70th Week - It Is Still Pending

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There really should not be any confusion about the Daniel 9 70 weeks prophecy events. They were clearly given, and even an orthodox Jew who started 'Jews For Jesus' converted to Jesus because of rightly understanding the Daniel prophecy which revealed the timing of Messiah's 1st coming and death.

For those interested, here is the actual Scripture evidence that the final 70th week is still yet to come to pass.

Dan 9:25
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
KJV


1. The first period is the 'seven sevens' (as "seven weeks" in the KJV). With each week equaling a period of seven years, that totals out to 49 years. So the first period is 49 years, from the command to restore and build unto 404 B.C. that marked the completion and dedication of the 2nd temple. The command to restore and rebuild was given in the 20th year of Artaxerxes in 454 B.C. (means 'the great king', an appeliative like Pharaoh, Czar, etc.). Thus the first period was from 454 B.C. to 404 B.C., or 49 years.

Dan 9:26
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.
KJV



2. The second period given is the "threescore and two weeks" (62 weeks or 434 years). This period followed on the first period that ended on 404 B.C. So from the completion and dedication of the 2nd temple to the time of Messiah at the cross was to be 62 weeks, or 434 years, and from the command to restore in 454 B.C. to 404 B.C. added is 483 years. So from 454 B.C. plus 483 years comes to 29 A.D. when Jesus was on the cross, and thus "cut off" per Dan.9:26. That ended 69 weeks at 29 A.D., the year of the cross.

The people of the prince that shall come was the Roman general Titus who's army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

The end that thereof shall be with a flood, etc., is about the very end of this world, still in our near future. That prince as Titus only served as a blueprint for the coming final Antichrist.

Dan 9:27
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.
KJV


Per English grammar, we are required to go back to the 26th verse and pick up the subject about that "he". It is about that "prince" idea in verse 26, but not in the same role this next time, i.e., the coming Antichrist for the end is not going to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary, he instead is going to support building of a new temple, and starting up the old covenant sacrifices again.

3. The third and last period is "one week", the final 70th week, and is about the very end of this world. That "one week" is divided by that false one coming to end sacrifices in the middle of the "one week" (7 years). More info on what he will do is given as the "vile person" in Daniel 11.

Dan 11:21-24
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

KJV

That "league" is the covenant of Dan.9:27. It will involve the re-institution of sacrifices in Jerusalem at the end, with a new temple, requirements under the old covenant, called the "holy covenant" in Daniel 11.

Dan 11:30-31
30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
KJV


The time will come when that "vile person" (Antichrist) will conspire with those who forsake the "holy covenant", and arms on his part will end the sacrifices and instead place the abomination idol that makes the sanctuary spiritually desolate. That is the "abomination of desolation" our Lord Jesus warned us about in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. It is the idol image of the beast of Revelation 13.

In 170 B.C., Antiochus IV took Jerusalem, went into the temple and sacrificed swine upon the altar, and spread its broth around inside the temple. Then he setup an idol to Zeus in false worship for all to bow to. But that was in 170 B.C., so Antiochus IV only served as an example of the final Antichrist at the end of this world. Yet there's the example for the end, the 70th week which is still pending.
 
Last edited:

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
he instead is going to support building of a new temple, and starting up the old covenant sacrifices again.


I agree with the majority of the OP. What I have quoted above is not anything I can also agree with. The temple that gets desecrated by the AC is meaning the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2, and that that is not meaning a brick and mortar temple standing in Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2, nowhere can Jerusalem even be found in the contexts, yet it would have to involve Jerusalem in order for your interpretation to be correct.

Those who reject a future fulfillment of the 70th week, I don't blame them for doing so if it means they have to agree that what you quoted above will indeed be fact. There are other ways to understand some of these things then. Though some of these things in the OT may appear to involve literal things, such as literal brick and mortar temples, that doesn't mean they necessarily really do though. But in the event they really do, it would make far better sense to place these events during ancient times, such as in the first century, rather than in the future instead, such as the days we are now living in.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I agree with the majority of the OP. What I have quoted above is not anything I can also agree with. The temple that gets descrated by the AC is meaing the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2, and that that is not meaning a brick and mortal temple standing in Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2, nowhere can Jerusalem even be found in the contexts, yet it would have to involve Jerusalem in order for your interpretation to be correct.

