What week?

[YeshuamySalvation]

I don't know why is it posting double??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

[/font][/size][/b]Hello YeshuamySalvation,

Thanks, but that is what I just said. Christ means annointed in Greek thus all Christ really meant was annointed one.

Christos my friend; Christ is just a transliteration, Christos means anointed!

Actually we did not suffer for our sins. Some did but were given the opportunity of forgiveness.

Roman's 4

I'm talking about us as Jews; it is why we had to go through the seventy years of Babylonian Captivity. Your forgetting the context of Daniels prayers and supplications in Chapter 9.

 

[gwynedd1]

Christos my friend; Christ is just a transliteration, Christos means anointed!

YeshuamySalvation,

Yes this is understood. I was just trying to point out that all along the title is "an anointed one" be they "Messiah" or "Christ" what have you.

I'm talking about us as Jews; it is why we had to go through the seventy years of Babylonian Captivity. Your forgetting the context of Daniels prayers and supplications in Chapter 9.

Well I am not really Jewish and no Jew alive today is responsible for that but from a certain point of view one could say that.

 

[jeffweeder]

Hello jeffweeder,

I think Holdon is right on this one. How do surrounding armies constituent a temple breach?

Hi their brother.
It was the Roman armies that destroyed the temple.

You haven't shown that at all. The verses you cite refer to two different events.

So you are trying to tell me that it is 2 different discourses---Matt 24 and luke 21?
Sorry but that is not true as i will show you.

It is the same discourse of Jesus as he taught about the temple being torn down---look;

luke 21
And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said,
6 "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."
7 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"
8 And He said, "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not go after them.
9 "When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately."

Things to Come

10 Then He continued by saying to them, "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom,
11 and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.
12 "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake.
13 "It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony.
14 "So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves;
15 for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute.
16 "But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death,
17 and you will be hated by all because of My name.
18 "Yet not a hair of your head will perish.
19 "By your endurance you will gain your lives.

MATT 24
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
4 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.
5 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
6 "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
10 "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
12 "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.
13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Its the same conversation every step of the way and is not 2 different teachings.

 

[Maranatha27]

Thankyou Natman, great post.
This is salvation, and we have it.

So do I and I disagree with you

 

[Maranatha27]

In this period the Anointed One, or the Messiah, is born and is cut off after the conclusion of the 483 year as stated in verse 26, "After the sixty-two sevens,' the Anointed one will be cut off and have nothing."
A further prophecy is given of an event after the sixty-nine seven and before the seventieth seven, " The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sactuary. the end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed" (v.26)
Two major events mark the difference between the ending of the sixty-ninth "seven" and the beginnig of the seventieth "seven", meaning that the Messiah would be cut off approximately in ad 33 and that the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed in ad 70. Obviously, if the fulfillment of the last seven years immeadiately followed the preceding period, there would be no time in which to consider the destruction of Jerusalem as part of the fulfillment which would precede the last seven years. Again, a literal interpretation, as held by premillenarians, is preferable to the amillennial explanation that this has already been fulfilled in one sense or another. The end came for Jerusalem in its destruction in ad 70 and following that, war continues with its desolations as history has confirmed.

 

[gwynedd1]

Hi their brother.
It was the Roman armies that destroyed the temple.



So you are trying to tell me that it is 2 different discourses---Matt 24 and luke 21?
Sorry but that is not true as i will show you.

It is the same discourse of Jesus as he taught about the temple being torn down---look;





Its the same conversation every step of the way and is not 2 different teachings.

Hello jeffweeder,


They are definitely the same subject but Roman armies in the Temple is far too late to serve as a warning and Matthew speaks of the desecrating sacrilege in the temple. Outside Jerusalem is not the holy place. The last high priest was Ananus. He was in a position to declare an abomination. It was not the Roman armies but the zealots.

Josephus Wars of the Jews book 4 chapter 3

10. And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and every one was in indignation at these men's seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, (the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these zealots, as indeed the case was,) Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, he said, "Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places, that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains;

 

[Notrash]

First you acknowledge the writer's "ad-lib" twist on Luke and yet you say: "either occurence can be traced to have happened".

