70 weeks

mkgal1 · Dec 20, 2020

nolidad said:
YOu should use interpret instead of parsing then. To get Daniel 9 24-27 to match the timeline these folks offer, they have to re-interpret meanings of words- that is just blatant dishonesty.

Support for that?

keras · Dec 20, 2020

mkgal1 said:
So, according to this testimony, it was the Zealots who trampled Jerusalem, and they had a reputation for behaving like wild beasts. "The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months

Error Alert!
Plainly, obviously, Revelation 11:1-3, refers to the final 3.5 years of this Church age. Where were the 2 Witnesses in the first century?
That time period is mentioned several times, in Daniel and Revelation, 1260 days, describing the 42 months of world control by the 'beast'. Rev 13:5-8

BABerean2 · Dec 20, 2020

nolidad said:
All of this is irrelavent! If you can show there were "addendums" added to teh New Covenant that SCripture itself and not opinion say are addendums, I am all eyes and ears!

Hebrews 9:15
King James Version

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Please show me in this verse you claim Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant by His death.

Remember this is the only Scripture that lists the terms of the New Covenant, and so for the 30th time please explain how Jesus fulfilled the terms God set forth in the New Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I am flattered you think that I wrote this, but I didn't. It was written long before my birth!

My definition of the New Covenant is the only one the bible openly and unambiguously declares:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It is too bad you don't read all of Hebrews. for Paul who wrote it specifically links the new covenant to when ALL Israel gets saved!

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Why did the author of the Book of Hebrews quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 word-for-word within Hebrews 8:6-13 and started the passage with the word "now", if the New Covenant is not now in effect?

.

Timtofly · Dec 20, 2020

mkgal1 said:
I agree. I posted the same thing.

That's partly why I believe the Gentiles that trampled Jerusalem for 42 months (Revelation 11:1-2) were the Zealots.

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:
In early 68 AD Jesus ben Gamala, one of the former high priests, gave a speech in which he described what was happening to Jerusalem because of the Zealots:

“And this place, which is adored by the habitable world, and honored by such as only know it by report, as far as the ends of the earth, is trampled upon by these wild beasts born among ourselves” (Wars 4.4.3).

So, according to this testimony, it was the Zealots who trampled Jerusalem, and they had a reputation for behaving like wild beasts. "The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2) | Pursuing Truth" The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2)

You have to end the church as well in the 1st century. There is nothing in Scripture about a golden age of the church post Second Coming. That is not what Revelation 20 claims. The last 1900 years would not have the church at all. The Second Coming is the completion of the church. That the church continues today, is the only proof necessary, that the Gentiles have not trampled the court of the temple, in a 42 month period at the time of the Second Coming. That Gentiles only trampled the Court of the Temple for 42 months was not recorded in history, much less the full Second Coming event itself. There has never been a golden age of the church and there never will be one on earth. Proof of that is the church is made up of Ambassadors from a heavenly city, and this earth is not even the home of the church.

Spiritual Jew · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
YOu should use interpret instead of parsing then. To get Daniel 9 24-27 to match the timeline these folks offer, they have to re-interpret meanings of words- that is just blatant dishonesty.

No, it is not. It is blatant dishonesty to accuse others of being blatantly dishonest without any proof of that. Interpreting scripture differently than you doesn't make someone blatantly dishonest.

For example I forget who but one has claimed that "make an end of sins actually means " end the problem or consequences of sins and it refers to Jesus death! That is a whole new meaning that does not match what was written.

The problem with your literal view of the end of sins is that sin won't end until after the thousand years, so that would mean the end of the 70 weeks would occur after the end of the thousand years (at the end of Satan's little season). And, yet, you believe the 70 weeks ends before that. So, your literal understanding of the end of sins doesn't line up with when you think the 70th week will end.

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

keras said:
Error Alert!
Plainly, obviously, Revelation 11:1-3, refers to the final 3.5 years of this Church age. Where were the 2 Witnesses in the first century?
That time period is mentioned several times, in Daniel and Revelation, 1260 days, describing the 42 months of world control by the 'beast'. Rev 13:5-8

There is no end to "the church age".

Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from that time and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will accomplish this.

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

mkgal1 said:
I agree. I posted the same thing.

That's partly why I believe the Gentiles that trampled Jerusalem for 42 months (Revelation 11:1-2) were the Zealots.

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:
In early 68 AD Jesus ben Gamala, one of the former high priests, gave a speech in which he described what was happening to Jerusalem because of the Zealots:

“And this place, which is adored by the habitable world, and honored by such as only know it by report, as far as the ends of the earth, is trampled upon by these wild beasts born among ourselves” (Wars 4.4.3).

So, according to this testimony, it was the Zealots who trampled Jerusalem, and they had a reputation for behaving like wild beasts. "The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2) | Pursuing Truth" The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2)

Sorry but teh Zealots were Jewish not gentile. They sought the overthrow of gentile rule over Israel.

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
Sorry but teh Zealots were Jewish not gentile. They sought the overthrow of gentile rule over Israel.

As you posted earlier....that term is used in the Bible for both Israelites and non-Israelites. But....as I quoted from Adam Maarschalk, the main Zealots that led to most of the destruction for 42 months were from "the land of Gentiles" which is identified in this passage:

Matthew 4:15
"THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES-

.....which is quoting from Isaiah 9:1.

"The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2) – Pursuing Truth" The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2)

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

mkgal1 said:
Support for that?

RFead your own "opinion" of Daniel 9:24-27 and then compare it to what is written and see how well they match.

One example of yours : YOu said- That making and end of sins means Jesus solved the problems of sins and/or the consequence.

but all that is written: , "and to make an end of sins" Read in teh normal usual manner without commentary it simply means make an end of sinning.

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
RFead your own "opinion" of Daniel 9:24-27 and then compare it to what is written and see how well they match.

One example of yours : YOu said- That making and end of sins means Jesus solved the problems of sins and/or the consequence.

but all that is written: , "and to make an end of sins" Read in teh normal usual manner without commentary it simply means make an end of sinning.

You accused the creators of that video of being "blatantly dishonest". In order for that to have any validity....there should be something to support that accusation. I'm wondering if you even viewed it?

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Why did the author of the Book of Hebrews quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 word-for-word within Hebrews 8:6-13 and started the passage with the word "now", if the New Covenant is not now in effect?

.

Well besides showing me when did the New covenant as God wrote it through Jeremiah get fulfilled (30th request)

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I am going to ask you to keep that little word "now" in its context:

Hebrews 8:6-13
King James Version

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Simply show where this passage says that the now means the New covenant is fulfilled or even in effect yet!

If you need me to do so for about the fifth time, I can pull the definition of what action a mediator does to help you.

Christian Gedge · Dec 21, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
The problem with your literal view of the end of sins is that sin won't end until after the thousand years, so that would mean the end of the 70 weeks would occur after the end of the thousand years (at the end of Satan's little season). And, yet, you believe the 70 weeks ends before that. So, your literal understanding of the end of sins doesn't line up with when you think the 70th week will end.

So, if Jesus were to come tomorrow, there would be about 3000 years between the 69th and 70th week??? The gap theory gets more ridiculous every day.

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
No, it is not. It is blatant dishonesty to accuse others of being blatantly dishonest without any proof of that. Interpreting scripture differently than you doesn't make someone blatantly dishonest.

The problem with your literal view of the end of sins is that sin won't end until after the thousand years, so that would mean the end of the 70 weeks would occur after the end of the thousand years (at the end of Satan's little season). And, yet, you believe the 70 weeks ends before that. So, your literal understanding of the end of sins doesn't line up with when you think the 70th week will end.

Well you seem to have no problem accusing me of being dishonest!

And no I do not hold to what you say I hold to! That is what is dishonest. If you want to know what I hold to ask- and don't commit teh sin of presumptiousness. Putting words in peoples mouths is simply pride running amok.