Those who reject a future fulfillment of the 70th week, I don't blame them for doing so if it means they have to agree that what you quoted above will indeed be fact. There are other ways to understand some of these things then. Though some of these things in the OT may appear to involve literal things, such as literal brick and mortar temples, that doesn't mean they necessarily really do though. But in the event they really do, it would make far better sense to place these events during ancient times, such as in the first century, rather than in the future instead, such as the days we are now living in.
In Revelation 11, John is told to measure the temple, and but not the outer court because the gentiles will be occupying that. Then the two witnesses battle with the beast.

Where do think that battle with the beast is taking place, as he makes war on them?

It appears to me that the beast's army is outside of the temple grounds while the two witnesses are holding them off, until the beast is able to overcome them. And maybe them who worship within are some Jews on the temple mount resisting the placement of the abomination of desolation image.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Revelation 11, John is told to measure the temple, and but not the outer court because the gentiles will be occupying that. Then the two witnesses battle with the beast.

Where do think that battle with the beast is taking place, as he makes war on them?

It appears to me that the beast's army is outside of the temple grounds while the two witnesses are holding them off, until the beast is able to overcome them. And maybe them who worship within are some Jews on the temple mount resisting the placement of the abomination of desolation image.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.


Though years ago I did, took much of Revelation 11 to be meaning in a literal sense, anymore though, I no longer do. By taking verse 1 and 2 in the literal sense, it has led to at least two interpretations. Either it's meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, thus in the minds of Preterists, this further proves they are correct to interpret the prophecies throughout the book of Revelation in the manner they do. The other is that it leads futurists to conclude a brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem must be meant then. I'm basically a futurist for the most part, yet it no longer makes me conclude that though. And I'm Premil on top of that. It's generally Amils who don't interpret a lot of things in Revelation in a literal sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Dan 9:26
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.
KJV



2. The second period given is the "threescore and two weeks" (62 weeks or 434 years). This period followed on the first period that ended on 404 B.C. So from the completion and dedication of the 2nd temple to the time of Messiah at the cross was to be 69 weeks, or 483 years, which from 454 B.C. plus 483 years comes to 29 A.D. when Jesus was on the cross, and thus "cut off" per Dan.9:26. That ended 69 weeks at 29 A.D., the year of the cross.

Check your calendar.
Which week comes "after" this week?

Which week comes "after" the 69th week?


26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.
KJV


If a normal calendar year ends after 52 weeks, which week comes "after" that last week?

The following comes from the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.


Daniel 9:27
And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: David Kent
Upvote 0

tranquil

Newbie
Sep 29, 2011
1,373
158
with Charlie at the Chocolate Factory
✟270,943.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with the majority of the OP. What I have quoted above is not anything I can also agree with. The temple that gets desecrated by the AC is meaning the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2, and that that is not meaning a brick and mortar temple standing in Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2, nowhere can Jerusalem even be found in the contexts, yet it would have to involve Jerusalem in order for your interpretation to be correct.

Those who reject a future fulfillment of the 70th week, I don't blame them for doing so if it means they have to agree that what you quoted above will indeed be fact. There are other ways to understand some of these things then. Though some of these things in the OT may appear to involve literal things, such as literal brick and mortar temples, that doesn't mean they necessarily really do though. But in the event they really do, it would make far better sense to place these events during ancient times, such as in the first century, rather than in the future instead, such as the days we are now living in.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

the 'temple of God' is the Greek word 'naos' https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm

In English, the equivalent is 'holy of holies'/ inner sanctum. In Hebrew, this is 'qodes ha qodasim' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies

In Daniel 9:24, the 'most holy place' that is anointed at 70 '7' years is this 'qodes ha qodasom'
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/9-24.htm
“Seventy 7 are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
anoint a 'qodes qodasim' (which would potentially be fulfilled on the 77th anniversary of Jerusalem May 14, 2025)

One could insist on a spiritual meaning of 'most holy' being a person, but then how is the man of sin going to take a seat in an anointed person?

so that he takes his seat in the [naos] [most holy place] [qodes qodasim]

kind of difficult. Since Ezekiel's Temple has not been fulfilled yet, this is the holy temple that will be taken over.

