Changing your mind about prophecy

[BABerean2]

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

The end of this 70 weeks marks everlasting righteousness; that is the Kingdom of Heaven of Earth. Is that what happened 3.5 years after Jesus was killed? No way! His followers were hunted, persecuted, and killed. The world is incredibly evil at the moment.

Did Christ fulfill Daniel 9:24 at Calvary?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.



Was there a period of time when the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles?
Paul said yes in Romans 1:16.
When was that time period, and how long did it last?


Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all)
Act 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;


Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


The only way to see the 70th week of Daniel is with a time machine set to return you to the first century.

.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Please add the word NOT in the first line of your statement.

With that I agree

Corrected. Thanks for spotting that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Satan is not "the beast" in the bottomless pit. Satan was behind the serpent beast's actions. And Satan will be destroyed by Jesus. But Satan was not the serpent "beast".

I'm not saying Satan is the beast, I'm saying Satan is the serpent because scripture says so (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2). The idea of a serpent beast is something you came up with in your imagination.

 

[John Helpher]

The only way to see the 70th week of Daniel is with a time machine set to return you to the first century.

I appreciate your fervor posting verses, but this post does not address the points I made. Please respond to the points I made in post #315.

 

[DavidPT]

The end of this 70 weeks marks everlasting righteousness; that is the Kingdom of Heaven of Earth. Is that what happened 3.5 years after Jesus was killed? No way! His followers were hunted, persecuted, and killed. The world is incredibly evil at the moment.

Excellent point. And to add to that, speaking of trying to be logical about things, the following is something I have brought up in the past, in regards to everlasting righteousness being brought in.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


When Peter penned this, it was obviously after the time some are proposing the 70 weeks were fulfilled. You would think Peter would know whether the entire 70 weeks were fulfilled or not. You would think if he thought they have already been fulfilled, he would see that everlasting righteousness has already been brought in. So why was he still looking for a future time wherein there dwelleth righteousness? How can anything possibly trump everlasting righteousness? If it was already brought in before Peter penned those words, he doesn't need to still be looking for a place wherein dwelleth righteousness. It should already be there.

Something else I have wondered about. Unless I missed it, not one author in the NT ever claimed the entire 70 weeks were fulfilled. I wonder why?

BTW, though I too see the 70th week occurring in the end of this age, I don't take any of it in the literal sense where it might be involving a literal temple in Jerusalem, and animal sacrificing resuming in it, then being put to an end again. I don't see any of that being reasonable.

I also don't see it being reasonable, that if Christ is meant in Daniel 9:27, that there would also be in this same context, talk of abominations. Anyone reading any of the accounts in the NT having to do with what Christ did at the cross, there was never a single mention of abominations having to do with any of that, ever. No one could possibly be thinking about abominations in relation to what Christ did on the cross. So why are some thinking, that in Daniel 9:27, the fact they have Christ fulfilling some of that, that Christ's death on the cross has some kind of connection to abominations? Does not the verse below make mention of abominations? What would any of that have to do with what Christ did on the cross?

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.


I challenge anyone to produce a single passage in the NT where it is involving what Christ did on the cross, and that within that same context it also makes mention of abominations. These things couldn't possibly be related.

And one more thing I find unreasonable. I find it unreasonable that anything in Daniel 9:27 is meaning outside of the 70th week. And if one has Christ fulfilling some of this in the midst of the week, this means the part concerning abominations has to be fulfilled within the remaining 3.5 years. The way some try and get around this, they claim some of Daniel 9:27 doesn't even involve the 70th week, regardless that the verse clearly tells us it does.

 

[Douggg]

Where does scripture teach that? It's not in Isaiah 14, so where? You're making things up to support your doctrine. That's not good.

You need to go back and study Isaiah 14:15-20.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. [it is talking about their tombs]

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch , and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them [the other kings] in burial, [his body never gets buried] because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. [he is a Jew, but is cursed like *Jehonichan was, not to have any children]

His body never gets buried. His soul is in hell only a few days, while the world views his open casket, because they see him in his dead state in Revelation 17:8b.

_____________________________________________

*Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

 

[Douggg]

I'm not saying Satan is the beast, I'm saying Satan is the serpent because scripture says so (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2). The idea of a serpent beast is something you came up with in your imagination.

