Daniel's 70th Week Future or Fulfilled? Pt1

[JMWHALEN]

You are right the New Testament will not last 7 years because it is an everlasting covenant. I think that your timetable is wrong because you are using Dispensationalisms interpretation of Daniel. There is no need of re-interpretation of what the Bible clearly says. Number 1 the prince that Dispensationalism interprets as the Anti-Christ is defined in the Dan 9:25 as the Messiah the Prince. Yet in Daniel 9:26 when Daniel talks about the Prince he is suddenly interpreted as the Anti-Christ, and for what reason? Who knows other than the fact that if it is prophesying about Jesus it destroys the Dispensational premise.

Now let's add this up. The timetable (483 years) was up to the baptism of Christ which was 69 weeks. How long did Christ's ministry last? It was three and a half years that takes place in the 70th week where Christ confirmed the covenant. So now that uses up 486.5 years. After the death of Christ the disciples for 3.5 years went only to the children of Israel with the gospel, which adds up to 490 years.


"You are right the New Testament will not last 7 years because it is an everlasting covenant. I think that your timetable is wrong .....Now let's add this up"
__________

No, let's not "jump around" to other premises! Part of the art of debating(the ultimate goal being truth) is to evaluate a premise, the "supporting walls", if you will,and discover if these "walls" have any support from scripture.

The premise of the article you posted was that the "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 was "the New Covenant", and thus the 70th week is past. And you state:

"Jim, where does this article say that the Lord made a covenant for one week. It says that He confirmed the covenant. He didn't need to make the covenant He already had made it when He said that His blood was the New Testatment in His blood. There was no need to make another everlasting covenant when He had just made the New Covenant.


I merely point, in my previous post, out that this cannot be a reference to "the New Covenant", even assuming the premise of yours that "the New Covenant" has no future fulfillment is correct(and I disagree-see my post on it's future fulfillment), because the Daniel 9:27 "the covenant" is for 7 years! Thus, if we take the plain meaning of scripture, and not try to fit our doctrine into the passage, this Daniel 9:27 is alluding to a FUTURE covenant-the 70th week has not been fulfilled.

We can then move on to discuss:
" Number 1 the prince that Dispensationalism interprets as the Anti-Christ is defined in the Dan 9:25 as the Messiah the Prince. Yet in Daniel 9:26 when Daniel talks about the Prince he is suddenly interpreted as the Anti-Christ, and for what reason? Who knows other than the fact that if it is prophesying about Jesus it destroys the Dispensational premise. "

i.e., who the "he" is referencing, and


"Now let's add this up. The timetable (483 years) was up to the baptism of Christ which was 69 weeks. How long did Christ's ministry last? It was three and a half years that takes place in the 70th week where Christ confirmed the covenant. So now that uses up 486.5 years. After the death of Christ the disciples for 3.5 years went only to the children of Israel with the gospel, which adds up to 490 years.

i.e., the timetable. But this is not necessary, if we can agree that:
1. there is a future "the covenant" lasting 7 years,
2. Daniel has not been resurrected=future fulfillment

That is, other passages should be interpreted in light of 1. and 2. above, and not on your premise that the 70th week is past(although I can address "he is suddenly interpreted as the Anti-Christ, and for what reason?")

That is, you assert an argument, assume the premises are valid, and then go about supporting this argument based on these assumed premises! Again, if Daniel has not been resurrected, and this "the covenant" of daniel 9:27(7 years) has not happened(7 years), valid "argumentation" demands interpreting the other Daniel passages in light of 1. and 2. above!

Again, 1. when was Daniel resurrected?, and 2. When did "he"(whoever "he" is) make a covenant "with many" for 7 years?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[GLJCA]

__

1. "It is talking about the end of the nation of Israel as the people of God"=You are saying Godis done with Israel-this is your premise.

No I do not believe that God is done with Covenant Israel. That is not my premise at all. I do however believe that God is done with the Nation of Israel. Paul tells us in Romans 11 that God will graft those Israelites that believe in Christ back into the olive tree. Obviously I don't think that God is done with Covenant Israel as I have been talking about the fact that we, as believing Gentiles, have been grafted into Covenant Israel.

