Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

jgr said:

The New Covenant is the New Will and Testament, which is God's update to His Old Will and Testament, and which transcends it completely, in the same manner as a new will and testament completely transcends any old will and testament in the temporal affairs of man.

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The Son as the Heir of all things means that there are no orphan covenants which He has not yet inherited.

Since Calvary, it's been all His.

Click to expand...

Your missing the most important aspect,

Niether the abrahamic nor the davidic covenant comdemned or savd anyone, so the NT has no need whatsoever to replace these and other non conditional covenants.

The moasic on the other hand, made a provision, if one couod obey wver letter, he will have earned the right to be saved, and gave the symbol, of what must be done if you did not fulfill this just requirement of the law, to have your sins atoned for or redeemed.

The problem was

1 only christ fulfilled the just requirement
2.the blood of bulls and goats never took away one sin.

So that covenant was insufficent, was weak and had to go,

Thats what the new covenant did. Your insistence that any other covenant had to be replaced is just nonsensical,

BABerean2 said:

There is no doubt that Christ is in the text of Daniel 9, and there is no doubt that Christ fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.

Why don't you show us the antecedent for an antichrist in the text?

.

Click to expand...

Why does there have to be an antecedent for an antichrist in the text though. Let's go back to an analogy I used earlier.


One shall come and become 44th President of the United States.

The President shall be cutoff after January 20, 2017.

The people of the President that shall come will be wearing MAGA caps.


Obviously per this analogy the Presidents are not all the same person, In the former two it is obviously meaning Obama. In the latter it is obviously meaning Trump. When you are able to point out the antecedent for Trump in this analogy, I should likewise be able to point out the antecedent for an antichrist in the text in Daniel 9. And since you do have a brain, an exceptional one at that IMO, I'm pretty sure you get my point here then.

Edited: Ignore the point I thought I was making here. I thought maybe you were meaning where was the antecedent for an AC before this part-----and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


But I did revise my analogy though.

One shall come and become 44th President of the United States.

The President shall be cutoff after January 20, 2017.

The people of the President that shall come will be wearing MAGA caps.

And he shall MAGA for 7 years. In the midst of that term he shall be elected to a 2nd term.



If the latter two sentences can mean a different President than the former two sentences, then in the same way there can be two entirely two different princes in Daniel 9:25-27.

There are many covenants that God has made with man.
For instance God's covenant with Noah, is it still in force?

sparow said:

The seventy weeks are not a problem for me nor is Christ in doubt, but the sanctuary has not been cleansed yet; unless those who abrogate the Law are right. Regarding Daniel 24, I do not believe the Jews were given an impossible task. But the 2300 year prophesy is still in doubt. If the seventy weeks is the small part what is the big part of the 2300 year prophesy?

Click to expand...

The sanctuary spoken of hear is the Heavenly Sanctuary not one built by man.

Once a year the priest went into the Holy of Holy in the temple where the ark of the covenant was to cleanse the sanctuary of the sins of the people of Isreal. DAY OF ATONEMENT
Christ started his mini stry as our high priest in the HOLY of HOLIES in the sancuary at the end of the 2300 day prophecy. This is the investigative judgement oif all that have lived and are asleep or are living on this earth.

Exodus 25:9
According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

The earthly sanctuary is the plan of redemption and is a pattern of what our LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST is fulfilling.

We all will be judged by the LAW that is contained in the ark of the covenant under the mercy seat by JESUS CHRIST, remember the pattern.

Study the sancutary.
Daniel 7:10 (KJV)
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Leviticus 16:10
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

"The scapegoat, which represents Satan, in no way bears or pays for our sins. The Lord’s goat, which was sacrificed on the Day of Atonement, represented Jesus, who assumed and paid for our sins on Calvary. Jesus alone “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Satan will be punished (as will all other sinners—Revelation 20:12–15) for his own sins, which will include responsibility for (1) the existence of sin, (2) his own evil actions, and (3) influencing every person on earth to sin. God will clearly hold him accountable for evil. This is what the symbolism of the transfer of sin to the scapegoat (Satan) on the Day of Atonement was meant to convey."
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4996/t/case-closed

DavidPT said:

Why does there have to be an antecedent for an antichrist in the text though. Let's go back to an analogy I used earlier.


One shall come and become 44th President of the United States.

The President shall be cutoff after January 20, 2017.

The people of the President that shall come will be wearing MAGA caps.


Obviously per this analogy the Presidents are not all the same person, In the former two it is obviously meaning Obama. In the latter it is obviously meaning Trump. When you are able to point out the antecedent for Trump in this analogy, I should likewise be able to point out the antecedent for an antichrist in the text in Daniel 9. And since you do have a brain, an exceptional one at that IMO, I'm pretty sure you get my point here then.

Click to expand...

How can there be an antecedent of something which does not exist?

If you were to take this to an English teacher for grammatical analysis, who do you think he/she would say is the antecedent?

klutedavid said:

Hello OHC.

