Daniel's 70th week

Christian Gedge said:

Make that, "the overspreading of abominations from ad30-ad70 were the abominations performed by the high priest, who each year slew animals to atone for the sins of the people." Jesus had already completed the atonement! Can you not see how blasphemous an ongoing animal sacrifice was after Jesus had said it was finished?

Click to expand...

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


How does that explain this part then, the fact this would be ongoing for at least 30-40 years, they seeing this animal sacrificing continuing post the death and resurrection of Christ, yet not doing what the text demands they are to be doing when they see this? That being that them which be in Judaea are to then flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Let's now replace the abomination of desolation with that of ongoing animal sacrifices, and see if the text is making sense.

When ye therefore shall see ongoing animal sacrifices taking place for 30-40 years post the death and resurrection of Christ, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Then(obviously meaning when one initially sees these things) let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If you see that making sense of the text, then no wonder you and I oftentimes disagree about some of these topics.

There is more than one abomination.

pasifika said:

Jerusalem has been in many wars even after AD70..and still continue in our time...
Until war ceased then we know it's the end...

Click to expand...

Daniel 9:26 refers to only one war. Which one do you think it's referring to?

jgr said:

Daniel 9:26 refers to only one war. Which one do you think it's referring to?

Click to expand...

What makes you think that?

jgr said:

Where does Revelation speak of a Daniel 9:26 war in which desolations are determined?

Click to expand...

Good question. Unfortunately I have no satisfactory answer at this point. One would have to first determine what sense desolations are meaning in Daniel 9:26, since shamem doesn't always mean in a literal sense where some place is literally made desolate. If taking the city and sanctuary in the literal sense in Daniel 9:26, this would seem to indicate that the desolations would be understood to be meaning in the sense where some place is literally made desolate. But if the city and sanctuary are not being meant in the literal sense, then this would seem to indicate that desolations could be meaning in a different sense altogether.

Maybe tomorrow, or sometime down the road, after I have had time to ponder this further, maybe I can then come up with a satisfactory answer of some kind. Currently it's getting pretty late here and that I'm getting too tired to try and iron some of this out tonight.

pasifika said:

What makes you think that?

Click to expand...

"...unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

the war

Singular.

One war.

Which one do you think Daniel was referring to?

DavidPT said:

Good question. Unfortunately I have no satisfactory answer at this point. One would have to first determine what sense desolations are meaning in Daniel 9:26, since shamem doesn't always mean in a literal sense where some place is literally made desolate. If taking the city and sanctuary in the literal sense in Daniel 9:26, this would seem to indicate that the desolations would be understood to be meaning in the sense where some place is literally made desolate. But if the city and sanctuary are not being meant in the literal sense, then this would seem to indicate that desolations could be meaning in a different sense altogether.

Maybe tomorrow, or sometime down the road, after I have had time to ponder this further, maybe I can then come up with a satisfactory answer of some kind. Currently it's getting pretty late here and that I'm getting too tired to try and iron some of this out tonight.

Click to expand...

The war was literal.

The city and sanctuary were literal.

Why wouldn't the desolations be literal?

DavidPT said:

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


How does that explain this part then, the fact this would be ongoing for at least 30-40 years, they seeing this animal sacrificing continuing post the death and resurrection of Christ, yet not doing what the text demands they are to be doing when they see this? That being that them which be in Judaea are to then flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Let's now replace the abomination of desolation with that of ongoing animal sacrifices, and see if the text is making sense.

When ye therefore shall see ongoing animal sacrifices taking place for 30-40 years post the death and resurrection of Christ, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Then(obviously meaning when one initially sees these things) let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If you see that making sense of the text, then no wonder you and I oftentimes disagree about some of these topics.

Click to expand...

Three years after Antiochus IV defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus the Jews rededicated the Temple. That's the reason Jews celebrate Hannukah.

jgr said:

"...unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

the war

Singular.

One war.

Which one do you think Daniel was referring to?

Click to expand...

Daniel is talking about the Maccabean Revolt.

summerville said:

Daniel is talking about the Maccabean Revolt.