To the contrary, Daniel is a summary of God's ultimate promise to restore the kingdom to Israel-the consumation.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Daniel is not prophesying about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel he is prophesying in Daniel 9 concerning the timetable from the building of Jerusalem till the coming of the Messiah and the covenant that He confirmed to His people. In fact the end time that Daniel 9 is talking about is the end of Israel as a nation proven by the timing of the revelation of the prophecy. If the end time that Daniel was talking about was the end of the world, as Dispensationalism teaches, then the words of the prophecy would obviously still be sealed.

The period of days that occur during the last of the "70 weeks" include the resurrection of Daniel. When was he resurrected?

Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

The premise of the article you posted was that the "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 was "the New Covenant", and thus the 70th week is past. And you state:

"Jim, where does this article say that the Lord made a covenant for one week. It says that He confirmed the covenant. He didn't need to make the covenant He already had made it when He said that His blood was the New Testatment in His blood. There was no need to make another everlasting covenant when He had just made the New Covenant.


I merely point, in my previous post, out that this cannot be a reference to "the New Covenant", even assuming the premise of yours that "the New Covenant" has no future fulfillment is correct(and I disagree-see my post on it's future fulfillment), because the Daniel 9:27 "the covenant" is for 7 years! Thus, if we take the plain meaning of scripture, and not try to fit our doctrine into the passage, this Daniel 9:27 is alluding to a FUTURE covenant-the 70th week has not been fulfilled.

We can then move on to discuss:
" Number 1 the prince that Dispensationalism interprets as the Anti-Christ is defined in the Dan 9:25 as the Messiah the Prince. Yet in Daniel 9:26 when Daniel talks about the Prince he is suddenly interpreted as the Anti-Christ, and for what reason? Who knows other than the fact that if it is prophesying about Jesus it destroys the Dispensational premise. "

Neither the article nor I have said that the New Covenant was for 7 years. You are the one making that statement, which may I add is incorrect. I nor the article have said that any covenant was for 7 years much less the New Covenant which is the everlasting covenant. Either you are purposely misunderstanding or you have read it wrong. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

The timetable is the point of the discussion.

The Futurist timetable does not add up. In fact there is no scripture at all that supports a gap between the 69th and 70th week. I have asked many people many times to provide scriptural basis for the gap and noone has yet to provide anything but an opinion and an explanation that has no support.

The Fulfilled view adds up perfectly to 490 years. If the fulfilled view is correct then the futurist is attributing the work of Christ to the man of Sin, the so-called Anti-Christ. That can't be a good thing.

Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

That is, you assert an argument, assume the premises are valid, and then go about supporting this argument based on these assumed premises! Again, if Daniel has not been resurrected, and this "the covenant" of daniel 9:27(7 years) has not happened(7 years), valid "argumentation" demands interpreting the other Daniel passages in light of 1. and 2. above!

Again, 1. when was Daniel resurrected?, and 2. When did "he"(whoever "he" is) make a covenant "with many" for 7 years?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

I think the problem that you are having is changing the words "confirm" to "make". The scripture says that he will confirm the covenant for 7 days not make a covenant for 7 days. The article, the scriptures, nor I have said anything about the Lord making a covenant for 7 days.
Dan 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.
How do you get that He will make a covenant with many for 7 days? I showed you clearly that the timetable beginning at Christ's baptism was 483 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem. If you add in the 3.5 years of Christ's ministry and the 3.5 years that the disciples went only to the Jews it adds up perfectly to 490 years, which corresponds to what Daniel prophesied. Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant. In the midst of the 70th week all sacrifice apart from Christ's perfect sacrifice was rejected by God. Sacrificing continued until the temple was destroyed but the sacrifices and oblation before God had ceased.

I guess I am not understanding where you are coming from. Are you saying that Christ's ministry did not begin in the 69th week? If not what week did it start? Verse 26 plainly says that after the 69th week the Messiah is cut off. Are you saying that is not correct? What comes after 69?

GLJCA

 

[JMWHALEN]

GLJCA:

I can conclude that our conversation cannot continue, as it would not be profitable, nor edifying. You state:

"Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one."

and

"Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any"


Eph3 Nine was correct("It is obvious to me that the persons doing all the arguing in here are PURPOSELY NOT reading what we laboriously provide for them. ........With all due respect...some here need a course in basis reading. Wink"</FONT>


You did not read my posts. You say for the second time that my premise/point that Daniel's resurrection is not germane/relevant to this discussion. You said intially:

"Jim I can appreciate your concern for the false teaching of "Full Preterism" but this article has nothing to do with that. Please be assured I am not teaching nor do I adhere to such false teaching. I would really like to address this article instead of jumping to another subject. Maybe you could start another thread on that subject.

