70 AD Daniel 9:26 the people of the prince who is to come (the antichrist) . Who were the people?

[BillCody]

Notice it says the people of the prince to come , not the nation. Who were the people that came to destroy the sanctuary in 70 AD?

The Histories​

by​

Publius Cornelius Tacitus​

Book 5 - (A.D. 70)​

[5.1] EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian's. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy's territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.

You can see by this that the people were Romans, Syrians and Arabs. So which group of people do you think Daniel 9:26 is referring to ?
My guess is the Arabs based on what is happening today. They seem to be the one signing peace treaties with Israel and in the process of signing the Abrahamic Covenant.
Why would the Romans need to sign a peace treaty, with someone that they are not hostile toward or at war with?

 

[HTacianas]

Notice it says the people of the prince to come , not the nation. Who were the people that came to destroy the sanctuary in 70 AD?

The Histories​

by​

Publius Cornelius Tacitus​

Book 5 - (A.D. 70)​

[5.1] EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian's. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy's territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.

You can see by this that the people were Romans, Syrians and Arabs. So which group of people do you think Daniel 9:26 is referring to ?
My guess is the Arabs based on what is happening today. They seem to be the one signing peace treaties with Israel and in the process of signing the Abrahamic Covenant.
Why would the Romans need to sign a peace treaty, with someone that they are not hostile toward or at war with?

Daniel isn't speaking of any of those people. The book of Daniel tells the story of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who did all of that much earlier.

 

[BillCody]

Daniel 9:26
And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off (Jesus is crucified), but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come (future tense)
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. (70 AD)
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined

Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in 164 BC and Jesus died in 30 AD. So who do you think the Messiah was?

 

[Douggg]

You can see by this that the people were Romans, Syrians and Arabs. So which group of people do you think Daniel 9:26 is referring to ?
My guess is the Arabs based on what is happening today. They seem to be the one signing peace treaties with Israel and in the process of signing the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Romans, because the little horn and ten kings in Daniel 7:23-24 come out of the fourth kingdom of Daniel's vision, the Roman Empire.

The little horn person comes into the middle east from a location north and west of Israel, Daniel 8:9. i.e. from the EU, the Roman Empire manifest in the end times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daniel 9:27 covenant is a not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant which established the daily sacrifices, which will be stopped in the middle part of the seven years. The 7 years are in the text of Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

.Also, there will be no reason for a peace treaty with the Arabs because God will have destroyed all Israel's enemies in Gog/Magog - right before the 7 years begin.

The world will be saying peace and safety - not because of a peace treaty - but because the nations will be thinking they have entered the messianic age. With the Antichrist perceived to be the messiah, promoted by Judaism's beliefs and their rejection of Jesus.

 

[Sorn]

The people are Arabs, Syrians & Turks or some combination of these. See this video from time marked in the link below

 

[Douggg]

The people are Arabs, Syrians & Turks or some combination of these. See this video from time marked in the link below

The verse does not say the people of the Roman Legion. The speaker has made a mistake, beginning in minute 18:00 of the video.

"The people of" does refer to society - he is right about that. But he is wrong in saying "the people of" the 10th Roman Legion. He changed the text of the verse, right there.

The verse says the people of the prince who shall come. The society of the prince who shall come is the EU, the Roman Empire manifest in the end times.

 

[Sorn]

The verse does not say the people of the Roman Legion. The speaker has made a mistake, beginning in minute 18:00 of the video.

"The people of" does refer to society - he is right about that. But he is wrong in saying "the people of" the 10th Roman Legion. He changed the text of the verse, right there.

The verse says the people of the prince who shall come. The society of the prince who shall come is the EU, the Roman Empire manifest in the end times.