This is (one of ) the 'holy place'(s) that gets the abomination idol as per Matthew 24:15
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-15.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davy
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

the 'temple of God' is the Greek word 'naos' https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm

In English, the equivalent is 'holy of holies'/ inner sanctum. In Hebrew, this is 'qodes ha qodasim' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies

In Daniel 9:24, the 'most holy place' that is anointed at 70 '7' years is this 'qodes ha qodasom'
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/9-24.htm
“Seventy 7 are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
anoint a 'qodes qodasim' (which would potentially be fulfilled on the 77th anniversary of Jerusalem May 14, 2025)

One could insist on a spiritual meaning of 'most holy' being a person, but then how is the man of sin going to take a seat in an anointed person?

so that he takes his seat in the [naos] [most holy place] [qodes qodasim]

kind of difficult. Since Ezekiel's Temple has not been fulfilled yet, this is the holy temple that will be taken over.

This is (one of ) the 'holy place'(s) that gets the abomination idol as per Matthew 24:15
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-15.htm


Brick and mortar temples only make sense in Ancient history contexts. They make no sense in the here and now though.

Take Revelation 13, for instance. That chapter indicates the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them. Where do you envision the beast doing this, and who do you take the saints to be meaning here?

If we try and place these events happening mainly in Jerusalem, and that it also involves a temple being there, and the fact Jerusalem is mostly made up of unbelieving Jews, who are all these saints then, the ones the beast wages war against? If these are saints not even living in the region, why would these saints be bothered by a temple in Jerusalem? Why would the one sitting in this temple feel the need to make war with saints not even living in the region?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

Choose Wisely

Forgiven
Supporter
Jan 7, 2011
3,427
1,424
Texas
✟106,222.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Brick and mortar temples only make sense in Ancient history contexts. They make no sense in the here and now though.
Totally incorrect. The sacrifice will be restored once the world goes into chaos from the pretribulation rapture.


Take Revelation 13, for instance. That chapter indicates the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them. Where do you envision the beast doing this, and who do you take the saints to be meaning here?

The saints are the twelve tribes that are scattered across the earth. Church is already gone pretrib.
Rev 13
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

If we try and place these events happening mainly in Jerusalem, and that it also involves a temple being there, and the fact Jerusalem is mostly made up of unbelieving Jews, who are all these saints then, the ones the beast wages war against?
The events happen all over the world as shown in Rev 13. The saints are the twelve tribes that are scattered across the earth as shown in Rev 7 and Rev 14 by the 144000.....first fruits.

If these are saints not even living in the region, why would these saints be bothered by a temple in Jerusalem? Why would the one sitting in this temple feel the need to make war with saints not even living in the region?
There are two groups of people. One group, the twelve tribes that are scattered across the earth comes to recognize Jesus as the Messiah after the Church has be raptured pretrib. Another group is the remnant in the nation of Israel that goes through the wrath of God.

1. Church is raptured pretrib
2. The scattered 12 tribes go through the tribulation and are raptured pre wrath.
3. The nation of Israel goes through the wrath of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Per English grammar, we are required to go back to the 26th verse and pick up the subject about that "he". It is about that "prince" idea in verse 26, but not in the same role this next time, i.e., the coming Antichrist for the end is not going to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary, he instead is going to support building of a new temple, and starting up the old covenant sacrifices again.
You are correct that the antecedent of the "he's" in verse 27 is "the prince" in verse 26.

However, there is no change in role and no "coming Antichrist". There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage, and it is Messiah. Antichrist is unseen, unsaid, and unknown.

There is in fact only one individual of whom the passage speaks, and it is Messiah the prince.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: David Kent
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are correct that the antecedent of the "he's" in verse 27 is "the prince" in verse 26.

However, there is no change in role and no "coming Antichrist". There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage, and it is Messiah. Antichrist is unseen, unsaid, and unknown.

There is in fact only one individual of whom the passage speaks, and it is Messiah the prince.

There is no connection between the verse 26 "prince" and The Messiah. The word prince in Dan.9:26 has no link to Messiah like verse 25 does. You cannot simply transfer "Messiah the Prince" from verse 25 and insert it into verse 26, which is what you're trying to do.

The NIV, which I don't care for its NT translation at all, actually has a better translation on Dan.9 than the KJV:

Dan 9:25-27
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.