The bible indicates the serpent that beguiled Eve, i.e. spoke directly to Eve, was a beast. i.e a serpent beast. one could call the cattle a cattle beast. a lion, a lion beast. etc.

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

There were three types of animals God created, the fish, the birds, the beasts of the field.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You need to go back and study Isaiah 14:15-20.

You need to study the entire New Testament because none of it agrees with your end times beliefs.

 

[nolidad]

Your answers are found below plainly written in the Word of God.
However, you have made the choice to ignore it in order to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work.


Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.



Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

.

Well I dun guess I am just a hick and rube.

Here again is the New Covenant as God declared it:

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.

Can you take your verses which YOU say fuflill the New covenant and point to which part of teh new Covenant God made it fulfills?

See I see God making this with the houses of Israel and Judah (all Israelis) you say no. so show me when god said He WILL do this: He changed His mind and now WON"T do it.

If God made the Old Covenant with the whole nation, why is the New not made with the whole nation as it says here.

So please show teh NT verses and then lay them by the side of the New Covenant and show that it fulfilled that part of the New Covenant God declared.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Excellent point. And to add to that, speaking of trying to be logical about things, the following is something I have brought up in the past, in regards to everlasting righteousness being brought in.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


When Peter penned this, it was obviously after the time some are proposing the 70 weeks were fulfilled. You would think Peter would know whether the entire 70 weeks were fulfilled or not. You would think if he thought they have already been fulfilled, he would see that everlasting righteousness has already been brought in. So why was he still looking for a future time wherein there dwelleth righteousness? How can anything possibly trump everlasting righteousness? If it was already brought in before Peter penned those words, he doesn't need to still be looking for a place wherein dwelleth righteousness. It should already be there.

I believe you are taking the prophecy too literally. Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness long ago with His death and resurrection which gave the hope of everlasting life and righteousness to the world.

Since you interpret bringing in everlasting righteousness as referring to literally bringing in everlasting righteousness with the new heavens and new earth, do you also believe that the references to finishing the transgression and making an end of sins should be understood in the same literal sense? As in the literal finishing of transgression and literal end of sins?

It appears that you believe the 70 weeks will be fulfilled once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in and that happens after the thousand years. So, you apparently believe the 70th week will be fulfilled 1000+ years after the second coming of Christ?

Can you show me where in Daniel 9:24-27 that it even remotely indicates that there would be any gap within the 70 weeks at any point?

Something else I have wondered about. Unless I missed it, not one author in the NT ever claimed the entire 70 weeks were fulfilled. I wonder why?

They also never said it wasn't fulfilled. So, you don't have much of a point here. Apparently, God believed that we could figure that out without explicitly showing the fulfillment to us in the NT.

BTW, though I too see the 70th week occurring in the end of this age, I don't take any of it in the literal sense where it might be involving a literal temple in Jerusalem, and animal sacrificing resuming in it, then being put to an end again. I don't see any of that being reasonable.

So, how do you see it being fulfilled exactly?

I also don't see it being reasonable, that if Christ is meant in Daniel 9:27, that there would also be in this same context, talk of abominations. Anyone reading any of the accounts in the NT having to do with what Christ did at the cross, there was never a single mention of abominations having to do with any of that, ever. No one could possibly be thinking about abominations in relation to what Christ did on the cross. So why are some thinking, that in Daniel 9:27, the fact they have Christ fulfilling some of that, that Christ's death on the cross has some kind of connection to abominations? Does not the verse below make mention of abominations? What would any of that have to do with what Christ did on the cross?

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.

You need to read the previous verse for context.

Daniel 9:26 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.

Verse 27 says "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate". He would make what desolate? Look at verse 26. It talks about the city and the sanctuary being destroyed and made desolate. That is what verse 27 is talking about.

The majority of the Jews rejected Him. So, as a result this is what He said about that:

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Do you understand what Jesus was saying here? He was rendering their temple to be desolate because of their overall rejection (not all, but most) of Him. He knew that He was going to be crucified soon after that and the veil of the temple would be torn in two, signifying that God would no longer dwell with them there at the temple. This is what caused the sacrifices and offerings made at the temple to cease to have any meaning or purpose.

When Daniel 9:27 says "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate" it's talking about Jesus making the temple spiritually desolate as Matthew 23:37-38 shows. When it says it would be made desolate "even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" it's talking about the fact that not only did Jesus make the temple spiritually desolate with His death, but the temple would be literally, physically made desolate as well.

