Where is the Evidence of a Gap in the 70 weeks of Dan 9?

[Douggg]

The 70 weeks prophecy is about Daniel's people.

And about Jerusalem. In the text. Jerusalem has yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. The facts are that the Jews, Israel, embrace the Mt. Sinai covenant presence.

The 70 weeks are not about your or I.

The false teaching that the church has become Israel is not true and just clouds the issue. You post a thousand videos over and over, but it is not going to change history or the facts.

 

[jgr]

Maybe all of that is so, yet my analogy and your analogy both apparently showed that context determined this. But if not, what did? How was it that my analogy wasn't meaning the same President, but that yours was?





I see your point via the examples in Jeremiah, but I'm still thinking that if the text were meaning Jesus' people, why not use a pronoun instead? Maybe something like this?


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


Had it said that instead, there wouldn't even be a debate here. The text instead said----and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The prince that shall come can be meaning the prince in verse 25, where we know it is the Messiah in verse 26, or it can be an entirely different prince altogether. The analogy I used demonstrated it could be a different one altogether. The analogy you used demonstrated it could be the same prince. But had that part used a pronoun instead, like I pointed out, nothing would be in question then. It would be undeniable that it was referring to the Messiah then, meaning Jesus. So let's at least both admit either interpretation is possible. That doesn't indicate we are agreeing with one another then. It just means we are both being intellectually honest.

Remember that we're not dealing with English as the source language.

We're dealing with Hebrew. Here it is for Daniel 9:26.

I'm sure you would agree that Scripture is replete with constructs that seem strange and unusual in their more literal English renditions. Translators are continuously faced with the task of balancing accuracy and readability. That in large part accounts for the plethora of versions which exists today.

We would need to query Gabriel, Daniel, and the Holy Spirit to understand why verse 26 was expressed the way that it was.

But the fact remains that the only individual identified as a prince in the passage is Messiah, and that the descriptions of the associated events are the most consistent and logical when based on that identification, more so than when one is attempting to conform the passage to some other prophetic paradigm.

The understanding of Messiah as the theme of the passage throughout has been the prevailing understanding of the historical true Christian Church for over 1,800 years.

It has stood, and will continue to stand, the tests of time and orthodoxy.

 

[jgr]

And about Jerusalem. In the text. Jerusalem has yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. The facts are that the Jews, Israel, embrace the Mt. Sinai covenant presence.

The 70 weeks are not about your or I.

The false teaching that the church has become Israel is not true and just clouds the issue. You post a thousand videos over and over, but it is not going to change history or the facts.

The believing remnant has been embracing Him for 2,000 years, and will continue to do so until He returns. They are the only ones whom Scripture tells us will embrace Him. (Romans 9:27; 11:5)

The 70 weeks are all about Messiah and Calvary.

Those of Israel who place their faith in Christ are joined to His Church. His Church is His Only Chosen People, His Body.

Ephesians 4
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[Douggg]

The believing remnant has been embracing Him for 2,000 years, and will continue to do so until He returns. They are the only ones whom Scripture tells us will embrace Him. (Romans 9:27; 11:5)

Daniel's people and Jerusalem. There is not a number given in the bible. Just as there is not a number of gentiles who will embrace Jesus.

The 70 weeks are all about Messiah and Calvary.

Go by the Text. Not a speech to me. Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,..."

You cannot be a Christian without being a human being first. Likewise, you can not be the Israel of God unless you are a Jew first.

Does it say in John 1, become the church? Read what it says...

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Does it say become Israel? No. Does it say become the Church? No. Becoming the church is not the goal. Becoming Israel is not the goal. Becoming a new creation in Christ is the goal, sons of God.

 

[A71]

Masiyach means "anointed one", just as Christ comes from the Greek 'chrio' meaning to anoint.

The anointed one in verse 26 is properly the Church, which was cut off from Jerusalem prior to the destruction.

 

[BABerean2]

And about Jerusalem. In the text. Jerusalem has yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. The facts are that the Jews, Israel, embrace the Mt. Sinai covenant presence.

The 70 weeks are not about your or I.

The false teaching that the church has become Israel is not true and just clouds the issue. You post a thousand videos over and over, but it is not going to change history or the facts.

You are intentionally ignoring Peter's words below on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel". Who do you think he was talking to?

Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"


You are intentionally ignoring the word "now" in Hebrews 8:6-13, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, word-for-word.

You are intentionally ignoring the word "remnant" in Romans 9:27.
It was that "remnant" of Israelites which accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost, and became the early Israelite Church. This is a historical fact, that you must ignore to make your Two Peoples of God doctrine work. The Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church".

Who do you think James was addressing in James 1:1-3, when he addressed his letter to "the twelve tribes", his "brethren", in the "faith"?


Based on Christ's words on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-27, the whole Old Testament is about Him.
Therefore, the timeline of the 70 weeks is about Jesus Christ.

We find in the verse below that there is only one people of God.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.


The Two Peoples of God doctrine, which is less than 200 years old, is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church. It is a form of Dual Covenant Theology.
It's origin is found in the video below that I produced for YouTube.

.

 

[Douggg]

Therefore, the timeline of the 70 weeks is about Jesus Christ.

You are giving me a speech, not what it says in the text.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

The Two Peoples of God doctrine, which is less than 200 years old, is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church. It is a form of Dual Covenant Theology.

This is another speech, you are giving me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You are giving me a speech, not what it says in the text.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,


This is another speech, you are giving me.

People love to spew strawman arguments on this subject. For some reason it is hard for them to just stick to the word.

 

[A71]

The Sinai Covenant (addendum - and Moabite Covenant) is not a separate covenant, it is an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, so the premise of dual covenant theology is flawed and false. There is one covenant, with a clause in it.
We are all under one covenant, Christians and unbelieving Israel.

You are intentionally ignoring Peter's words below on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel". Who do you think he was talking to?

Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"


You are intentionally ignoring the word "now" in Hebrews 8:6-13, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, word-for-word.

You are intentionally ignoring the word "remnant" in Romans 9:27.
It was that "remnant" of Israelites which accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost, and became the early Israelite Church. This is a historical fact, that you must ignore to make your Two Peoples of God doctrine work. The Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church".

Who do you think James was addressing in James 1:1-3, when he addressed his letter to "the twelve tribes", his "brethren", in the "faith"?


Based on Christ's words on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-27, the whole Old Testament is about Him.
Therefore, the timeline of the 70 weeks is about Jesus Christ.

We find in the verse below that there is only one people of God.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.


The Two Peoples of God doctrine, which is less than 200 years old, is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church. It is a form of Dual Covenant Theology.
It's origin is found in the video below that I produced for YouTube.

.

 

[BABerean2]

The Sinai Covenant is not a separate covenant, it is an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, so the premise of dual covenant theology is flawed and false. There is one covenant, with a clause in it.
We are all under one covenant, Christians and unbelieving Israel.

In Galatians 3:16-29 the Apostle Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.

Paul said the Sinai Covenant was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

In Galatians 4:24-31 Paul compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".

We find in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 a clear contrast between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ.

The New Covenant is a higher standard, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

There are two different sets of commandments in the verse below.

Joh 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

.

 

[A71]

Yes, but the Law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant was the Sinai Covenant.
40 years later God added the Moabite Covenant, which Paul was not referring to, and which is still in force

The top line is that the Master Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant, and all other covenants relate back to it

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

..............and to build<1129> of Jerusalem<3389>.....

Couldn't Messiah/Christ be used of #4899?

Daniel 9:25
........until an anointed-one/messiah/christ<4899> chief/ruler<5057>...............

4899 mashiyach maw-shee'-akh from 4886;
anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.

Only mentioned in 9:24, 25 of Daniel.

The majority of the chapters that #4899 is mentioned in is Leviticus, 1 and 2 Samuel, and Psalms....

YLT)
Psalms 2:2
Station<3320> themselves do kings of the land,
and princes/rulers<7336> have been united together against Yahweh, and against His Anointed/Messiah/Christ<4899>:
[Revelation 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the land;
to Him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in His blood,]

1 time in Isaiah

Isaiah 45:1
Thus says Yahweh, to His anointed<4899>, to Cyrus<3566>, whose right hand I have laid hold on, to subdue nations before him,
Yea, loins of kings I loose, to open before him two-leaved doors, Yea, gates are not shut:

Last time used in OT

Habakkuk 3:13
Thou hast gone forth for the salvation of Thy people, for salvation with Thine Anointed<4899>,
Thou hast smitten the head of the house of the wicked, laying bare the foundation unto the neck. Pause!

