The 70 Weeks of Daniel

Douggg said:

Because the 70th week is not fulfilled yet. The Antichrist will violate the Mt. Sinai covenant in the midst of the week, committing the transgression of desolation act, which Paul said would lead into the day of the Lord beginning in 2Thessalonians2:4.

Click to expand...

Only according to recent teaching that's crept in over the last few centuries. This isn't what the early apostolic Church taught (or what the Orthodox Church teaches). Where is Jesus - the Messiah - in all this? Where is His redemptive work on the Cross placed on the timeline? From what I hear from futurists, more emphasis is on the antichrist (which, BTW, Paul wrote were in *his* time....not *our* future) than what Christ fulfilled.

Douggg said:

The prince who shall come will be of the Romans. In Revelation 17:10, the seven kings.

Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero

King 7 will be the little horn person, the prince who shall come.

Click to expand...

Do you not see it as a problem that there's neither a Roman Empire nor a Sanctuary in Jerusalem any longer?

mkgal1 said:

Only according to recent teaching that's crept in over the last few centuries. This isn't what the early apostolic Church taught (or what the Orthodox Church teaches). Where is Jesus - the Messiah - in all this? Where is His redemptive work on the Cross placed on the timeline? From what I hear from futurists, more emphasis is on the antichrist (which, BTW, Paul wrote were in *his* time....not *our* future) than what Christ fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Redemptive work?

Jesus's death on the cross finished the atonement for propitiation of our sins, redeeming our souls. Christians' bodies have yet to be redeemed, which will happen in the resurrection/rapture completing our salvation. Parable of the fig tree generation, our redemption draws near.

Jesus is heaven and will not be returning until Jerusalem, the Jews, say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Matthew 23:39.

The Antichrist comes in his own name.

And regarding what has been taught, aside from covenant and new covenant theology, is that dispensationalists consider the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years is a peace treaty.

Which although futurists, dispensationalists are wrong as well, and it is the Mt. Sinai covenant that the Antichrist will confirm for 7 years, because being the Antichrist is that he is Judaism's perceived King/Messiah of Israel. And that Moses, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13, made that requirement of all future leaders of Israel.

The 7 years is right in the text, on the feast of tabernacles, in the year that the land is supposed to get its rest.

mkgal1 said:

Do you not see it as a problem that there's neither a Roman Empire or a Sanctuary in Jerusalem any longer?

Click to expand...

The EU was founded on the treaties of Rome, and is the equivalent of an end times Roman empire, in the making. It is just a matter of a short time before the ten leaders are in place and then the little horn person.

Yes, a temple of sorts must be rebuilt on the temple mount. How that works out remains to be seen.

Douggg said:

The EU was founded on the treaties of Rome, and is the equivalent of an end times Roman empire, in the making. It is just a matter of a short time before the ten leaders are in place and then the little horn person.

Yes, a temple of sorts must be rebuilt on the temple mount. How that works out remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

Paul seemed to believe he was in the days of the end of the age:

mkgal1 said:

Paul seemed to believe he was in the days of the end of the age:

1 Corinthians 7:31 ~ and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.​

1 Corinthians 10:11 ~ Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the age have come.​

Click to expand...

Paul did not say he was in the parable of the fig tree generation.

Douggg said:

Paul did not say he was in the parable of the fig tree generation.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? Jesus Himself said they (people living and breathing in Jerusalem when Jesus walked this earth) were in the barren fig tree generation.

This is what John the baptizer said when He anointed Jesus:

......do you think Paul believed differently?

mkgal1 said:

What do you mean? Jesus Himself said they (people living and breathing in Jerusalem when Jesus walked this earth) were in the barren fig tree generation.

Click to expand...

The parable of the fig tree is when the branches are tender and putting forth leaves - i.e. new growth. Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews 1967.

Them in Jesus's generation who rejected the gospel of his death and resurrection on the third day will be judged for their works and be cast into the lake of fire at the Great White Throne judgement.

Douggg said:

The parable of the fig tree is when the branches are tender and putting forth leaves - i.e. new growth. Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews 1967.

Them in Jesus's generation who rejected the gospel of his death and resurrection on the third day will be judged for their works and be cast into the lake of fire at the Great White Throne judgement.

Click to expand...

I don't see all that there from the biblical text.

This is what I do see there:



Jesus gave His disciples the signs for them to look for pertaining to His coming in judgement on Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant/Mosaic age. Signs just like a fig tree's buds mean that summer is *near*:


........and we know from history that their generation didn't pass away without the destruction of the Temple ......where every stone was astonishingly thrown down (and "all these things" were one unit tied together). The completed end of the Old Covenant age is what Jesus and His disciples were referring to.

Douggg said:

But Jesus cannot be the prince who shall come because that prince is after Jesus is not longer present here on earth.

Click to expand...

I stated he was associated with the King who sends the troops into to destroy the city.