"This article is dealing with the differences between the Futurist view of Daniel's 70th week and the Fulfilled view of Partial Preterism. It really has nothing to do with Full Preterism."

And I responded as follows:

"Please re-read. I clearly indicated that a physical resurrection, not just spiritual, as the Preterists claim, is one of the foundations/tennants of the gospel of Christ. The intent was to "tie" this fact to the scriptural testimony that Daniel will be raised from the dead physically. I never said, nor implied, that you supported a mere "spiritual" resurrection. If you read it that way, consider this an apology. However, I will not apologize for stating, in no uncertain terms, that the 70th week is future, because Daniel has not been raised, and this is fact has "everything to do" with the subject of the thread. The backround I provided in my post was provided to anticipate any attempt by anyone, preterist or not, to "explain away" the plain meaning of Daniel 12:13 as some type of "spiritual resurrection."

.And again you state that Daniel's resurrection is not relevant, and suggest staring a new thread:


Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any.

"Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one."

This is why our conversation will not be profitable. You say "I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one., despite the fact that first post(2 part) on the subect of this thread focused on the premise thart "the end" referenced in Daniel 12:13 is tied directly to Daniel's resurrection! Are we debating to hopefully come to the truth, or we merely posting our argument, not reading another's argument(and thus not providing rebuttals to premises) and say "This is how I view it"?


"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot (my comment added: a reference to Daniel’s portion/inheritance in the land promised to his father Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant) at the end of the days." Daniel 12:13

My intial posts:

" And now, as the preceding relates to the issue of this thread, I provide this for your consideration-Daniel's resurrection: If it not literal, should we not spiritualize the rest of the Holy Bible="mental gymnastics"?

In Daniel 12:1-3, 13, we learn that the periods of days that occur during the last of the "Seventy Weeks", include the resurrection of Daniel, does it not? In verse 13, Gabriel’s words to Daniel are:

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot (my comment added: a reference to Daniel’s portion/inheritance in the land promised to his father Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant) at the end of the days." Daniel 12:13

Resurrection="to stand up" Again, to reemphasize a premise: this doctrine of a future bodily, physical resurrection, is not merely some sort of "spiritual" "standing up", is confirmed throughout the Old Testament. Repeating the previous few examples:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God...." Job 19:25,26

(Stand is a clear reference to resurrection)

"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Job 14:14

"The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath hope in his death." Proverbs 14:32

"Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." Psalms 16:9,10

"Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth." Psalms 71:20

"I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD." Psalms 118:17

"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." Isaiah 26:19

"I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes." Hosea 13:14

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:2

Again: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand(emphasis mine)at the latter day upon the earth..." Job 19:25


How does verse 13 show that the view that the the 70th week of Daniel has already been fulfilled is false? The answer is very simple: the 70th week of Daniel cannot have been fulfilled, because Daniel has not been resurrected. If you take the scripture literally, Daniel will be resurrected at the end of the still-future 70th week, the portion of the Jewish sabbatic calendar that concludes Daniel's prophecy. And here’s the simple reasoning – the seventy weeks are Jewish sabbatic years, and the time interval pertains to the nation of Israel("thy people"-Daniel 9:24). When God temporarily set aside the nation of Israel, as recorded in the book of Acts, the "sabbatical clock" stopped ticking. When the LORD God resumes in the future His dealing with Israel according to His faithful promises, "...the promises made unto the fathers...."(Romans 15:8), this sabbatical clock will resume, and the 70th week (sabbatic year) can, and will resume.

Of course you may discount this literally, suggesting that this is a "spiritual" resurrection, as do "postmillennialists/A-millennialists" today, as Hymenaeus and Philetus did, "...saying the resurrection is past already....(1 Tim. 1;20, 2 Tim. 2:18). You decide, for "...to his own master he standeth or falleth...." Romans 14:4.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And I posted:

</FONT>"Please re-read. I clearly indicated that a physical resurrection, not just spiritual, as the Preterists claim, is one of the foundations/tennants of the gospel of Christ. The intent was to "tie" this fact to the scriptural testimony that Daniel will be raised from the dead physically. And thus, the 70th week is yet future, as Daniel as yet has not been raised physically from the dead.