26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

NIV

Furthermore, we already know per history that it was Titus, the Roman general and his army that destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 A.D., and not Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I agree with the majority of the OP. What I have quoted above is not anything I can also agree with. The temple that gets desecrated by the AC is meaning the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2, and that that is not meaning a brick and mortar temple standing in Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2, nowhere can Jerusalem even be found in the contexts, yet it would have to involve Jerusalem in order for your interpretation to be correct.

That another Jewish temple in Jerusalem is required to fulfill the prophecy is not a loose interpretation. It is a requirement, because the subject of sacrifices in Jerusalem it is talking about isn't talking about some campfire club out in the woods. And when Daniel speaks of the sanctuary, and an abomination idol placed in it, he's not talking about a closet. The more some try to get away from that subject Daniel was shown about the sanctuary and sacrifices in Jerusalem, the more silly it makes their statements against it.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Though years ago I did, took much of Revelation 11 to be meaning in a literal sense, anymore though, I no longer do. By taking verse 1 and 2 in the literal sense, it has led to at least two interpretations. Either it's meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, thus in the minds of Preterists, this further proves they are correct to interpret the prophecies throughout the book of Revelation in the manner they do. The other is that it leads futurists to conclude a brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem must be meant then. I'm basically a futurist for the most part, yet it no longer makes me conclude that though. And I'm Premil on top of that. It's generally Amils who don't interpret a lot of things in Revelation in a literal sense.

Why worry about men's labels and doctrines? Why not just allow the Scriptures to speak without adding man's leaven into it? Futurism, Historicism, Preterism, they're all just man's labels from vain attempts to categorize a system of men's doctrines just like politicians do with their political parties.

Our Lord's Book of Revelation contains a lot of imagery, but not all of it. And most of it certainly is literal, because the only purpose of the symbols and imagery is in order to make His Messages in it easier to understand for His faithful who listen to Him in His Word, and not to men. That's why no one will ever understand His Revelation without first going through Him, and through study in all the rest of The Bible first.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: oldrunner
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,597.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

the 'temple of God' is the Greek word 'naos' https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm

In English, the equivalent is 'holy of holies'/ inner sanctum. In Hebrew, this is 'qodes ha qodasim' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies

In Daniel 9:24, the 'most holy place' that is anointed at 70 '7' years is this 'qodes ha qodasom'
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/daniel/9-24.htm
“Seventy 7 are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
anoint a 'qodes qodasim' (which would potentially be fulfilled on the 77th anniversary of Jerusalem May 14, 2025)

One could insist on a spiritual meaning of 'most holy' being a person, but then how is the man of sin going to take a seat in an anointed person?

so that he takes his seat in the [naos] [most holy place] [qodes qodasim]

kind of difficult. Since Ezekiel's Temple has not been fulfilled yet, this is the holy temple that will be taken over.

This is (one of ) the 'holy place'(s) that gets the abomination idol as per Matthew 24:15
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-15.htm

Some like to argue the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 is about the spiritual temple Apostle Paul taught in Ephesians. It's mainly those who think the pope is the Antichrist who entertain that.

Yet it is impossible for the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 to mean the spiritual temple, simply because the spiritual temple, which its foundation is made up of the Apostles, prophets, and the Church, with Jesus as its Cornerstone, cannot be corrupted, period. One who falls away goes into corruption and is cut off from the spiritual temple, not the other way around. Thus the meaning of Paul's "temple of God" there means what it has always meant, the literal temple in Jerusalem. And Paul thus pointing to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem prior to Christ's 2nd coming.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

oldrunner

Active Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2018
231
108
usa
✟37,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
AU-Democrats
Brick and mortar temples only make sense in Ancient history contexts. They make no sense in the here and now though.

Take Revelation 13, for instance. That chapter indicates the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them. Where do you envision the beast doing this, and who do you take the saints to be meaning here?

If we try and place these events happening mainly in Jerusalem, and that it also involves a temple being there, and the fact Jerusalem is mostly made up of unbelieving Jews, who are all these saints then, the ones the beast wages war against? If these are saints not even living in the region, why would these saints be bothered by a temple in Jerusalem? Why would the one sitting in this temple feel the need to make war with saints not even living in the region?

I don't think we have seen the fat lady sing yet. :)

Just wait, only a real Temple will do. Paul was teaching the Thessalonians based on the Olivette Discourse of Jesus. Also, the Temple was standing then so they would of understood this as a literal Temple. Jesus was quoting Daniel:


Mat 24:15  "When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 

Notice it is our responsibility to understand what this means. So the Book of Daniel will be key in understanding the End Times, just as it is to understand the book of Revelation.