Click to expand...

He's talking about the 70 AD war.

sovereigngrace said:

There is a difference between His spirit ascending to His Father upon death, and His body 40 days after the resurrection. Because you do not see both occurring with us, you force that upon Christ also. Nevertheless, both occurred to Him, and both will occur with us.

Click to expand...

So, the Spirit of Jesus is not Jesus? Because Jesus clearly stated after the resurrection, he had not yet ascended to the Father.
John 20:17 “Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

By this logic, all the souls that have gone to heaven, have not yet ascended to heaven either, which is contradictory.

Members who participate in the Eschatology Forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other.

Please follow forum rules

• When you disagree, address the content of the post and not the poster.
• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.
• When you disagree and you find yourself becoming frustrated and angry, step away from the computer and give yourself time to cool down.
• Always proofread your post before hitting the "Reply" button to make sure you have responded with courtesy and respect.

sovereigngrace said:

How about speaking about the future literal physical second coming of Christ for once, if you actually believe in it. All you want to talk about is AD70. Obviously that is all you think about. After all, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

1. Is the second coming of Christ a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
2. Is the resurrection of the dead a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
3. Please list the Scriptures you believe support these?
4. Tell us exactly what all happens at this coming?

Click to expand...

Commentaries On Matthew 22:7 are in agreement that it was 66-70ad.

Benson commentary
This branch of the parable plainly predicted the destruction of the Jews by the Roman armies, called God’s armies, because they were appointed by him to execute vengeance upon that once favourite, but now rebellions people

Barnes Commentary
But when the king heard ... - This doubtless refers to the Jews and to Jerusalem. They were murderers, having slain the prophets; and God was about to send forth the armies of the Romans under his providential direction, and to burn up their city.

Jamieson Fausset
and he sent forth his armies—The Romans are here styled God's armies, just as the Assyrian is styled "the rod of His anger" (Isa 10:5), as being the executors of His judicial vengeance.

Gills
but chiefly the Roman armies are here meant; called "his", because they came by the Lord's appointment and permission; and were used by him, for the destruction of these people:

So you honestly don't believe matthew 22:7 is about 66-70ad?

sovereigngrace said:

If a prostitute is a misrepresentation of God’s natural plan for a woman, then the harlot of Babylon is a misrepresentation of God’s spiritual plan for mankind. The harlot here is a misrepresentation of the Church. It is a religious body. Satan is always trying to mimic, distort and corrupt God’s blueprint. In my opinion: the harlot broadly represents false religion (in all its varying components). In a narrow sense I can understand why many relate to the RCC. She carries all the ugly religious traits described by the harlot.

Click to expand...

Using scripture to interpret scripture we easily show the prostitute/Babylon the great is Jerusalem.

1.) The prostitute/Babylon the great is the great city. The only other great city mention is Jerusalem
Revelation 17:18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”
Revelation 11:8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.

2.) the prostitute/Babylon the great is Charged with all the righteous blood shed. Jesus charged 1st century Jerusalem with all the righteous blood shed.
Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth.”

Matthew 23:35-36 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,f whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

3.) after the prostitute is destroyed, the wedding feast is ready. This is consistent with the parable of Jesus in which when Jerusalem is destroyed, the wedding feast is ready.

Revelation 19:2 for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”

Revelation 19:9 And the angel saida to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

However, if it is not 1st century Jerusalem, can you show any scripture that states 1.) false religion is the great city 2.) false religion is responsible for all the righteous blood shed 3.) after false religion is destroyed the wedding feast is ready?

Let's consider Daniel 9:27 again. So this is for anyone who cares to address this.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many 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.


and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

The text indicates he shall make 'it' desolate. Make what desolate? What is the nearest antecedent? Is it not this---the sacrifice and the oblation? Or it this instead---the covenant?

It has to be one or the other since that is the only two choices for the nearest antecedent in this particular verse.

Which then brings up another point, meaning those interpretations which see 2 periods of time in verse 27, where the latter period is not even part of the 70th week.