I never said, nor implied, that you supported a mere "spiritual" resurrection. If you read it that way, consider this an apology. However, I will not apologize for stating, in no uncertain terms, that the 70th week is future, because Daniel has not been raised, and this is fact has "everything to do" with the subject of the thread. The backround I provided in my post was provided to anticipate any attempt by anyone, preterist or not, to "explain away" the plain meaning of Daniel 12:13 as some type of "spiritual resurrection."
_______________________________________________________________________________________



"I have to disagree with you on this point. Daniel is not prophesying about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel he is prophesying in Daniel 9 concerning the timetable from the building of Jerusalem till the coming of the Messiah and the covenant that He confirmed to His people. In fact the end time that Daniel 9 is talking about is the end of Israel as a nation proven by the timing of the revelation of the prophecy. If the end time that Daniel was talking about was the end of the world, as Dispensationalism teaches, then the words of the prophecy would obviously still be sealed. "

? Again, you are not reading my posts. " Daniel 9 concerning the timetable from the building of Jerusalem till the coming of the Messiah and the covenant that He confirmed to His people"

What covenant was confirmed for 7 years? Re-read my post. I will not restate it. This is future.
"'the end" is clearly referenced in Daniel 12. Re-read my post. I will not restate it. This is future, because it is tied to Daniel's resurrection. Daniel chapter 12 tells us what "the end" is-see my post. Daniel chapters 9/12 are not about " the end of Israel as a nation". That will not happen:

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing..." Genesis 12:2
"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Ex. 19:6

"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 31:35-37

"And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all." Ez. 37:22

'And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever." Micah 4:7

"Obviously I don't think that God is done with Covenant Israel as I have been talking about the fact that we, as believing Gentiles, have been grafted into Covenant Israel."

Discussing Romans 11 would be "too much" for this post. However, part of "the promises made unto the fathers" unconditionally, based on God's faithfulness, not Israel's, is that the covental promises belonfing exclusively to Israel, is a kingdom, a king, with the kingdom being ruled by the King, the Lord Jesus Christ, on earth, in Jerusalem, with Israel being the head of nations. This has not been fulfilled,as the Jews are not in this position now, and Daniel has not been resurrected in his land inheritance("thy lot")...................................

"The timetable is the point of the discussion...." Re-read my post

No, as I posted, the question remains, if the 70th week is past::

1. When was Daniel resurrected?
2. What covenant was made with whom for 7 years?

"Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any."

There are many things all of us never heard/read about. Since when did reading something determine its truth?'What is your point(rhetorical question) When I was a "Roman", I never heard/read 1 Cor. 15:1-4. When I was saved, I had never heard of 2 Tim. 2:15. I'm sure you've taught others. Would you "argue" that since your students "had never read/heard" of your teachings, that it necessarily precludes it from being true? Then why the heck are we on these boards? Why not just say "class dismissed-let's all go home". STUDY! RIGHTLY DIVIDE!

"....the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2

Thus, someone showed me Ephesians 3:9, and this: http://welcometograce.net/2main_div.html


" if there are any." Again, our discussion must end. If you do not have the courtesy to read what I posted, this is "re-arranging the deck chairs of the Titanic", i.e.,we are both wasting each other's time.

In Christ,
John M. whalen

 

[JMWHALEN]

I think the problem that you are having is changing the words "confirm" to "make". The scripture says that he will confirm the covenant for 7 days not make a covenant for 7 days. The article, the scriptures, nor I have said anything about the Lord making a covenant for 7 days.
Dan 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.
How do you get that He will make a covenant with many for 7 days? I showed you clearly that the timetable beginning at Christ's baptism was 483 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem. If you add in the 3.5 years of Christ's ministry and the 3.5 years that the disciples went only to the Jews it adds up perfectly to 490 years, which corresponds to what Daniel prophesied. Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant. In the midst of the 70th week all sacrifice apart from Christ's perfect sacrifice was rejected by God. Sacrificing continued until the temple was destroyed but the sacrifices and oblation before God had ceased.

