as the new temple and make the whole place a worship site.

Can you give explicit reference to this, where these words show up clearly?

I don't know how you read Acts 2-4 and not catch the magnitude of the present imperative kingdom. Eph 1, Heb 1, Phil 2 certainly did.

I read them for what they say explicitly. How else? The same way the early church father's also did not see a present imperative kingdom. Do I need to quote Justin Martyr again?

All of this has to do with realizing he was the Son of David who needed to be raised and given the throne, and who deserves to have his enemies crushed; they will be. But we are to proclaim this position now as the reason why people should be in obedience to him. What is there to differ on about that?

Can you give an approximate date as to when this message was to replace the gospel?