Because of their rejection of Him, not only did Jesus render their temple spiritually desolate, but He indicated that it, along with the city itself, would be literally, physically destroyed and made desolate.

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

The above occurred around 70 AD. What happened around 70 AD was a result of God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ. It happened just as Jesus said it would and it did involve abominations committed by the Roman armies who attacked Jerusalem. Notice in Luke 19:41-44 that it talks about even children in Jerusalem being killed, so that's the kind of abominations that occurred at that time. The writings of Josephus indicate that all kinds of other abominations like the raping of women occurred at that time as well.

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Can you see here that the disciples asked Him two questions with the first being when "these things", which were "the buildings of the temple" would be destroyed? Surely, Jesus did not avoid answering that question. He answered it here:

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. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Compare the above to the parallel passage from Luke:

Luke 21:20 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Any unbiased person would recognize that Luke 21:20-24 is speaking of the same event as Matthew 24:15-22 as they are obviously very similar and I don't think anyone would try to say that there were two Olivet Discourses. And what Jesus was talking about here is the same thing He said would happen in Luke 19:41-44 which was clearly a prophecy regarding the Jews of that time period and their temple.

So, this indicates that the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (the temple) related to the time when Jersusalem was surrounded by armies and then destroyed with the city and the sanctuary (temple) being made desolate. And that is what happened in 70 AD when the Roman armies who had gathered and surrounded Jerusalem attacked and destroyed the city and the temple buildings, leaving no stone upon another.

Note that this doesn't mean Daniel's 70th week was fulfilled in 70 AD. It just means the consummation (end result) of what happened in the 70th week in regards to the Jews having rejected Christ resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings.

I challenge anyone to produce a single passage in the NT where it is involving what Christ did on the cross, and that within that same context it also makes mention of abominations. These things couldn't possibly be related.

Well, I would say that the majority of Jews rejecting Christ was an abomination, but I think the abominations themselves that are alluded to refers to what the Roman armies did to the women and children in Jerusalem and some of the other things they did there at that time.

And one more thing I find unreasonable. I find it unreasonable that anything in Daniel 9:27 is meaning outside of the 70th week.

Why can't it refer to things that were the end result of things described as being fulfilled in the 70th week? I see no reason why not.

And if one has Christ fulfilling some of this in the midst of the week, this means the part concerning abominations has to be fulfilled within the remaining 3.5 years.

That is your reasoning, but I see no reason to draw that conclusion. Where does it say that everything written within Daniel 9:24-27 had to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks? It doesn't. It mentions 6 things that had to be fulfilled in verse 24 and then it says He (the Messiah) would confirm a covenant for one week and in the middle of the 70th week He would end sacrifices and offerings. It doesn't say anything else, such as the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and the consummation and that being poured out upon the desolate had to occur within the 70th week.

The way some try and get around this, they claim some of Daniel 9:27 doesn't even involve the 70th week, regardless that the verse clearly tells us it does.

No, it does not. It absolutely does not say the part about " the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" having to occur within the 70th week.

What the prophecy never indicates is that there would be any gap within any of the 70 weeks. There is simply no basis for seeing a gap anywhere within the 70 weeks. There is no indication at all that they would not all be consecutive.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well I dun guess I am just a hick and rube.

Here again is the New Covenant as God declared it:

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.

Can you take your verses which YOU say fuflill the New covenant and point to which part of teh new Covenant God made it fulfills?

See I see God making this with the houses of Israel and Judah (all Israelis) you say no. so show me when god said He WILL do this: He changed His mind and now WON"T do it.

If God made the Old Covenant with the whole nation, why is the New not made with the whole nation as it says here.

So please show teh NT verses and then lay them by the side of the New Covenant and show that it fulfilled that part of the New Covenant God declared.

It has been shown to you repeatedly that the new covenant of salvation through the blood of Christ applies to the true spiritual Israel of God, consisting of Jew and Gentile believers, rather than to the nation of Israel.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Until you understand that God's promises don't apply to people based on race or nationality, but instead are based on their faith in Christ, you will never understand what the new covenant is all about.

The New Testament often broadens the application of OT prophecies beyond what it seemed like they would apply to because they were intentionally made a mystery by God that would be revealed by Christ and the New Testament writings about Him.

You read the OT prophecies without allowing the New Testament to explain the fulfillments of them for you. That is not wise. The New Testament reveals the mysteries of the Old Testament.