I guess I am not understanding where you are coming from. Are you saying that Christ's ministry did not begin in the 69th week? If not what week did it start? Verse 26 plainly says that after the 69th week the Messiah is cut off. Are you saying that is not correct? What comes after 69?

GLJCA

___
How do you get that He will make a covenant with many for 7 days?

Daniel 9:27 is where I "get" it!
Again, we cannot continue(I know I already said that!) However, 9:27 says he, and this "he" is the antichrist, not the Lord Jesus Christ-the Lord Jesus Christ never made a 7 year covenant! The "he" refers back to the last person mentioned in the preceding verse, who is "the prince that shall come"-the antichrist. Assigning this "he" to the Lord Jesus Christignores all rules of grammar, especially the issue of antecedent. The masculine antecedent of "the end" and "he shall confirm" is "the prince that shall come".



Last time: You can only confirm that which is "made". The article contends that this is "The New Covenant" that the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed when He finished "The Last Supper"(Mt. 26:28). Again, this is an "everlasting covenant", while this "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 is broken in "the midst of the week", or at the end of 3 1/2 years.

You say " The article, the scriptures, nor I have said anything about the Lord making a covenant for 7 days."

The article does so! Re-read it! It ties "The Last Supper" "New Covenant" back to the Daniel 9:27 "the covenant"!

What covenant was confirmed, by your argument, for 7 years? There is no evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ confirmed any covenant for 7 years-Israel or otherwise! And there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ annointed the Most Holy, restored the kingdom to Israel(land included), took away ungodliness from Jacob.....................

"How do you get that He will make a covenant with many for 7 days? I showed you clearly that the timetable beginning at Christ's baptism was 483 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem. If you add in the 3.5 years of Christ's ministry and the 3.5 years that the disciples went only to the Jews it adds up perfectly to 490 years, which corresponds to what Daniel prophesied. Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant. In the midst of the 70th week all sacrifice apart from Christ's perfect sacrifice was rejected by God. Sacrificing continued until the temple was destroyed but the sacrifices and oblation before God had ceased."

So,where is the 7 year(one of the 70 weeks) "the covenant"?

I am done here. When was Daniel resurrected?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[eph3Nine]

I can hear the violins playing..."Nearer my God to thee"....can you? wink

 

[A Brother In Christ]

THE SEVENTIETH WEEK FUTURE OR FULFILLED?

very future...

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be....

some people say 70 AD was this time which was pretty bad...however WWII was worst

and yet by rev 16:18-20 has not happened for sure...

 

[Ebb]

[/font]

very future...

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be....

some people say 70 AD was this time which was pretty bad...however WWII was worst

How do you get around this verse?

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:34

 

[GLJCA]

___
How do you get that He will make a covenant with many for 7 days?

Daniel 9:27 is where I "get" it!
Again, we cannot continue(I know I already said that!) However, 9:27 says he, and this "he" is the antichrist, not the Lord Jesus Christ-the Lord Jesus Christ never made a 7 year covenant! The "he" refers back to the last person mentioned in the preceding verse, who is "the prince that shall come"-the antichrist. Assigning this "he" to the Lord Jesus Christignores all rules of grammar, especially the issue of antecedent. The masculine antecedent of "the end" and "he shall confirm" is "the prince that shall come".

Look if you want to cease this conversation do so, but don't blame me for it. I read your posts but sometimes they just don't make sense. At such time I have to ask you again what you mean by it or I make a comment based on what I understood you to say. If that bothers you then please write more clearly or just quit the discussion. I am not a quitter therefore I will keep trying to understand where you are coming from.

You told me that Daniel was going to be resurrected from the dead and you gave me a scripture that I felt did not match up with what you were saying. I did not see how you could come to that conclusion by that scripture. It was not that I didn't read your posts. It was that you did not explain your reasoning.

The article never says that the Lord made a covenant for 7 days you re-read it. It says that He confirmed the covenant for 7 days. Just because you say that confirming and making are the same thing doesn't make it so. He made the New Covenant at His crucifixion and confirmed it to the Jews for 7 days before He sent the gospel to the Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews broke the covenant and were cut off because of it. The abominations of the Jews along with their unbelief broke the covenant and made it desolate to them.
Dan 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.
Daniel says that in the midst of the week the sacrifice and oblation will cease. It does not say that the covenant was broken by God after 7 days. You are reading something into the verse that isn't there. It means that after the sacrifice of Christ the OT sacrifices and oblations that were offered to the Lord would be worthless and would cease.