Well the argument put forth by the video author, Dr. Paul Felter, is essentially the following:
The 10th Roman legion did the principal destruction of Jerusalem
It was largely comprised of soldiers from the nations mentioned above (Syrians, Turks & Arabs) not Romans
The high level commanders may have been Romans but the troops, hating the jews basically acted on their own initiative
So the 'People of the Prince' refers to the fact that the societies represented by the people that actually did the sacking of Jerusalem, it is from their society that the prince (antichrist) will arise

So the antichrist will be an Arab, Syrian or Turk as per his argument

 

[Zao is life]

Daniel 9:26
And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off (Jesus is crucified), but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come (future tense)
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. (70 AD)
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined

Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in 164 BC and Jesus died in 30 AD. So who do you think the Messiah was?

It reads the way almost all Old Testament prophets (like Isaiah wrote) when they combine references to different people and different things into one and the same verse:

The Messiah:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. And AFTER (Hebrew achar) sixty-two weeks (after the sixty-two weeks which followed the first seven) Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.

Still no mention of anyone else at this point.

The Messiah:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

Verse 26 does not state that Messiah would be cut off after the first seven+62 weeeks minus 1 week. It says after the 62nd week which followed the first seven weeks, i.e after the 69th week. That is in the 70th week, not in the 69th, Messiah was cut off, but not for Himself.

City & Sanctuary:

26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It was the Messiah who confirmed the covenant, and the Covenant He confirmed was the New Covenant in His blood which had been promised by God hundreds of years before to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them. And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek judgment, reprove the oppressor. Judge the orphan, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:11-17

Hebrews 10:8-10
"Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

It's not unusual for apocalyptic / prophetic literature to mix two different topics into the same verses in a prophetic text. We see it in prophetic literature all the time, like in this verse:

(a) "Then the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall set over themselves one head,

(b) and they shall come up out of the land. For great shall be the day of Jezreel." Hosea 1:11

The above mention of the destruction of Israel (the Northern kingdom) in the Valley of Jezreel in one and the same verse where the uniting of Israel and Judah into one nation (after the restoration of both to God) is suddenly introduced, is just one of many examples that can easily be found all over the prophetic books:

The part speaking about the coming up out of the land and the day of Jezreel (the day and place that Israel was judged) happened in circa 722 B.C (see Hosea 1:4-5), which is what Hosea Chapter 1 is talking about, but the first part of verse 11 is also speaking of a reuniting of Israel and Judah that would occur many, many years later.

The two are related, and this is why both are mentioned in one and the same verse, but notice that Hosea did not write, "Reader, please take note: This prophecy is about the judgment of the Northern kingdom of Israel ONLY. It's not about anything else just because God inspired me to pop into verse 11 an extra piece of information about the eventual reuniting of Israel and Judah into one nation with one Head".

Hosea offered no explanation of why the first part of Hosea 1:11 should be popped into the a passage where the text is speaking about the destruction of Israel's Northern kingdom in the Valley of Jezreel. It's expected that the reader will understand.

It's typical of biblical prophecy. You see it over and over again in almost all the books of the prophets.

It's the same with regard to the mention of the destruction of city and temple by the people of the prince who would come being popped into the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah and the timing for the coming of the Messiah.

The destruction of city and temple (which we now know took place 40 years layer) is related, so it gets mentioned in verses 26-27 of Daniel 9 - but that doesn't make it the main subject in the passage. The main subject in the passage is the coming of the Messiah.

The Messiah:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

City & Sanctuary:

26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The 70 weeks prophecy was about the coming of the Messiah, and the timing for it. It is not about the timing for the destruction of city and tabernacle (even though it's also mentioned, because it's related).

 

[Zao is life]

The Romans, because the little horn and ten kings in Daniel 7:23-24 come out of the fourth kingdom of Daniel's vision, the Roman Empire.

The little horn person comes into the middle east from a location north and west of Israel, Daniel 8:9. i.e. from the EU, the Roman Empire manifest in the end times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daniel 9:27 covenant is a not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant which established the daily sacrifices, which will be stopped in the middle part of the seven years. The 7 years are in the text of Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

.Also, there will be no reason for a peace treaty with the Arabs because God will have destroyed all Israel's enemies in Gog/Magog - right before the 7 years begin.