The whole ball of wax is, there will be very few Christians that hold to the truth, before Jesus returns. :( We see this on these Forums where almost daily, most deny there is little or any prophecy left to be fulfilled, or we will be conveniently taken to heaven before we have to put our faith on the line for Jesus. According to the parable of the wheat and tares we are looking at 2/3 are not truly saved in Christendom. The ten virgins teach us that 1/2 will fall away in the season of His return. These are sobering and staggering facts taught by Jesus Himself!

It comes down to a choice that is simple and yet very profound: Do we believe what Jesus says in the Olivette Discourse or not? What did Jesus Himself teach about the End Times? Can we trust what He said? Does our understanding of the End Times come from Jesus, or our Denomination? Who will we follow?

As for me, I don't have to have every detail figured out. I just trust what He said is the truth about the end times. It don't matter that I can fit every little piece into the puzzle of the end times. If we don't start here-with the Olivette Discourse, with the teaching of Jesus on this important subject, we will never come to knowledge of the truth. He was teaching the 12 Apostles, the very foundation of the Church itself as we know it. Who's names are in the foundation of the Heavenly city, for crying out loud! And the city has 12 gates, that have the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. Which shows the importance of both the Church and Israel in the redemptive and prophetic program of God. :idea:

Rev 21:12  having a great and high wall; having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. 

Rev 21:13  On the east were three gates; and on the north three gates; and on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 

Rev 21:14  The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. 

He said there will be signs before His coming/Parousia, but we don't believe this it seems. We relegate the Olivette Discourse to Jews only, or fulfilled in 70 AD. But this IS Jesus we are talking about here! Right? :oldthumbsup: We don't need to be a PHD in Biblical languages, or be really that bright at all, to understand what He is saying plainly in this one little chapter of the Bible. But what we believe about this chapter, has everything to do about what will happen before He returns- and if we are in truth or error. He gave us Revelation too- but that is just icing on the cake and gives us more to fight about it seems. :sigh:

But we don't really believe it do we, these words of Jesus? It's been too long, and it looks too messy for us to be in that time period, we are too advanced as a modern people to believe this... so we disregard it. A little slip here, a little there, until we are thoroughly asleep and totally deceived by the world system and the false prophets within the Church, and we can't understand the signs of the times. We become like the Pharisees who couldn't or didn't want to understand, and chose a moment of power and position, for an eternity in Hell. :help:

It seems only two of the Elders of Israel were open to the teachings of Jesus, men that knew the Bible and prophesies. Let that sink in...Only two. What do you think our chances are to be able to understand the End Times if we don't believe what Jesus Himself taught about His second coming in the Olivette Discourse? He is the only one we can trust about this whole matter. And if it don't come to pass exactly how He says, He is a false prophet-according to the test of Scriptures, and this is impossible!

This is really what is at stake here, and why it is so important our teaching lines up with what Jesus taught. Does it? :scratch:

Deu 18:18  I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 

Deu 18:19  And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 

Deu 18:20  But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 

Deu 18:21  And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'— 

Deu 18:22  when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. 
 
Luk 18:8  I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

2Pe 3:3  knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 

2Pe 3:4  They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 

2Pe 3:14  Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 

2Pe 3:15  and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 

2Pe 3:16  as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 

2Pe 3:17  You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 

:amen: :oldthumbsup: :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: A71
Upvote 0

tranquil

Newbie
Sep 29, 2011
1,373
158
with Charlie at the Chocolate Factory
✟270,943.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Brick and mortar temples only make sense in Ancient history contexts. They make no sense in the here and now though.

Take Revelation 13, for instance. That chapter indicates the beast makes war with the saints and overcomes them. Where do you envision the beast doing this, and who do you take the saints to be meaning here?

If we try and place these events happening mainly in Jerusalem, and that it also involves a temple being there, and the fact Jerusalem is mostly made up of unbelieving Jews, who are all these saints then, the ones the beast wages war against? If these are saints not even living in the region, why would these saints be bothered by a temple in Jerusalem? Why would the one sitting in this temple feel the need to make war with saints not even living in the region?

Where do you envision the beast doing this, and who do you take the saints to be meaning here?