Matthew 22:6-7 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Look at both the greek and hebrew texts of Daniel 9:26

Either way you cut, Jesus is associated with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, whether he is the prince who is coming in judgment using the troops, or whether He destroys the city with the prince.

Daniel 9:26 (LXX) And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Daniel 9:26 (ESV) And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Itsf end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

claninja said:

I stated he was associated with the King who sends the troops into to destroy the city.

Matthew 22:6-7 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Look at both the greek and hebrew texts of Daniel 9:26

Either way you cut, Jesus is associated with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, whether he is the prince who is coming in judgment using the troops, or whether He destroys the city with the prince.

Daniel 9:26 (LXX) And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Daniel 9:26 (ESV) And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Itsf end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

Click to expand...

Jesus wept over the coming 70 AD and 135 AD destruction of the city and temple. And Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews in the crowd who were calling for him to be crucified.

So I don't how you can turn that around into Jesus leading the Romans to destroy the city and temple.

Douggg said:

Jesus wept over the coming 70 AD and 135 AD destruction of the city and temple. And Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews in the crowd who were calling for him to be crucified

Click to expand...

That's true that Jesus wept over the coming destruction.

.....but, as we're discussing, there was a timeline to the holding back of God's wrath on Old Covenant Israelites and their city (as Daniel's prophecy explains). This was 490 years of prophets informing and reminding the Israelites to return to their True God. The consequences of not turning back to God were laid out for them in Deuteronomy 28:15-28.

BTW....the Temple was only destroyed in 70 AD.

There were 3,000 Jews from that crowd that called for His crucifixion that were restored and reconciled to Him on Pentecost - 50 days after the Cross/Passover (recorded in Acts 2). ALL that called for Jesus's crucifixion had His forgiveness....but not ALL were spared the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

Douggg said:

So I don't how you can turn that around into Jesus leading the Romans to destroy the city and temple.

Click to expand...

That's not what I read in Claninja's post.

He stated that Jesus was associated with the King in Jesus's parable. Who do you interpret that Son to be in that parable....and those servants that were murdered?

mkgal1 said:

That's not what I read in Claninja's post.

He stated that Jesus was associated with the King in Jesus's parable. Who do you interpret that Son to be in that parable....and those servants that were murdered?

Click to expand...

And Claninja was using that parable to say that Jesus was the one implementing the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

The parable is about who gets into the kingdom of heaven. Many are called, few are chosen.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

In the parable, the Son does not send for his armies for retribution. So that cancels claninja's assertion that Jesus is the one who implements the destruction of the temple and city.

1. Jesus is not the prince who shall come.

2. Jesus was not the one who implemented the destruction of the temple and city.

Douggg said:

The parable is about who gets into the kingdom of heaven.

In the parable, the Son does send for his armies for retribution. So that cancels claninja's assertion that Jesus is the one who implements the destruction of the temple and city

Click to expand...

I think you meant to post "the Son does *not* send for His armies".....but that wasn't what was asserted.

The verse brought up was this one:

.....and what was posted (a few x now) was:


The 70 Weeks of Daniel

In your interpretation, what does this particular verse have to do with who gets into the kingdom of heaven? Who is the angry king and what murderers and city is he destroying (if you're rejecting the belief that this is God's judgment on Old Covenant Jerusalem)?

Douggg said:

1. Jesus is not the prince who shall come.

2. Jesus was not the one who implemented the destruction of the temple and city.

Click to expand...

Was Jesus/God involved in any way in the destruction of Jerusalem?

mkgal1 said:

I think you meant to post "the Son does *not* send for His armies".....but that wasn't what was asserted.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I meant. I went back and fixed my typo. Thanks.

Douggg said:

Jesus wept over the coming 70 AD and 135 AD destruction of the city and temple. And Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews in the crowd who were calling for him to be crucified.

Click to expand...

I agree. I didn't argue for or against this.

Douggg said:

So I don't how you can turn that around into Jesus leading the Romans to destroy the city and temple.

Click to expand...

Because I believe Jesus is God.

Who is the King that sent the troops to destroy the murderers?

Matthew 22:7 The King was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

jgr said:

Was Jesus/God involved in any way in the destruction of Jerusalem?

Click to expand...

claninja said:

Because I believe Jesus is God.

Who is the King that sent the troops to destroy the murderers?

Matthew 22:7 The King was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Click to expand...

Still awaiting your response to these.

jgr said:

Still awaiting your response to these.

Click to expand...

.....and I'd just add the questions about what city is referred to here as well as why one fulfillment isn't enough:

mkgal1 said:

.....and I'd just add the questions about what city is referred to here as well as why one fulfillment isn't enough:

Matthew 22:7 The King was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.​

Click to expand...

That's a compelling observation, mkgal1. There would have been no misunderstanding by the Jews as to what city was being burned, and by Whom; in the parable.

They would have "got it" even with only their carnal discernment.

Some dispensationalized futurists do not.