The world will be saying peace and safety - not because of a peace treaty - but because the nations will be thinking they have entered the messianic age. With the Antichrist perceived to be the messiah, promoted by Judaism's beliefs and their rejection of Jesus.

The 4th kingdom isn't the Roman Empire. The lion, the leopard and the bear are the entire region from Iran to the Western part of Turkey, and it includes North Africa. Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the type or forerunner of the 4th Empire.

But Daniel 9:26-27 were talking about AD27-33 (the 70th week) and AD 66-70 (the destruction of the city and its temple). Unless of course the city and the temple have never been destroyed, which is what you guys' interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 implies.

 

[Sorn]

It reads the way almost all Old Testament prophets (like Isaiah wrote) when they combine references to different people and different things into one and the same verse:

The Messiah:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. And AFTER (Hebrew achar) sixty-two weeks (after the sixty-two weeks which followed the first seven) Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.

Still no mention of anyone else at this point.

The Messiah:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

City & Sanctuary:

26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them. And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek judgment, reprove the oppressor. Judge the orphan, plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:11-17

Hebrews 10:8-10
"Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

It's not unusual for apocalyptic / prophetic literature to mix two different topics into the same verses in a prophetic text. We see it in prophetic literature all the time, like in this verse:

(a) "Then the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall set over themselves one head,

(b) and they shall come up out of the land. For great shall be the day of Jezreel." Hosea 1:11

The above mention of the destruction of Israel (the Northern kingdom) in the Valley of Jezreel in one and the same verse where the uniting of Israel and Judah into one nation (after the restoration of both to God) is suddenly introduced, is just one of many examples that can easily be found all over the prophetic books:

The part speaking about the coming up out of the land and the day of Jezreel (the day and place that Israel was judged) happened in circa 722 B.C (see Hosea 1:4-5), which is what Hosea Chapter 1 is talking about, but the first part of verse 11 is also speaking of a reuniting of Israel and Judah that would occur many, many years later.

The two are related, and this is why both are mentioned in one and the same verse, but notice that Hosea did not write, "Reader, please take note: This prophecy is about the judgment of the Northern kingdom of Israel ONLY. It's not about anything else just because God inspired me to pop into verse 11 an extra piece of information about the eventual reuniting of Israel and Judah into one nation with one Head".

Hosea offered no explanation of why the first part of Hosea 1:11 should be popped into the a passage where the text is speaking about the destruction of Israel's Northern kingdom in the Valley of Jezreel. It's expected that the reader will understand.

It's typical of biblical prophecy. You see it over and over again in almost all the books of the prophets.

It's the same with regard to the mention of the destruction of city and temple by the people of the prince who would come being popped into the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah and the timing for the coming of the Messiah.

The destruction of city and temple (which we now know took place 40 years layer) is related, so it gets mentioned in verses 26-27 of Daniel 9 - but that doesn't make it the main subject in the passage. The main subject in the passage is the coming of the Messiah.

The Messiah:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

City & Sanctuary:

26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The 70 weeks prophecy was about the coming of the Messiah, and the timing for it. It is not about the timing for the destruction of city and tabernacle (even though it's also mentioned, because it's related).

The 70 weeks prophecy was more than about the coming of the Messiah though that was a big part of it.
It was really about the full restoration of Israel under Gods rule & how that would be accomplished.

This is the part of the above video, starts at relevant timestamp to explain it:

Specifically the 70 weeks prophecy is to do the following (from the video):

 

[Sorn]

So because Jesus was crucified at the end of the 69th week, there remains 1 more week to finish off the prophecy, that week will occur in the 7 year period just before Jesus returns.

 

[Zao is life]

The 70 weeks prophecy was more than about the coming of the Messiah though that was a big part of it.
It was really about the full restoration of Israel under Gods rule & how that would be accomplished.

This is the part of the above video, starts at relevant timestamp to explain it:

Specifically the 70 weeks prophecy is to do the following (from the video):
View attachment 333735

The moment you read a title that includes someone asserting that he is rightly dividing a prophetic Word, you need to be suspect.