The equivalent greek word

5547. Christos khris-tos' from 5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.

First time used with the article "the"

Matthew 2:4
and having gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he was inquiring from them where the Christ<5547> is born.

1 Corinthians 10:4
and all the same spiritual drink did drink,
for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the Rock was the Christ<5547>;

Then there is "Messiah":

3323. Messias mes-see'-as of Hebrew origin (4899); the Messias (i.e. Mashiach), or Christ:--Messias.

John 1:41
this one doth first find his own brother Simon, and saith to him, 'We have found the Messiah/messian<3323>,' (which is, being interpreted, 'Anointed/<5547>',)

The Samaritan woman at the well uses the word "Messiah".
Was she considered an Israelite?

John 4:
7 there cometh a woman out of Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith to her, "Give me to drink"
25 The woman saith to Him "I have known that Messiah/messias<3323> doth come, Who is called 'Christ<5547>',
when that One may come, He will tell us all things;'

 

[A71]

That is very good LLJ.
In Habbakuk 3:13 the anointed is the people of God,
Who were protected when Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Sinai Covenant (addendum - and Moabite Covenant) is not a separate covenant, it is an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, so the premise of dual covenant theology is flawed and false. There is one covenant, with a clause in it.
We are all under one covenant, Christians and unbelieving Israel.

This is incorrect.

It is not an addendum to the Abraham covenant, that would make the Abraham covenant a conditional covenant when it is not.

The mosaic covenant was a covenant given to Israel. You will be blessed if you obey, Not blessed if you do not. About the ONLY aspect it relates is Lev 26, where God gives a warning about what will happen if Israel turns from him, and follows after foreign Gods and disobeys his commands. But it did not replace the covenant, Even if the worse discipline was innacted, (destruction of Temple and city, and scattering of people) God said he would never forget his covenant, and would never destroy his people, even when they were being punished And i f they repented. He would restore them, and if the people who he gave them sinned against her, he would punish them for how they treated her.

The new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abraham covenant, and replaces the mosaic covenant, which as Paul said was a schoolmaster which was created to lead people to Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Daniel 9:25
........until an anointed-one/messiah/christ<4899> chief/ruler<5057>...............

That is very good LLJ.
In Habbakuk 3:13 the anointed is the people of God,
Who were protected when Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem.

Thank you A71......

Daniel 9:25
........until an anointed-one/messiah/christ<4899> chief/ruler<5057>...............

5057 nagiyd naw-gheed' or nagid {naw-gheed'}; from 5046;
a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes:--captain, chief, excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.

Used in Daniel 9:25, 9:26 and 11:22

ISA word for word)
Daniel 9:26
And after the sevens sixty and two, cut off is Messiah<4899, and there is nothing to him
and the city and the holy-place<6944>, he shall ruin<7843> people of ruler/leader<5057>, the-one-coming,
and end of him in overwhelming-flood<7858>
and until end war being decided ones-being desolate<8074>.
Daniel 11:22
And the arms<2220 of the overwhelming-flood are overwhelmed before him, and they shall be broken<7665>
and even ruler/leader<5057> of a covenant.

The form of the word #5057 used in Dan 9:25 is used in 1 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

1st time used:
ISA)
2 Samuel 6:21
And David is saying to Michal "Before Yahweh, who chose in me from thy father and from all of his house, to appoint/instruct<6680> me leader<5057> over people of Yahweh over Israel I played/derided<7832> before Yahweh;

Last 2 chapters form of #5057 used in:

Isaiah 55:
4 Behold a witness to peoples<3816> I give him leader/ruler<5057> and charge<6680> to peoples.
5 Behold! a nation thou knowest not, Thou callest, And a nation who know Thee not unto Thee do run,
For the sake of Yahweh thy Elohim, And to Holy One of Israel, Because He hath beautified thee.