I noticed this passage of yours.

Can you support this claim, how do you know the year was 457 BC?

Click to expand...

Dates in the 2300 day prophecy
Posted on 10 May 2012 04:06 PM
Is there any non-Biblical evidence that Jesus was baptized in 27 AD and that Stephen was stoned in 34 AD?
Your question is an important one. Here is some evidence to consider.

The Baptism of Jesus

Although you asked for non-Biblical evidence, let us first look at the scenario in question, and then we will proceed with the historical evidence.

Luke 3:1,21 says, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar...Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened..."

Here we have the Biblical account of the baptism of Jesus. He was baptized in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Let's look now into the pages of secular history to find out when Tiberius Caesar began his reign:

In the year 12 AD Tiberius Caesar was granted supreme power from Augustus Caesar (www.roman-britain.org).

If Tiberius Caesar was granted supreme power in 12 AD, then the fifteenth year of his reign would bring us to 27 AD, which is exactly when the Bible predicted the baptism of Jesus would take place.

The text states that “unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”. Why does this period begin upon the 3rd declaration of rebuilding Jerusalem?

Only the third proclamation by Artaxerxes dealt with four traditional and political autonomy because it involved the total restoration of Jerusalem. The previous decrees by Cyrus and Darius, dealt specifically only with the temple. So the only date that can be used for the commencement of the prophecy is the Artaxerxes decree of 457 BC. This is also substantiated archaeologically and by the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesy (unto the Messiah) which is fulfilled to the letter in Jesus Christ as it points to 27 AD when Jesus was baptised. The prophecy only makes sense in all its components if the starting date is 457 BC.

Read more here
support.amazingdiscoveries.org/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/260/0/dates-in-the-2300-day-prophecy

jgr said:

How can there be an antecedent of something which does not exist?

If you were to take this to an English teacher for grammatical analysis, who do you think he/she would say is the antecedent?

Click to expand...

You are correct. I wasn't thinking clearly here then. Maybe this headache I'm currently experiencing? If I conclude the prince that is come is the AC, I thought he was meaning where is the antecedent for the Ac before that part? But why can't the antecedent then be found only after rather than before?

the prince that shall come meaning the one meant in verse 27, where I take that to be meaning the AC according to Daniel 11:31 for one. And if my interpretation of Daniel 11:31 is correct, it can all fit then.

A71 said:

There are many covenants that God has made with man.
For instance God's covenant with Noah, is it still in force?

Click to expand...

Unarguably yes.

And per Hebrews 1:1,2 (love those verses), Christ has inherited it as well.

Would He change it?

There's no reason that I can conceive of for Him to do so.

But as Heir, it's His privilege to do so if He decides to.

And I also have no doubt that if He did decide to change it, it would be a change for the better, consistent with the declaration of Scripture that the promises of God's New Will and Testament are better than those of the old. (Hebrews 8:6)

jgr said:

How can there be an antecedent of something which does not exist?

If you were to take this to an English teacher for grammatical analysis, who do you think he/she would say is the antecedent?

Click to expand...

I revised it then.

One shall come and become 44th President of the United States.

The President shall be cutoff after January 20, 2017.

The people of the President that shall come will be wearing MAGA caps.

And he shall MAGA for 7 years. In the midst of that term he shall be elected to a 2nd term.

Jesus owns everything, but this does not affect a covenant.
Either it is in force or it is not.

jgr said:

And I also have no doubt that if He did decide to change it, it would be a change for the better, consistent with the declaration of Scripture that the promises of God's New Will and Testament are better than those of the old.

Click to expand...

Here is a couple of stumbling block scriptures for you all. Try bouncing your theology off of them.

Matthew 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

A71 said:

Jesus owns everything, but this does not affect a covenant.
Either it is in force or it is not.

Click to expand...

The Heir can do whatever He wishes with His inheritance.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Revelation 21:5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Original Happy Camper said:

Here is a couple of stumbling block scriptures for you all. Try bouncing your theology off of them.

Matthew 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Revelation 21:5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

All covenants lead back to the Abrahamic Covenant, which leads to Christ. So there is no such thing as "a dual covenant". Israel was under the Abrahamic, Horeb, Moabite, and Levitical covenants, but we do not say they were under four covenants. They were under the Abrahamic Covenant, to which other covenants were appended to get them home.

The Moab Covenant, which invokes the Law, states the choice between life and death. Those who reject life are condemned to live under a covenant of death, and all that entails.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Yes, the first being the Horeb Covenant.
The Moab Covenant however remains in force

jgr said:

The Heir can do whatever He wishes with His inheritance.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Revelation 21:5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Revelation 21:5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Click to expand...

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

Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law with his death and resurrection, The ceremonial laws are the plan of redemption. No change here just fulfilling the messianic prophecy.

context
Behold, I make all things new.
Revelation 21 King James Version (KJV)
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

2 Peter 3:10 (KJV)
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.