The last two verses of Daniel 9 were both fulfilled in the 1st century, no matter how much faith in fantasies and fallacies those are able to practice who maintain this idea that they can use a PC mouse to cut 'n paste those 2 verses into another century.

Jesus spoke of the hour of trial to come, during which the harlot will be destroyed in one hour by ten kings who will reign with the beast for one hour, who will be given authority to continue for 42 months.

The hour of trial is not two hours (42 months + 42 months or seven years), but one hour (42 months).

Jesus was not crucified "at the end" of the 69th week, or at the end of any week. He was crucified after the 7+62 weeks, in the middle of the 70th week.

@Sorn You imply that the text says this: "At the end of the 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off .."

Nope. Though many saints love to change the meanings of words, words do not change their meaning just because it suits our false interpretations of scripture.

 

[Zao is life]

So because Jesus was crucified at the end of the 69th week, there remains 1 more week to finish off the prophecy, that week will occur in the 7 year period just before Jesus returns.

Jesus was not crucified "at the end" of any week. After (Hebrew "achar") the week does not mean "at the end" of any week. He was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, after the first 7 + 62 weeks.

 

[Sorn]

Jesus was not crucified "at the end" of any week. After (Hebrew "achar") the week does not mean "at the end" of any week. He was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, after the first 7 + 62 weeks.

Well i used week here to be a 7 year period. The end of the 69th week means the end of that 7 year period, not a weekend etc as such.
The video above argues that Jesus arriving at Jerusalem on the Donkey marked the end of the 69th week to the day basically. He was there for the passover feast and was crucified a few days after arriving.

 

[Zao is life]

Well i used week here to be a 7 year period. The end of the 69th week means the end of that 7 year period, not a weekend etc as such.
The video above argues that Jesus arriving at Jerusalem on the Donkey marked the end of the 69th week to the day basically. He was there for the passover feast and was crucified a few days after arriving.

Weeks of years. It never took place at the end of the 69th week of years, or end of the 483rd year. It was dead centre of the final seven of 490 years.

PS: Get hold of a book titled "The Atonement Clock" by Christian Gedge. He goes into detail of just when that final 490-year shmita cycle began and ended, showing from scripture going way back to Jacob's ladder to the first of those cycles.

Read the text in Daniel 9:26-27 without the bias of the "seven-year-tribulation-flat-earth theory" jargon filling your head, and don't ignore the fact that the text does not tell you that the Messiah would be cut off at the close of the 69th week. Nor does it tell you that it was the Antichrist making a covenant.

 

[Sorn]

Weeks of years. It never took place at the end of the 69th week of years, or end of the 483rd year. It was dead centre of the final seven of 490 years.

PS: Get hold of a book titled "The Atonement Clock" by Christian Gedge. He goes into detail of just when that final 490-year shmita cycle began and ended, showing from scripture going way back to Jacob's ladder to the first of those cycles.

Read the text in Daniel 9:26-27 without the bias of the "seven-year-tribulation-flat-earth theory" jargon filling your head, and don't ignore the fact that the text does not tell you that the Messiah would be cut off at the close of the 69th week. Nor does it tell you that it was the Antichrist making a covenant.

The video author also presents how the 69 weeks are calculated. The text (bible) does not say the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week but the calculations of time the video author uses show that is when it happened.

 

[Zao is life]

The 70 weeks prophecy was more than about the coming of the Messiah though that was a big part of it.
It was really about the full restoration of Israel under Gods rule & how that would be accomplished.

There are mentions of the house of Israel and the house of Judah being restored to God in Ezekiel and Hosea and Jeremiah and many other prophecies, but the one prophecy that does not mention it, you have added that meaning to the Word of God.

The 70 weeks prophecy was about the coming of the Messiah, and the only thing the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet to add to it is the prophecy about the destruction of the city and temple at the hand of the people of the prince who was to come.

By adding to it what it was not about: "It was really about the full restoration of Israel under Gods rule & how that would be accomplished" you have decided that the Holy Spirit who inspired the text did not complete it, therefore you should complete it by adding a meaning that's not there.