Jeremiah 20:1
And Pashhur, son of Immer the priest,
who also [is] overseer, leader<5057> in the house of Yahweh — heareth Jeremiah prophesying these things,

Last verse used before Daniel:

Jeremiah 28:
1 And there is a word of Yahweh unto me, saying:
2 "Son of adam! say! to the leader/ruler<5057> of Tyre:
Thus says Adonay Yahweh:
'Because thy heart hath been haughty, And thou art saying ' 'El I , seat of Elohim I sit, In heart of seas',
And thou an adam and not 'El, And thou givest thy heart as heart of Elohim

It appears the greek equivalent word is #758.

758. archon ar'-khone present participle of 757; a first (in rank or power):--chief (ruler), magistrate, prince, ruler.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-14-and-the-ruler-chief-of-world.7328728/
John 14 and the "ruler/chief" of World

John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world;
now the ruler/chief<758> of this world will be cast out.

John 14:30
Not still longer will I shall be speaking with ye;
for is coming the ruler/chief<758> of this world

John 16:
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go away to the Father and you behold Me no more;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler/chief<728> of this world has been judged, and in Me he has nothing.

Used 1 time in Revelation

Revelation 1:
4 John, To the seven Assemblies in the ones being in Asia:
Grace to ye and peace from Him being and the One was and Who is coming, and from the seven Spirits before His throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, the Witness, the Faithful One, the firstborn of the dead,
and the Ruler/Chief<758> of the kings of the land.
To the One loving us and releasing us from our sins through His blood,

 

[DavidPT]

And about Jerusalem. In the text. Jerusalem has yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. The facts are that the Jews, Israel, embrace the Mt. Sinai covenant presence.

The 70 weeks are not about your or I.

The false teaching that the church has become Israel is not true and just clouds the issue. You post a thousand videos over and over, but it is not going to change history or the facts.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


IMO, since like you pointed out, the prophecies also involve Jerusalem, it is a contradiction if the 70 weeks are already fulfilled before Zechariah 14:11 is even true. Was Zechariah 14:11 already true around the time of 70 AD? Is Zechariah 14:11 already true in the days we are currently living in? Unless one has lost all touch with reality, the answer would be have to be no to both questions.


and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression. Does that sound like something that would lead to Zechariah 14:11 once it is fulfilled? Or does that sound like something that would lead to the events of 70 AD once it has been fulfilled?

 

[DavidPT]

The 70 weeks prophecy is about Daniel's people.

Do you deny that based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Daniel's people for about 7 years, before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles?

Do you deny that Daniel chapter 9 is the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34?

Do you deny that the text of Daniel 9:24 is found fulfilled in Hebrews 10:16-18, and Acts of the Apostles 10:38?

.

I don't deny any of those things.

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.

Show me in the text where it says 'they' rather than 'he', shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Those of us who take this to be meaning the AC, we conclude the AC himself, as in personally, shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. But in order for your take on this to seemingly work, you need the he to involve more that just one person.

Would you argue that in the first half of the week, Jesus didn't confirm these things personally by being physically present at the time in order to do so? So why would you argue that the latter half He no longer has to be physically present the remainder of the week in order to finish confirming the covenant with many for one week? Keep in mind as well, not everyone would have physically seen Him once He rose, up until when He ascended back into heaven. How was He still confirming the covenant with anyone who didn't even witness His bodily return? Those would have to accept His rising from the dead in faith, the same way we do. Yet when we do, no when claims we are still in the latter half of the 70th week then.

 

[BABerean2]

Show me in the text where it says 'they' rather than 'he', shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Those of us who take this to be meaning the AC, we conclude the AC himself, as in personally, shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. But in order for your take on this to seemingly work, you need the he to involve more that just one person.

There is no doubt that Christ is in the text of Daniel 9, and there is no doubt that Christ fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.

Why don't you show us the antecedent for an antichrist in the text?

.

 

[jgr]

The new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abraham covenant, and replaces the mosaic covenant, which as Paul said was a schoolmaster which was created to lead people to Christ.

The New Covenant is the New Will and Testament, which is God's update to His Old Will and Testament, and which transcends it completely, in the same manner as a new will and testament completely transcends any old will and testament in the temporal affairs of men.

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The Son as the Heir of all things means that there are no orphan covenants which He has not yet inherited.

Since Calvary, it's been all His.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

You are not exactly quoting Daniel; Daniel 8:13-14 (NKJV)
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?"
14 And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."

Daniel 8:14
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and threehundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. King James Version