It says he will=future. Granted, this is a moot point, since we both agree(I assume), that at the time of Daniel's writing the prophecy, it foretold of a future event. The debate is to whether this is a reference to "The New Covenant/Testament", and thus the "he" is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the writer and you contend, or a reference to another covenant the anti-Christ makes with "the many", and thus is not a reference to "The New Covenant", as I contend.

You contend yet you give no support for another covenant made by this Antichrist. Please show me how you get another covenant from these scriptures?

You keep telling me that the prince in verse 26 is the Anti-Christ but you have given no support for that either.
The prince of verse 26 is the same prince that is defined in verse 25.
Dan. 9:25-26 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.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.
The city and the sanctuary was destroyed in AD70 by the Roman general Titus, who set up an idol where the temple altar was sitting, which is the abomination of desolation. To say that the prince in verse 25 is different than the prince in verse 26 is just not rightly dividing the Word of God.

GLJCA

 

[JMWHALEN]

Look if you want to cease this conversation do so, but don't blame me for it. I read your posts but sometimes they just don't make sense. At such time I have to ask you again what you mean by it or I make a comment based on what I understood you to say. If that bothers you then please write more clearly or just quit the discussion. I am not a quitter therefore I will keep trying to understand where you are coming from."

my comment:No sir, we are done here. More clearly? No reasonably prudent person can contend that I did not make my premise clear Again:

"Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one." your quote "well in" to the debate your quote

and

"Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any" your quote, and saying "if there are any"! And yet it was in my first posts, and central to my premise!


Eph3 Nine was correct("It is obvious to me that the persons doing all the arguing in here are PURPOSELY NOT reading what we laboriously provide for them. ........With all due respect...some here need a course in basis reading. Wink"

You did not read my posts. You say for the second time that my premise/point that Daniel's resurrection is not germane/relevant to this discussion. You said intially:

"Jim I can appreciate your concern for the false teaching of "Full Preterism" but this article has nothing to do with that. Please be assured I am not teaching nor do I adhere to such false teaching. I would really like to address this article instead of jumping to another subject. Maybe you could start another thread on that subject.

"This article is dealing with the differences between the Futurist view of Daniel's 70th week and the Fulfilled view of Partial Preterism. It really has nothing to do with Full Preterism."

And I responded as follows:

"Please re-read. I clearly indicated that a physical resurrection, not just spiritual, as the Preterists claim, is one of the foundations/tennants of the gospel of Christ. The intent was to "tie" this fact to the scriptural testimony that Daniel will be raised from the dead physically. I never said, nor implied, that you supported a mere "spiritual" resurrection. If you read it that way, consider this an apology. However, I will not apologize for stating, in no uncertain terms, that the 70th week is future, because Daniel has not been raised, and this is fact has "everything to do" with the subject of the thread. The backround I provided in my post was provided to anticipate any attempt by anyone, preterist or not, to "explain away" the plain meaning of Daniel 12:13 as some type of "spiritual resurrection."

And again you state that Daniel's resurrection is not relevant, and suggest staring a new thread:


Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any.

"Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one" your quote "well in" to the debate



"You told me that Daniel was going to be resurrected from the dead and you gave me a scripture that I felt did not match up with what you were saying. I did not see how you could come to that conclusion by that scripture. It was not that I didn't read your posts. It was that you did not explain your reasoning. " your current quote

My comment: No sir, you said that you had never heard this before. This is my point! This was my premise in my first 2 points, and explainded it! You hadn't heard it, because you ignored reading my post! You asked "well into" the debate where it says in scripture that Daniel would be resurrected. And I posted it in simple, 5th grade English in my first 2 posts!

The article never says that the Lord made a covenant for 7 days you re-read it. It says that He confirmed the covenant for 7 days. Just because you say that confirming and making are the same thing doesn't make it so. He made the New Covenant at His crucifixion and confirmed it to the Jews for 7 days before He sent the gospel to the Gentiles. The unbelieving Jews broke the covenant and were cut off because of it. The abominations of the Jews along with their unbelief broke the covenant and made it desolate to them.
Dan 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."