There is no whisked away rapture (the living are gathered on earth, the dead in heaven), so, the 'saints' are faithful Christians. John 17:15

The beast will persecute Christians wherever it has authority.​

If we try and place these events happening mainly in Jerusalem, and that it also involves a temple being there, and the fact Jerusalem is mostly made up of unbelieving Jews, who are all these saints then, the ones the beast wages war against?

I don't place everything happening in Jerusalem.

There are Christians in Jerusalem, yes?
If these are saints not even living in the region, why would these saints be bothered by a temple in Jerusalem?

Who says they would be bothered by it? Presumably, they wouldn't be bothered by the temple, they would be bothered by the person saying that they are God, when they are not God.
Why would the one sitting in this temple feel the need to make war with saints not even living in the region?

Because Christians would be denying that this particular person is God.

 
Upvote 0

tranquil

Newbie
Sep 29, 2011
1,373
158
with Charlie at the Chocolate Factory
✟270,943.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Some like to argue the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 is about the spiritual temple Apostle Paul taught in Ephesians. It's mainly those who think the pope is the Antichrist who entertain that.

Yet it is impossible for the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 to mean the spiritual temple, simply because the spiritual temple, which its foundation is made up of the Apostles, prophets, and the Church, with Jesus as its Cornerstone, cannot be corrupted, period. One who falls away goes into corruption and is cut off from the spiritual temple, not the other way around. Thus the meaning of Paul's "temple of God" there means what it has always meant, the literal temple in Jerusalem. And Paul thus pointing to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem prior to Christ's 2nd coming.

As much as I am sure about there being a physical temple that is desecrated, (Ezekiel's Temple), the spiritual temple of the Christian body will be desecrated also - which is what the 'pharmakia' of Revelation 18:23 (drugs for sorcery) pertains to. (In which people are unknowingly dosed with hallucinogens, and they mistakenly think that they are possessed by demons/ alien parasites / mind controlling worms, bugs. Presumably, the Pope will pretend to exorcise the world of these manufactured illusions.)
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is no connection between the verse 26 "prince" and The Messiah. The word prince in Dan.9:26 has no link to Messiah like verse 25 does. You cannot simply transfer "Messiah the Prince" from verse 25 and insert it into verse 26, which is what you're trying to do.

The NIV, which I don't care for its NT translation at all, actually has a better translation on Dan.9 than the KJV:

Dan 9:25-27
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.


26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

NIV

Furthermore, we already know per history that it was Titus, the Roman general and his army that destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 A.D., and not Jesus.

Grammatically, the antecedents cascade. The antecedent of the "he's" in verse 27 is the "prince" in verse 26, associated by proximity. The antecedent of the "prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the prince" in verse 25, associated by terminology. Therefore, the cascaded antecedent of the "he's" in verse 27 is "Messiah the prince" in verse 25.

In math, cascading is expressed by the transitive property of equality: If A=B and B=C then A=C.

The YLT is the version most acclaimed for its literal translation accuracy. It recognizes that Messiah is the prince, or Leader, as it translates the Hebrew.

Daniel 9 YLT
25 And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

Titus and his army were under the command and control of Messiah the prince, as His agents to accomplish His objectives.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Some like to argue the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 is about the spiritual temple Apostle Paul taught in Ephesians. It's mainly those who think the pope is the Antichrist who entertain that.

Yet it is impossible for the "temple of God" in 2 Thess.2:4 to mean the spiritual temple, simply because the spiritual temple, which its foundation is made up of the Apostles, prophets, and the Church, with Jesus as its Cornerstone, cannot be corrupted, period. One who falls away goes into corruption and is cut off from the spiritual temple, not the other way around. Thus the meaning of Paul's "temple of God" there means what it has always meant, the literal temple in Jerusalem. And Paul thus pointing to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem prior to Christ's 2nd coming.

John said there were already antichrists among them.

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Paul warned of wolves who would attack and scatter the church. They weren't of the canine variety.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


God will always preserve a faithful remnant who will not bow to Baal. But the Church has never been immune to attack.

Paul only ever used "temple" (Greek "naos") as a spiritual metaphor. 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks of a counterfeit spiritual influence that would situate itself within the spiritual temple of the believer, collectively the Church.

History confirmed his prediction.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: David Kent
Upvote 0