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Paul said that the idea of the Gentiles being fellowheirs of God's promises with the Isrealites was a mystery in Old Testament times but was revealed "unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" in New Testament times. You have yet to understand that concept and are acting like there was no mystery that needed to be revealed and the meaning of OT prophecies can be seen in the OT text itself without any illumination needed from the NT and the Holy Spirit. But, that is not what Paul taught.

 

[FredVB]

I changed, but do not think I will change from communication here. I had accepted a standard pretrib position, now I am sure Mystery Babylon will collapse first, and it is surely coming.

 

[BABerean2]

So please show teh NT verses and then lay them by the side of the New Covenant and show that it fulfilled that part of the New Covenant God declared.

Since Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, appear to be invisible to you, your are requesting something which you refuse to see.


However, the rest of understand why you refuse to see it.
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant, the Two Peoples of God doctrine falls apart.



.

 

[John Helpher]

When Peter penned this, it was obviously after the time some are proposing the 70 weeks were fulfilled. You would think Peter would know whether the entire 70 weeks were fulfilled or not. You would think if he thought they have already been fulfilled, he would see that everlasting righteousness has already been brought in. So why was he still looking for a future time wherein there dwelleth righteousness? How can anything possibly trump everlasting righteousness? If it was already brought in before Peter penned those words, he doesn't need to still be looking for a place wherein dwelleth righteousness. It should already be there.

Hi David. This is a good point. However, I think the issue Spiritual Jew and BaBerean2 are struggling with is that a delay to the fulfillment of the 70th week also invalidates Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, as though both cannot be true at the same time. I think this conclusion is a mistake.

The 70 weeks prophecy already takes into consideration Jesus' death on the cross (i.e. Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself). This 70 weeks was meant to be for Daniel's people, and at the time of Jesus' death is was Daniel's people who were killing him. The fulfillment of the 70 weeks was meant to be an honor for Daniel's people; a blessing from the creator to participate in his plan for the world, and they spit on it. When they cut off their Messiah, God cut them off from that honor; the 70th week was put on hold until it is given to God's new chosen people; not those with the correct religious association, nationality, or race (as the Jews so often liked to claim) but to those who "follow the lamb withersoever he goeth".

BTW, though I too see the 70th week occurring in the end of this age, I don't take any of it in the literal sense where it might be involving a literal temple in Jerusalem, and animal sacrificing resuming in it, then being put to an end again. I don't see any of that being reasonable.

This competition between a physical temple and a spiritual body is a significant theme all throughout history. A lot of people are surprised when they hear that the first temple wasn't God's desire or even his idea; David said he wanted to build a temple for God. You can almost here the Lord's incredulity when he responds, "the whole earth is my footstool, but you want to build a house for me"? The Lord had already organized a place for worship and sacrifice; it was a big tent and while it had some adornment, it was pretty simple in terms of decorations and wealth.

But, David said he wanted to do it as a gift to God so God agreed. But over time people, as with most things, came to see the temple as more important than God himself. We humans so easily become obsessed with physical possessions and outward demonstrations of what really should be inward, intrinsic character traits.

The Jews today want nothing so badly as they want their temple back. This is the crux of all the warfare in the middle east; it's all a fight over land, which in essence, is ultimately a reference to the temple, since land is needed for the temple. Do you remember Trump's recent decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and all the praise he received for that? Why? Because people love land and buildings. Both Jews and professing Christians likened it to a blessing from God.

This is partly why a 3rd temple will, eventually, be rebuilt. Prophecy is often written in such a way that it can have more than one meaning at a time. I believe this is the case with the 70 weeks prophecy. It starts off talking about the Messiah, but concludes with someone making an agreement for a 7 year period which somehow results in the resumption of sacrifices. Because sacrifices can only be performed in the temple, it is reasonable to conclude that a 3rd temple is built.

As you've rightly noted, the Messiah would not make any agreement which results in the resumption of sacrifices, nor would he overspread abominations. The only people interested in a temple are the Jews and the AC. Perhaps the AC himself does not understand that the Lord no longer has any interest in stone temples so he builds it just so that he can profane it. And yet, despite the Lord's lack of interest in stone temples, the concept of a temple being rebuilt just to mock the Lord is still offensive to him, at least on part of the AC, and it is offensive to him on part of the Jews (and all the professing Christians who, in his name, will claim that the temple is the will of the Lord). Despite their rejection of him, the Lord still wants all people to repent; going back to stone temples is a slap in the face.