 

[Zao is life]

The video author also presents how the 69 weeks are calculated. The text (bible) does not say the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week but the calculations of time the video author uses show that is when it happened.

The Hebrew word is achar (after the full 7 + 62 weeks, not at the close of the 69th week). Here are some more O.T verses that use the same Hebrew word - it always means after, never "at the close of" or "during":

Genesis 5:4 (the days of Adam achar (after) he had begotten Seth;
Genesis 5:7 (the life of Seth after Enos was born)
You can go through all the genealogies and find the same word - and it always means "after" not ever "at the close of" or "during".

But here's just one more in the long list of O.T verses using the same Hebrew word:

And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after (Hebrew achar) him. Genesis 17:19.

@Sorn When people change the meaning of any words in scripture in order to change the meaning of a verse or passage to force it to comply with their interpretation or eschatology, then it's time to discard whatever they are saying about it. His theories that he means to 'prove' that it was at the end of the 69th week have already been disputed by others who disagree - so let's stick to what the text of the Bible says.

The only thing that I would pay attention to in that first video is where the region is that the Antichrist's kingdom will rise from, because Revelation 13:2 confirms that it's not Rome but the beasts of Daniel 7 combined into one kingdom.

But the moment people start changing the meaning of words to force a passage to comply with their eschatological theories, I stop listening, and wouldn't advise anyone to continue listening.

 

[Sorn]

There are mentions of the house of Israel and the house of Judah being restored to God in Ezekiel and Hosea and Jeremiah and many other prophecies, but the one prophecy that does not mention it, you have added that meaning to the Word of God.

The 70 weeks prophecy was about the coming of the Messiah, and the only thing the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet to add to it is the prophecy about the destruction of the city and temple at the hand of the people of the prince who was to come.

By adding to it what it was not about: "It was really about the full restoration of Israel under Gods rule & how that would be accomplished" you have decided that the Holy Spirit who inspired the text did not complete it, therefore you should complete it by adding a meaning that's not there.

Well by the number of different views of what that prophecy and other scriptures mean, not just you & me but other people as well, I think it pretty clear its not about whether the Holy Spirit completed it or not but about how a person interprets it and how they come bu that interpretation.

I have found the videos by Dr Paul Felter to be very well argued, thought out and reasoned. He shows how he arrives at his conclusions (which are often also held by many others) from the bible text. His series of videos on Youtube is well worth watching.
His approach, that of rightly dividing, fits the scripture far better than most others i have seen & gives clarity to a lot of scripture.
Though i will look t your arguments also but there is no shortage, as i am sure you are aware, of interpretations.

 

[Sorn]

The Hebrew word is achar (after the full 7 + 62 weeks, not at the close of the 69th week). Here are some more O.T verses that use the same Hebrew word - it always means after, never "at the close of" or "during":

Genesis 5:4 (the days of Adam achar (after) he had begotten Seth;
Genesis 5:7 (the life of Seth after Enos was born)
You can go through all the genealogies and find the same word - and it always means "after" not ever "at the close of" or "during".

But here's just one more in the long list of O.T verses using the same Hebrew word:

And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after (Hebrew achar) him. Genesis 17:19.

@Sorn When people change the meaning of any words in scripture in order to change the meaning of a verse or passage to force it to comply with their interpretation or eschatology, then it's time to discard whatever they are saying about it. His theories that he means to 'prove' that it was at the end of the 69th week have already been disputed by others who disagree - so let's stick to what the text of the Bible says.

The only thing that I would pay attention to in that first video is where the region is that the Antichrist's kingdom will rise from, because Revelation 13:2 confirms that it's not Rome but the beasts of Daniel 7 combined into one kingdom.

But the moment people start changing the meaning of words to force a passage to comply with their eschatological theories, I stop listening, and wouldn't advise anyone to continue listening.

Jesus was crucified AFTER the 69 weeks. The 69 weeks were completed the day he entered Jerusalem on a donkey.
Within a few days AFTER this, he had been killed.