I acknowledge there is room for discussion, not that I agree or disagree; and then I add that his perspective doesnt' matter since both occurance of surrounding the city and several abomination(s) of the temple and even the altar can be traced to have happened.

I don't understand.

Yes, I'm beginning to see that.

Well, we have certainly some good hints as to what the abomination of desolation is, (an image or statue of the beast comes to mind Rev 13:14,15)), but I don't know exactly what that looks like. And like you say: the readers of Matthew's gospel should pay attention: not so much the disciples around Jesus, but the readers of Matthew's gospel. It was meant for a later time and date.

Mattews Gospel was writtin in 50 -60 AD. I think the better example to what the people in the city were to have looked for would be the example given to them through Antochus Epiphanies where his armies broached the temple.

If you take the whole prophecy of Daniel 9 you see that it is build up (chrono)logically. There is no trace of poetry or parallelism in the preceding verses.

If you read in the NKJV, http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...sion=nkjvp&book=Dan&chapter=009&navigated=yes
You'll see the seperation into poetic literature with vs 26 and 27 combined together.

We see several events being related in the chronological order after the 69th week: Messiah cut off; city and sanctuary destroyed; and wars until the end.
So, even if Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week (at the earliest) the 69th week would be ending somewhere around 30AD. Now, the other event that can be dated: the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which happened in 70AD would ALSO happen after the 69th week. This event alone is some 40 years from the end of the 69th week and would put us in the 67th week if the chronology were continuous. We know that that cannot be. Therefore we know without speculation that there is a gap in the chronological order between the 69th and the 70th week.
The last week then is not only of a later date for sure than 70AD, but after a period of wars (Jerusalem is trampled by the nations during that time) till the end: the end of the 70 weeks.
The Roman prince has an agreement with the unbelieving Jews, the abomination of desolation will be set up by his counterpart (Antichrist = the king of the Jews) at that time and tribulation and desolation follow. Till the end: Christ returns, does battle against His enemies and the false prophet (Antichrist) and the beast (head of the Roman Empire) are thrown into the lake of fire. This was what Daniel hoped for: the end of the beastly empires; the elect being brought back into their land; Messiah on the throne of David.

Yes, this is all good Dispensational/premillenial/futurist indoctination. They did a good job. I was taught some of those thing from a bible college and at a 'independant church through the missionary invitees and speakers from the colleges. I also spoke some of these ideas as regurgitation, I did not "KNOW" them in my heart through the Spirit of the Teacher. I even taught them as "The great Escape" using material from a pre-millenial missionary organization in Alaska. Didnt' sit well.
Bible colleges are known as 'evangelical fundamental' because the evangelize the fundamentals, which would also be known as prosylityzing. (My ad-lib definition and explanation, perhaps not accurate definition of Evan fundy) I already knew the Lord well enough that I couldnt' be fully prosylityzed. Many things taught in bible colleges don't touch on eshatology and are good and worthwhile. But there are other things that are the are not.

 

[Notrash]

Hello jeffweeder,


They are definitely the same subject but Roman armies in the Temple is far too late to serve as a warning and Matthew speaks of the desecrating sacrilege in the temple. Outside Jerusalem is not the holy place. The last high priest was Ananus. He was in a position to declare an abomination. It was not the Roman armies but the zealots.

Josephus Wars of the Jews book 4 chapter 3

Hello Gwynnd1,
Just to point out;
There were two circlings of Jerusalem. One in I think 66
under Cestuis Gaius? (spell check) and the one legion was just about wiped out while retreating for no reason.

Josephus tells us that on October 4, 66 CE (Tishri 27, 3827) that Cestius Gallus, the governor of the province, brought his troops to Jerusalem and surrounded the city. On October 7, 66 CE (Tishri 30, 3827), Cestius Gallus’ troops proceeded all the way up to the temple area (Josephus, The Wars, Book II, Chapter 19, Sections 4-6). Josephus believed that Gallus would have taken Jerusalem had he continued his siege a little longer. He also believed that it was an act of God that Gallus did not end the war at that time (Josephus, The Wars, Book II, Chapter 19, Sections 4-6). Instead, Gallus withdrew his troops from Jerusalem in October of 66 CE. The Christians left Jerusalem shortly after this withdrawal (Josephus, The Wars, Book II, Chapter 20, Section 1). The Romans came back in 67 CE and waged war against the Jews living in Judea. Three and a half years later they destroyed the city of Jerusalem.