1st period of time---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--thus within the 70th week.

2nd period of time---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---thus outside of the 70th week according to these particular interpretations.



and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate---that this is meaning outside of the 70th week according to some interpretations, yet according to the text it is the following that is being made desolate---the sacrifice and the oblation. How is one to make sense of an interpretation such as that? The only way to make sense of the text in verse 27, all of the text has to be meaning during the 70th week. Now we can make sense of why the sacrifice and the oblation is the nearest antecedent of what is being made desolate. Yet we can't make sense of the text in verse 27 if any of the pronouns are meaning Christ, though. Or at least I can't.

And another point that needs to be stressed. There are not two actors in verse 27, there is only one. The same one that confirms the covenant is the same one that causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and is the same one for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. How one can think Christ fits all of this is beyond belief?

jgr said:

The war was literal.

The city and sanctuary were literal.

Why wouldn't the desolations be literal?

Click to expand...

It still depends on which war it is meaning. And if it is meaning the war between the beast(the antichrist) and the saints, like I tend to think, I see no reason to take that as a literal war where it would involve fighting one another with weapons of war, such as guns, knives, or whatever.

claninja said:

So, the Spirit of Jesus is not Jesus? Because Jesus clearly stated after the resurrection, he had not yet ascended to the Father.
John 20:17 “Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

By this logic, all the souls that have gone to heaven, have not yet ascended to heaven either, which is contradictory.

Click to expand...

The dead in Christ are in heaven in spirit not physically.

claninja said:

Members who participate in the Eschatology Forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other.

Please follow forum rules

• When you disagree, address the content of the post and not the poster.
• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.
• When you disagree and you find yourself becoming frustrated and angry, step away from the computer and give yourself time to cool down.
• Always proofread your post before hitting the "Reply" button to make sure you have responded with courtesy and respect.

Commentaries On Matthew 22:7 are in agreement that it was 66-70ad.

Benson commentary
This branch of the parable plainly predicted the destruction of the Jews by the Roman armies, called God’s armies, because they were appointed by him to execute vengeance upon that once favourite, but now rebellions people

Barnes Commentary
But when the king heard ... - This doubtless refers to the Jews and to Jerusalem. They were murderers, having slain the prophets; and God was about to send forth the armies of the Romans under his providential direction, and to burn up their city.

Jamieson Fausset
and he sent forth his armies—The Romans are here styled God's armies, just as the Assyrian is styled "the rod of His anger" (Isa 10:5), as being the executors of His judicial vengeance.

Gills
but chiefly the Roman armies are here meant; called "his", because they came by the Lord's appointment and permission; and were used by him, for the destruction of these people:

So you honestly don't believe matthew 22:7 is about 66-70ad?

Click to expand...

How about speaking about the future literal physical second coming of Christ for once, if you actually believe in it. All you want to talk about is AD70. Obviously that is all you think about. After all, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

1. Is the second coming of Christ a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
2. Is the resurrection of the dead a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
3. Please list the Scriptures you believe support these?
4. Tell us exactly what all happens at this coming?

summerville said:

Three years after Antiochus IV defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus the Jews rededicated the Temple. That's the reason Jews celebrate Hannukah.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, there is not a single mention of Antiochus IV by name in all of the Bible. And if so, and assuming he is the fulfillment of some of these passages in question, why isn't he at least mentioned by name somewhere in the Bible? You'll likely argue that he is mentioned by name in the books of Maccabees. Yet those books are not in my Bible.

DavidPT said:

It still depends on which war it is meaning. And if it is meaning the war between the beast(the antichrist) and the saints, like I tend to think, I see no reason to take that as a literal war where it would involve fighting one another with weapons of war, such as guns, knives, or whatever.

Click to expand...

The war of 70 AD matches all of the descriptions in Daniel's passage.

Christian Gedge said:

There is more than one abomination.

Click to expand...

So which abomination is it meaning once they see it, when they are then at that time, those who are in Judea, to flee into the mountains? Until you clarify some of these things further, currently you're not making much sense to me, in regards to this subject in particular.