In other words, we've got a messiah and we've got a prince, both of whom make an agreement with many for a 7 year period (don't forget that Jesus himself described Satan as the prince of this world, and, when Satan tempted Jesus by offering him authority over all the governments of the world, Jesus did not dispute his claim). For the Jews who only want their temple back, they will be more than happy to go along with a man who is able, through whatever political craft he has, to make that happen. One other benefit of doing this, for the AC, is that it will result in tremendous political clout and popularity. He will seem like the savior of the world, for sure, which is consistent with Daniel's prediction that he would make himself God and speak "great things against the most high".

At the same time, Jesus makes an agreement with 144k of his faithful followers by organizing them into 12 tribes for this final, 7 year period, as a witness to the world. There is no indication that this marking will be visible or that they will have any special powers, or that they will become infallible, or that they will be immune from all suffering but it does mean that these tribes will be the literal kingdom of Heaven on earth, the ultimate fulfillment of what "Daniel's people" should have been all along; a spiritual body of believers who put Jesus first in all things. Their job during this time will be to warn the world that Jesus will return and that they need to repent and follow him.

The formation of a "great multitude no one could number who came out of great tribulation" indicates that this 144k will be at least somewhat successful in their campaign, though even millions is a drop in the bucket compared to billions.

I challenge anyone to produce a single passage in the NT where it is involving what Christ did on the cross, and that within that same context it also makes mention of abominations. These things couldn't possibly be related.

I understand what you're saying, but i think part of the problem in all of this back and forth is this thing where we challenge one another to produce Bible verses and we kind throw them at each other. Spiritual Jew and BaBerean2 have already done this, where they've quoted a bunch of NT verses which they believe proves their argument.

Instead of posting a bunch of verses back and forth, I think we just need to get the spirit of how all the verses fit together. For example, consider Jesus' comments about our relationship toward God and money; he said God is one master and money is the other master and that we cannot work for both without cheating on one or the other. He said we will love one and despise the other.

In other words, any time we give to working for money and the monetary system will demonstrate our contempt for the Kingdom of Heaven. The opposite is also true; any time we give to working for love and the Kingdom of Heaven will demonstrate our contempt for the worldly system of wages.

In this sense, it is easy to see how the worldly system may view working for love as an abomination; the more we work for love, the more abomination we overspread, from a worldly perspective. Jesus' death on the cross makes an abomination of animal sacrifices.

This is what Spiritual Jew and BaBerean2 are saying is the fulfillment of the 70th week; Jesus's death on the cross makes continued animal sacrifices an abomination before God and that his sacrifice is what causes the animal sacrifices to cease. I do not disagree that this interpretation is partially consistent with what the prophecy says; Jesus' death does put an end to sacrifices and his sacrifice does make an abomination of continued animal sacrifices; but he death does not represent the fulfillment of the 70 weeks.

The other, concurrent and consistent interpretation is that a literal, physical temple will be rebuilt by the AC and in the middle of that 7 year period, he will renege on his agreement and profane the physical temple in some blasphemous way.

 

[DavidPT]

This is what Spiritual Jew and BaBerean2 are saying is the fulfillment of the 70th week; Jesus's death on the cross makes continued animal sacrifices an abomination before God and that his sacrifice is what causes the animal sacrifices to cease. I do not disagree that this interpretation is partially consistent with what the prophecy says; Jesus' death does put an end to sacrifices and his sacrifice does make an abomination of continued animal sacrifices; but he death does not represent the fulfillment of the 70 weeks.

I agree that Jesus' death meant an end to animal sacrificing, so no disagreements with them there. Yet, the abomination of desolation Jesus is referring to in the Discourse has zero to do with any of that. How can we know for certain? Simple.

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.

Look what verse 17 and 18 indicates. This is so urgent, that you have to get out that very moment, no time to spare, as if a volcano was erupting and lava was rapidly heading your direction. This does not match animal sacrificing being the abomination meant, the fact they continued sacrificing in this manner for at least 40 years straight, yet no one was fulfilling verses 16-18 in an ongoing manner for these entire 40 years.

And if none of this involves animal sacrificing being the abomination meant, how can some claim that it's what is meant in Daniel 9:27, though?