6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius (1) as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.

 

[Maranatha27]

Premillenarians confirm its future fulfillment by the identification of, "the ruler who will come" of verse 26 with the "he" of 9:27, the future world ruler. By contrast, some amillenarians hold that the one confirming the covenant in verse 27 was Christ Himself with reference to the New Covenant, but this covenant is obviously longer than seven years in duration.
The interpretation of "he" which begins verse 27 is crucial to understanding this prophecy in its fulfillment. In normal laws of reference a pronoun refers back to the last proceeding person mentioned. In this case its the "ruler who will come" of verse 26 rather than "the Anointed One" of the earlier portion of that verse. Because the fulfillment was never literally acomplished by Christ at His first coming, and even the New Covenant which they claim is referred to here cannot be related to the seven-year covenant because it is eternal, leaves the identification of the covenant maker as the future world ruler, or Antichrist of the end time, a Roman related to the people who would destroy the city.
This is in keeping with other prophecy which indicates that he will stop sacrifices in the middle of the last seven years, the conclusion confirmed later in Daniel 12:7 in reference to the last three and a half years and the revelation of daily sacrifices being abolished and the abomination set up in verse 11.
The concept that there is a time gap between 9:26 and verse 27 though opposed by many amillenarians, has a great deal of scriptural confirmation. One of the most important confirmations was the fact that the Old Testament presents the first and second coming of Christ as occurring at the same time as in Isaiah 61:1-2. If the entire Inter-advent Age can be interposed between references to the first and second coming of Christ in the Old Testament, it certainly sets a precedent for having a time gap between the sixty-ninth 7 and the seventieth 7 of Daniel 9:24-27
As in other problems in prophecy, so much of the difficulty comes when interpreters fail to take note of the particulars of the prophecy. Once it is understood that prophecy needs to be fulfilled literally and completely, many of the problems disappear

 

[jeffweeder]

The interpretation of "he" which begins verse 27 is crucial to understanding this prophecy in its fulfillment. In normal laws of reference a pronoun refers back to the last proceeding person mentioned.

I prefer the preceedeing verse , as it speaks of either the messiah or the desolater......v 27 is an elabaration of verse 26

"

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end 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 abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Hi again Jen: Ofcourse an anointed has to be an important person in history, yet that does not mean it has to be Yeshua! As i explained on my previous post, the Hebrew word Chathak means determined not divided. I would love to know your reasoning though; how exactly do you calculate this event? I've never seen nothing in Daniel that would even imply that we should add subtract multiply and divide time. Yet i've seen lots of people conjecturing in that manner! When we conjecture in such manner everyones view points regardless of how extreme it may be becomes valid. Wouldn't you agree?

We pretty much agree on most things i would say. The Hebrew word Yom for day does not appear in Daniel 8:14. It is not days that are being referenced but the Tamid; the continual daily sacrifices in the Temple, that is the evenings and the morning sacrifices.

Ok, I found your post!

Now, tell me why you don't think that the anointed one in Daniel 9 is speaking of Jesus.

From my perspective, however slight, it seems like the angel is telling Daniel what would happen to the 2nd and 3rd temples. History tells us when the 2nd temple was built, when Christ came and died (and rose), and when the 2nd temple was destroyed, and that there will be a third temple from which the sacrifices are ended and an abomination is set up. Now, knowing that these are the events that Daniel 9 is speaking of, why wouldn't the anointed one be Jesus?

The annointed one in these passages comes and is cut off before the destruction of the 2nd temple.


Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (483 years from command to restore and build Jerusalem until Jesus comes and dies, right? But why the division of the weeks between 49 (seven weeks) and the 62 weeks? Is there another time gap?)


Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (about 30AD), but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (2nd temple- 70AD); and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (still speaking of the 2nd temple)

Dan 9:27 And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many (beast with pact with 10 kings) for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (Sacrifice and oblation - that means there's another, 3rd, future temple in order for there to be sacrifices)


Dan 7:24The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.


Rev 17:12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.
Rev 17:13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.



When people say the 70 weeks are fulfilled together, all at once, with no gaps of time between the 70 weeks, I wonder why. why do they have to be fulfilled all at once? It's like God is saying, "Here's 2500 years of time and 490 of those years of time are going to be for the fulfillment of this decree. Once this decree is complete, the 70 weeks or 490 years of time are complete."

It's like a time-share. You get two weeks a year to stay in your time-share but it doesn't have to be all at once, it could be a week now and a week later. Ha ha ( I know, weird analogy)

 

[Natman]

In this period the Anointed One, or the Messiah, is born and is cut off after the conclusion of the 483 year as stated in verse 26, "After the sixty-two sevens,' the Anointed one will be cut off and have nothing."
A further prophecy is given of an event after the sixty-nine seven and before the seventieth seven, " The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sactuary. the end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed" (v.26)

I think this is where most of the confusion come in. The key phrase appears to be "after the sixty-two sevens". Many assume that ALL of the events MUST occur WITHIN the seventieth seven. However, it is also true to say that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred AFTER the sixty-two sevens, even though it was some forty years AFTER the sixty-two sevens.

I see Dan 9:26 and Dan 9:27 as a for of Hebrew parallelism, in which two separate sets of events are spoken of twice as a form of emphasis.



Dan 9:26(a) speaks of Jesus death,

Dan 9:26(a), "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing." ​

Similarly, Dan 9:27(a) speaks of Jesus' death,

Dan 9:27(a), "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering."​

During Jesus' Earthly ministry, He preached almost exclusively to the Jews, up to His death, three-and-a-half years after His ministry began. At that moment, the need for animal sacrifice ended, even though the Jews continued to perform the practice for another forty years. The Gospel and the message of the Kingdom of God continued to be preached exclusively to the Jews for another three-and-a-half years after Jesus' death, until the death of Stephen and the conversion of Saul to Paul, at which time, the Gospel began to be preached to the gentiles.



Dan 9:26(b) speaks of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which occurred in 70AD.

Dan 9:26(b), "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."​

There are two possibilities as to who the "ruler" could be. He could be then emperor of Rome (Nero), or Jesus Christ. It seems obvious to believe that the ruler could be Nero, however, given that the destruction is seen as a form of judgement that was poured out on Jerusalem, and that God historically used and orchestrated other nations to pour His judgement out on Israel, it can also be construed that the "ruler" is Jesus, directing Titus and his armies. If Jesus is the "ruler" then the "people" could either be the Roman armies, or some believe that they are the Jews themselves, believing that Jerusalem was destroyed because they had disobeyed God and rejected His Messiah. I am not sure I can grasp this latter understanding.



The parallel verse in Dan 9:27(b) also point to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Dan 9:27(b), "And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."​

It is my understanding that Nero instructed that the Roman standards baring the phrase "Nero is God" were to be place inside the Temple so that they could be worshipped along with Jehovah.

 

[Natman]

From my perspective, however slight, it seems like the angel is telling Daniel what would happen to the 2nd and 3rd temples. History tells us when the 2nd temple was built, when Christ came and died (and rose), and when the 2nd temple was destroyed, and that there will be a third temple from which the sacrifices are ended and an abomination is set up.

Although I read prophesies that predict the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple, I do not see anywhere where there is a prophesy given outlining the rebulding of a 3rd Temple.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Although I read prophesies that predict the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple, I do not see anywhere where there is a prophesy given outlining the rebulding of a 3rd Temple.

Ezek 40-48, Zech 14 has people coming to sacrifice AFTER Jesus' return., 2 Thess 2 says the bad guy stands in the temple and proclaims himself to be God.