My comment:This debate is over. Confirming without making? In "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27, the "one week" is 7 days? Or even 7 years? "The New Covenant" lasted only for 7 days/7 years with the Jews, and then they were cut-off=no everlasting covenant! = REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY. Again, we have nothing to discuss. And still no answer to: When was Daniel resurrected? Not a preterist?

"You contend yet you give no support for another covenant made by this Antichrist. Please show me how you get another covenant from these scriptures?"

It is future! TILT


In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[A Brother In Christ]

How do you get around this verse?

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:34

2 peter 3:8 with the Lord as a thousand yeats and a thousand years as one day

psalms 90:4 for a thousand years in my sight are but yesterday when it is past, and a watch in the night...

time is relative from God's point of view

 

[A Brother In Christ]

very future...

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be....


some people say 70 AD was this time which was pretty bad...however WWII was worst

and yet by rev 16:18-20 has not happened for sure...

 

[GLJCA]

You say for the second time that my premise/point that Daniel's resurrection is not germane/relevant to this discussion. You said intially:

"Jim I can appreciate your concern for the false teaching of "Full Preterism" but this article has nothing to do with that. Please be assured I am not teaching nor do I adhere to such false teaching. I would really like to address this article instead of jumping to another subject. Maybe you could start another thread on that subject.

"This article is dealing with the differences between the Futurist view of Daniel's 70th week and the Fulfilled view of Partial Preterism. It really has nothing to do with Full Preterism."

And I responded as follows:

"Please re-read. I clearly indicated that a physical resurrection, not just spiritual, as the Preterists claim, is one of the foundations/tennants of the gospel of Christ. The intent was to "tie" this fact to the scriptural testimony that Daniel will be raised from the dead physically. I never said, nor implied, that you supported a mere "spiritual" resurrection. If you read it that way, consider this an apology. However, I will not apologize for stating, in no uncertain terms, that the 70th week is future, because Daniel has not been raised, and this is fact has "everything to do" with the subject of the thread. The backround I provided in my post was provided to anticipate any attempt by anyone, preterist or not, to "explain away" the plain meaning of Daniel 12:13 as some type of "spiritual resurrection."

And again you state that Daniel's resurrection is not relevant, and suggest staring a new thread:


Now if you want to discuss the resurrection of Daniel then start a new thread. Even while I was a Dispensationalist I never read anything about Daniel being resurrected. I am very interested to see the scriptures on that, if there are any.

"Where do you see anything about Daniel being resurrected in Daniel? I would love to see the chapter and verse on that one" your quote "well in" to the debate

I still contend that the resurrection of Daniel is not relevant to the timetable from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the baptism of Christ. The timeline, if correct, will negate any argument that you have concerning the resurrection of Daniel or the Anti-Christ.

What you have been trying to do is redirect the discussion to your premise which was not relevant to the discussion of the timeline. I asked you to start another thread if you wanted to talk about your premise but your goal was to disrupt the discussion because you did not have an answer to the timeline.

If the timeline is down to the exact time of Christ's baptism and Christ was crucified AFTER the 69th week then your argument is moot and Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the Anti-Christ but is talking about Jesus Christ.

Sadly you were not even trying to find out if the timeline was right. You just wanted to cover yourself and protect your belief.

Pro 16:18 Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Have a great day
GLJCA

 

[Evangelical]

Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "The whole of this prophecy from the times and corresponding events has been fulfilled to the very letter." (Clarke's Commentary, note on Daniel 9)

Well it looks as though I agree with him, it was fulfilled.

 

[GLJCA]

Well it looks as though I agree with him, it was fulfilled.

Anyone who will study it out can see that it was fulfilled.

GLJCA

 

[JMWHALEN]

I still contend that the resurrection of Daniel is not relevant to the timetable from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the baptism of Christ. The timeline, if correct, will negate any argument that you have concerning the resurrection of Daniel or the Anti-Christ.

What you have been trying to do is redirect the discussion to your premise which was not relevant to the discussion of the timeline. I asked you to start another thread if you wanted to talk about your premise but your goal was to disrupt the discussion because you did not have an answer to the timeline.