 

[John Helpher]

And if none of this involves animal sacrificing being the abomination meant, how can some claim that it's what is meant in Daniel 9:27, though?

Hi David. This is what I meant by trying to understand that prophecy can have multiple, consistent interpretations at the same time. It is not entirely accurate to say that the abomination of desolation referenced by Jesus has zero to do with animal sacrifices; there is some connection there. That kind of absolute position is only likely to unnecessarily alienate Spiritual Jew and BaBerean2.

There are actually 4 kinds of abomination here; 1 is going back to animal sacrifices when Jesus already laid his life down as the ultimate sacrifice, 2, persecution against the saints, 3, this continued insistence that worship of buildings is what God really wants, and 4, that obedience to Jesus is an abomination to the Beast and his worldly system. All 4 of these interpretations are true at the same time.

The real crux of the issue is whether the 70 weeks was completed 3.5 years after Jesus' death (as Spiritual Jew suggests). His response to being challenged on these dates and periods of time is to say that we are taking them too literally. I feel that's a pretty weak rebuttal because there's a lot of information pointing to this period of time being quite significant in a literal way.

As you've noted, Jesus' reference to the abomination of desolation suggests that Jesus did not expect the 70 weeks to be finished 3.5 years after his death. Shortly after mentioning it, he went on to describe the Great Tribulation; he was quite clear that it was tribulation such as the world has never seen nor would ever see again. In order for Spiritual Jew's interpretation to be correct, the Great Tribulation would have needed to start immediately at his death and then 3.5 years later, at the sounding of the 7th Trumpet of the Great Tribulation just as Revelation 11:15 describes, Jesus should have returned.

Of course, for that to be true, the thousand year reign would have needed to start and would have finished more than a thousand years ago. The timeline just doesn't add up for an interpretation which says the 70 weeks is already finished.

 

[nolidad]

I believe you are taking the prophecy too literally. Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness long ago with His death and resurrection which gave the hope of everlasting life and righteousness to the world.

Since you interpret bringing in everlasting righteousness as referring to literally bringing in everlasting righteousness with the new heavens and new earth, do you also believe that the references to finishing the transgression and making an end of sins should be understood in the same literal sense? As in the literal finishing of transgression and literal end of sins?

It appears that you believe the 70 weeks will be fulfilled once the new heavens and new earth are ushered in and that happens after the thousand years. So, you apparently believe the 70th week will be fulfilled 1000+ years after the second coming of Christ?

Can you show me where in Daniel 9:24-27 that it even remotely indicates that there would be any gap within the 70 weeks at any point?

Lots to cover in this one paragraph.

Paragraph one: Too literally as opposed to one God not meaning what He said? Which of the many "interpretations" of verses like these is the correct one. Should I take what you srite literally or allegorically?

Paragraph two: Everlasting does mean everlasting now doesn't it. If you want to think He meant less than everlasting that is you rissue, Why should I take you at your word and god not at His?

Paragraph 3: NO it appears like that to you but as I have said repeatedly ad nauseum (I guess you weren't paying attention) the end of the 70 weeks will occur when Jesus returns to the earth!

No if you wish to discuss specific points and how they are all fulfilled by the time Jesus returns- we can do that.

Well if you are hopong for a specific verse that says 69 weeks will be consecutive but teh 70th week takes place later- there isn't!

but in verses 26-27 we see this:

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.

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.

Now we know that Jerusalem was not destroyed with the temple until 70 AD which shows one gap in the 490 years.

Second the prince of the Romans has yet to make a form covenant with Israel for 7 years- so that shows another gap! And I know you believe that the Prince of the people is not the he of verse 27 but then, why do you follow normal rules of grammar mostly then violate every rule of Grammar to make the covenant maker jesus? Especially when He made no covenant nor announced a covenant for 7 years or any length of time?

See you could rid this passage of everyword after sanctuary the rough the and of verse 27. It would still point to the he as the prince of the people to come.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Paragraph two: Everlasting does mean everlasting now doesn't it. If you want to think He meant less than everlasting that is you rissue, Why should I take you at your word and god not at His?

Nothing I've said indicated that I believe everlasting doesn't mean everlasting. Do you want to continue talking to a straw man about his beliefs or would you rather address mine?