 

[gwynedd1]

I think this is where most of the confusion come in. The key phrase appears to be "after the sixty-two sevens". Many assume that ALL of the events MUST occur WITHIN the seventieth seven. However, it is also true to say that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred AFTER the sixty-two sevens, even though it was some forty years AFTER the sixty-two sevens.

I see Dan 9:26 and Dan 9:27 as a for of Hebrew parallelism, in which two separate sets of events are spoken of twice as a form of emphasis.



Dan 9:26(a) speaks of Jesus death,

Dan 9:26(a), "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing." ​

Similarly, Dan 9:27(a) speaks of Jesus' death,

Dan 9:27(a), "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering."​

During Jesus' Earthly ministry, He preached almost exclusively to the Jews, up to His death, three-and-a-half years after His ministry began. At that moment, the need for animal sacrifice ended, even though the Jews continued to perform the practice for another forty years. The Gospel and the message of the Kingdom of God continued to be preached exclusively to the Jews for another three-and-a-half years after Jesus' death, until the death of Stephen and the conversion of Saul to Paul, at which time, the Gospel began to be preached to the gentiles.



Dan 9:26(b) speaks of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which occurred in 70AD.

Dan 9:26(b), "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."​

There are two possibilities as to who the "ruler" could be. He could be then emperor of Rome (Nero), or Jesus Christ. It seems obvious to believe that the ruler could be Nero, however, given that the destruction is seen as a form of judgement that was poured out on Jerusalem, and that God historically used and orchestrated other nations to pour His judgement out on Israel, it can also be construed that the "ruler" is Jesus, directing Titus and his armies. If Jesus is the "ruler" then the "people" could either be the Roman armies, or some believe that they are the Jews themselves, believing that Jerusalem was destroyed because they had disobeyed God and rejected His Messiah. I am not sure I can grasp this latter understanding.



The parallel verse in Dan 9:27(b) also point to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Dan 9:27(b), "And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."​

It is my understanding that Nero instructed that the Roman standards baring the phrase "Nero is God" were to be place inside the Temple so that they could be worshipped along with Jehovah.

Hello Natman,

Recall that defilement happens within. The zealots had done so as observed by the high priest.

Josephus ,Wars of the Jews, Book 4

10. And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and every one was in indignation at these men's seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, (the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these zealots, as indeed the case was,) Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, he said, "Certainly it had been good for me to die before I had seen the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places, that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains;

It was Israel that caused abominations and the nations were sent to remove the sacrilege by burning it down.

Eziekiel 8

5 Then God* said to me, ‘O mortal, lift up your eyes now in the direction of the north.’ So I lifted up my eyes towards the north, and there, north of the altar gate, in the entrance, was this image of jealousy. 6He said to me, ‘Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? Yet you will see still greater abominations.’

 

[gwynedd1]

Ezek 40-48, Zech 14 has people coming to sacrifice AFTER Jesus' return., 2 Thess 2 says the bad guy stands in the temple and proclaims himself to be God.

Hello HisdaughterJen,

I have already stated this as having happened with no explanation for Revelation 2. Jesus said, "I will come to you", to judge.

 

[holdon]

I think this is where most of the confusion come in. The key phrase appears to be "after the sixty-two sevens". Many assume that ALL of the events MUST occur WITHIN the seventieth seven. However, it is also true to say that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred AFTER the sixty-two sevens, even though it was some forty years AFTER the sixty-two sevens.

So, you see the gaping hole in the 70 weeks....

That's what regular futurists have been saying all a long.

 

[gwynedd1]

So, you see the gaping hole in the 70 weeks....

That's what regular futurists have been saying all a long.

Holdon,

If that is true it is a false prophesy. There is no argument to be made. All gap theories are an attempt to accommodate an apparent false prophesy.

 

[Notrash]

Holdon,

If that is true it is a false prophesy. There is no argument to be made. All gap theories are an attempt to accommodate an apparent false prophesy.

Yeah, I think Natman mistyped 62nd week for 70th week or something. His other comments align with the 70 continuous week fulfillment followed by the cause/effect of the rejection of the covenant in 66-73 AD.

Natman will probably clarify after the holidays.