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

mkgal1 said:
As you posted....that term is used in the Bible for both Israelites and non-Israelites. But....as I quoted from Adam Maarschalk, the main Zealots that led to most of the destruction for 42 months were from "the land of Gentiles" which is identified in this passage:

Matthew 4:15
"THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES-

.....which is quoting from Isaiah 9:1.

"The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2) – Pursuing Truth" The Gentiles Trampled Jerusalem for 42 Months (Revelation 11:1-2)

If you only knew what Galilee of the Gentiles means. But the Zealots were Jews. Even if they came from a city titled "Galilee of the Gentiles" It just means that those two Jewish cities became strong gentile towns during the many occupation.

» Galilee of the Gentiles

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
Read in teh normal usual manner without commentary it simply means make an end of sinning.

"Sinning" by whose standards? Were there certain sins or certain people Jesus's work on the Cross didn't cover (in accordance with your opinion)?

Matthew 26:68
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

mkgal1 said:
You accused the creators of that video of being "blatantly dishonest". In order for that to have any validity....there should be something to support that accusation. I'm wondering if you even viewed it?

Well I admit I listened to a few minutes of the first videos and then just accepted they were going to do a preteris type allegorical opinion of what they think Daniel meant. I listened to this first video (I don't have time for the whole load it seems you wish me to watch) But He was good until He decided that an application of the fourth beast and the other beasts became the main meaning of the prophecy.

Support?

I have been supporting this since you and al lthe others disagreed with me and the literal/historical/ grammatical hermeneutic I use as the proper meaning of Daniel 9:24-27.

nolidad · Dec 21, 2020

mkgal1 said:
"Sinning" by whose standards? Were there certain sins or certain people Jesus's work on the Cross didn't cover (in accordance with your opinion)?

Matthew 26:68
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Your problem is you are still trying to force the cross into this passage where it does not "belong". Unless of course you believe Jesus work on the cross means we have all stopped the actions of sins like this verse is referring to.

And sinning by Gods Standards! It is HIs book in case you forgot.

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
Well I admit I listened to a few minutes of the first videos and then just accepted they were going to do a preteris type allegorical opinion of what they think Daniel meant. I listened to this first video (I don't have time for the whole load it seems you wish me to watch) But He was good until He decided that an application of the fourth beast and the other beasts became the main meaning of the prophecy.

Support?

I have been supporting this since you and al lthe others disagreed with me and the literal/historical/ grammatical hermeneutic I use as the proper meaning of Daniel 9:24-27.

Your accusation of "blatant dishonesty" was leveled specifically against the creator of that video....and now you're admitting to not even watching the video. I don't expect you to view the video....but it seems dishonest to criticize something as being dishonest when one isn't even informed of the content. All I was asking for was something we could discuss....ie, something like "the video said this....but I see this in Scripture". Empty accusations don't contribute to discussion.

BABerean2 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
Simply show where this passage says that the now means the New covenant is fulfilled or even in effect yet!

If you need me to do so for about the fifth time, I can pull the definition of what action a mediator does to help you.

Have you had your eyesight checked lately?

Do you understand the phrase "now He has..." ?

Do you understand the words "He is also Mediator of a better covenant..." ?

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH— (The author of the Book of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31 showing is it "now' fulfilled.)
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Do you understand the phrase "He has made..." ?

.

mkgal1 · Dec 21, 2020

nolidad said:
Your problem is you are still trying to force the cross into this passage where it does not "belong". Unless of course you believe Jesus work on the cross means we have all stopped the actions of sins like this verse is referring to.

And sinning by Gods Standards! It is HIs book in case you forgot.

The Cross, most definitely, belongs in the topic of sin. Just because a word isn't in a certain passage - like the word "Cross" and Daniel 9:24 - doesn't mean it doesn't belong.
"Stopped all the actions of sin" is a personal expectation.

John the baptizer said Jesus would "take away the sin of this world". What do you believe the Cross means?

70 weeks

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Newbie

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Similar threads