Paragraph 3: NO it appears like that to you but as I have said repeatedly ad nauseum (I guess you weren't paying attention) the end of the 70 weeks will occur when Jesus returns to the earth!

I was paying attention when you mentioned the new heavens and new earth in relation to this. Were you purposely trying to be confusing? Can you tell me exactly how you see Daniel 9:24 being fulfilled then?

No if you wish to discuss specific points and how they are all fulfilled by the time Jesus returns- we can do that.

Yes, I'd like to know how you see the fulfillment of each of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. I gave my understanding of the fulfillment of that already (don't have the post number handy, but I assume you saw it already).

Well if you are hopong for a specific verse that says 69 weeks will be consecutive but teh 70th week takes place later- there isn't!

And that is because there is no basis for thinking it wouldn't be consecutive. None at all.

but in verses 26-27 we see this:

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.

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.

Now we know that Jerusalem was not destroyed with the temple until 70 AD which shows one gap in the 490 years.

That event is not part of the 490 years itself, that was just something that occurred because of what happened towards the end of the 490 years. Because Christ was cut off and rejected by the majority of Jews, their temple and city ended up being destroyed.

Second the prince of the Romans has yet to make a form covenant with Israel for 7 years- so that shows another gap! And I know you believe that the Prince of the people is not the he of verse 27 but then, why do you follow normal rules of grammar mostly then violate every rule of Grammar to make the covenant maker jesus? Especially when He made no covenant nor announced a covenant for 7 years or any length of time?

You already know what I think of your bogus grammar rules. And, look what you did here. You refer to the prince of the people when in actuality it refers to the people of the prince destroying the city and the sanctuary.

The new covenant was made by God long before Christ came (see Jeremiah 31:31-34) and then Christ established it with His death and resurrection in the middle of the 70th week. What confirmed the new covenant in the rest of the week was the preaching of the gospel throughout Israel by the power of the Holy Spirit before it went out to the Gentiles.

 

[nolidad]

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

And I agree with this verse. Israel is Jacob Abraham had two sone Isaac and Ishmeal, Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau! Jacob had 12 sons these 12 became the children of Israel.

And we gentiles are heirs according to the promise.

But just simply show me where in all teh New Testament God fulfilled His Word as he declared here:

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.


1. If Israel is the church of both Jew and Gentile, then when did God make an old covenant with Jews and Gentiles?

2.When were "those days" so after those days God WILL put His laws in all Jewish hearts.

3. If you say this is symbolic and really means the church as you do- then why are you trying to teach me? I know the Lord so why are you trying to teach me? Shouldn't we get rid of all pastors and teachers?

And I have seem yours and others "opinions" that it means just the Spiritual Israel of God and I showed you from Scripture that , that phrase refers to the saved remnant in all generations! It is delineating the physical Israel from the spiritual Israel, but that delineation is not mentioned in the New Covenant as declared by god!

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

And I have agreed with this verse and Romans 11 over and over and over again. The church age was a mystery, just implied by the verse where it is written that God would call out of teh Gentiles a people for his name! But taking teh rest of teh bible and keepiong this verse in line with the rest of Gods declarations and not just symolizing them to mean something that is not written, I realize this time ends as Paul says in Romans 11 when the full number of the gentiles enter in! Then all Israel gets saved as it is written!!!!!! See I take this literally, Just like I take Jer. 31:

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.

AND this literally:

Ezekiel 20:33-38
King James Version

33 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you:

34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.

35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.

36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God.

37 And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant:

38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

And this as well:

Zechariah 13:8-9
King James Version

8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Do you take this literally or just the part of Jew and greek.
Because if you wish to take this literally on a purely physical plain, tehn you cannot be against gay marriages, for there is no male and female and just people, so fi 2 guys wish to marry each other it is just two people getting married.

Or maybe if you learned the history and culture, you would find it means something different than your current thinking.

I cannot argue with your re-interpretation of the many unfulfilled prophecies of the OT- for they are your "re-interpretations garnered by yours or someone elses rules of allegory.

 

[nolidad]

Nothing I've said indicated that I believe everlasting doesn't mean everlasting. Do you want to continue talking to a straw man about his beliefs or would you rather address mine?

Tell you what then. Quit your fancy tapdancing and simply answer this one question which to date you have refused to answer and keep sidestepping with all the red-herrings you have thrown up.

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.

Simply show empirically when God fulfilled the covenant written here as you keep saying He absolutely have done