If the timeline is down to the exact time of Christ's baptism and Christ was crucified AFTER the 69th week then your argument is moot and Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the Anti-Christ but is talking about Jesus Christ.

Sadly you were not even trying to find out if the timeline was right. You just wanted to cover yourself and protect your belief.

Pro 16:18 Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Have a great day
GLJCA

__________
Sadly, you cannot read simple, 6th grade English. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills for error on the part of what I wrote. And no, the time line of yours is made to "fit" into your premise, and you do error in your fabrication of what the 12:13 "the end" is referencing. Daniel has not been resurrected, and you do not, and cannot understand what"the end" is a cllear reference to in this passage. .

" sadly....You just wanted to cover yourself and protect your belief."
"redirect the discussion "
"your goal was to disrupt the discussion"

My comment:Thanks, "Dr. Phil" for your "psycho-babble" analysis and assessment="talk show opinions".

I do not need your condescending "cliches", sir(and I use that term loosely here). Come back when you can understand "Jethro Boudine 6th grade English". Send me a mature debater, not someone who acts like he is in kindergarten. You just want to hold on to your tradition=Eccl 1:9-seen it before. Next.


In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[JMWHALEN]

Anyone who will study it out can see that it was fulfilled.

GLJCA

___
Anyone who studies and rightly divides can see it is future.

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[eph3Nine]

___
Anyone who studies and rightly divides can see it is future.

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

Yep, and since God is the ONE who tells us to rightly divide...guess who is waaaaaay off base?

 

[GLJCA]

__________
Sadly, you cannot read simple, 6th grade English. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills for error on the part of what I wrote. And no, the time line of yours is made to "fit" into your premise, and you do error in your fabrication of what the 12:13 "the end" is referencing. Daniel has not been resurrected, and you do not, and cannot understand what"the end" is a cllear reference to in this passage. .

" sadly....You just wanted to cover yourself and protect your belief."
"redirect the discussion "
"your goal was to disrupt the discussion"

My comment:Thanks, "Dr. Phil" for your "psycho-babble" analysis and assessment="talk show opinions".

I do not need your condescending "cliches", sir(and I use that term loosely here). Come back when you can understand "Jethro Boudine 6th grade English". Send me a mature debater, not someone who acts like he is in kindergarten. You just want to hold on to your tradition=Eccl 1:9-seen it before. Next.


In Christ,
John M. Whalen

I am sorry that you take my words as condesending cliches but they were not meant that way.

What is it JM since you can't deal with the timeline you have to resort to trashing your opponent in the discussion? If you were really a Berean or a right divider, you would be researching the timeline to find out if it really is correct instead of trying to change the direction of the discussion and trashing the person who brought it out. If the direction of the timeline is correct then your premise is a moot point.

This discussion is on the timeline, and it always has been.That is the criteria that I established from the beginning of the discussion. You on the other hand have tried your best to change the direction of this discussion to your premise. I maintain that you need to start another thread on your premise but not on this one. This one is dealing with the timeline. If you have input concerning the timeline then let's hear it, if not then you should bow out of the discussion, like you said you were. I promise I will not go looking for your input if you bow out of this discussion.

If you can't show that the timeline is wrong by showing that the 483 years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the baptism of Christ is not correct, then you have no recourse but to either change your belief or ignore God's perfect timing. If you can't show that the ministry of Christ was not 3.5 years, or that the disciples did not confirm the covenant to the Jews for another 3.5 years making the 490 years Daniel wrote about, then the timeline is correct.
It was timed perfectly by God and Jesus could not start his ministry until the time had come.

I have presented scriptural proof on the timeline now I would like you or someone else to show scriptural proof on the gap between the 69th and 70th week? Since this is such a strong belief in Dispensationalism you should have no problem finding scriptural proof for it and you really should have more proof than such an obscure passage as Dan 12:13 which really doesn't say what you say it does. You can't offer something as proof that is taken out of context, saying that it is saying something that it doesn't say. That is called eisogesis of scripture(reading into a verse what you want it to say).

Please let's keep the discussion on the timeline or on the gap between the 69th and 70th week. If you can't then bow out of the discussion. All you are doing is sowing discord otherwise and you know what God says about that.

Have a great day JM.

GLJCA