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

[DavidPT]

If this is not the literal city and temple, then what is it about? If it is about the spiritual city and temple, I would have to disagree because I don't believe God's spiritual city and temple can be destroyed or desolated.

I'll try and take this on for the time being. Maybe I can try and address some of your other points at a later time, but no promises though.

Here's an article I found that can explain my position better than I can. It's not a lengthy article if you care to read it. I know very little about this site, so not endorsing it one way or the other. Only providing an article I found via searching Google that tends to explain some of my position better than I could. You have two choices. Either you can consider some of these things or you can choose to be closed-minded about some of these things instead. Your choice.

Here is an excerpt towards the end of the article----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Daniel’s prophecy directly quotes the words of the angel Gabriel, is it wise to assume that the sanctuary in verse 26 is a temple made with human hands, one that was merely a shadow and a type of the real one? The tabernacle in the wilderness was made according to the pattern of heavenly things. [Hebrews 8:1-6] Similarly, the temple of Solomon, and the temple of Zerubbabel, built after the Jews returned from exile, were built after the same pattern, and so were “shadows” of things heavenly, and spiritual. What sanctuary, then, is meant in the message of the angel in Daniel’s prophecy?

In the angel’s words, “after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself,” for whom was he cut off? Isaiah wrote: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” [Isaiah 53:5]

The New Testament identifies both the “city” and the “sanctuary,” (or temple) with the church, those for whom Christ was cut off. In verse 26, where the “city” and the “sanctuary” are destroyed by the people of the prince that shall come. This must refer to the real sanctuary, rather than its type, or shadow. Applying the words of the angel to the shadow misses the true significance of the prophecy. Why would an angel of God have been sent to reveal the future destruction of a mere shadow, or a type, that in Daniel’s time had not yet been built? The real sanctuary is the church.

Daniel said of the prince, who opposes the Prince of princes, “And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” [Daniel 8:25]

The saints are the “sanctuary” described in Daniel’s prophecy. The Jewish temple, made with hands, was destroyed in 70 AD, but no flood was involved. Its destruction has obscured the significance of Daniel’s prophecy. The desolation of the church, however, has an immense significance for our understanding of the gospel and the history of church.

Each of the things that were to be accomplished within the 70 weeks, mentioned in verse 24, pertain to the gospel. This fits the view that the temple and city that Daniels’ 70 weeks apply to is the church, of which the earthly city and temple were types and figures. The atonement and forgiveness of sin, bringing in of everlasting righteousness, etc., are accomplished in the last week, after the coming of the Messiah. Auberlen recognized that everything mentioned in this verse have to do with the gospel. He wrote: [5]

https://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/which-temple-is-meant-in-daniel-926-27/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I just found this article. So I didn't form my understanding because of this article, but that this article tends to explain my understanding of some of these things better than I could.

To add to the above, there is also the following to consider. The following is solely my attempt at trying to explain my understanding of some of these things.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.


If the city is perhaps meaning the holy people, this text indicates this---and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

The Hebrew word is shachath. It is found in 4 passages in the book of Daniel. In the first passage below it was translated 'corrupting'. The others it was translated 'destroy'.

Daniel 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

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.

Destroy doesn't have to always mean as in the demolation of literal buildings, even when it seems to be meaning that---as in Daniel 9:26b.


Isaiah 62:10 Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.
11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

This passage says---And they shall call them, The holy people---A city not forsaken.


BTW as well, this doesn't mean I necessarily fully agree with every single thing per the article above. But I do agree with most of it anyway, for the most part.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Are you saying that Jesus started his preaching at the same time that John started to baptize?

No I am not. John was baptizing prior to the baptism of Jesus. John baptized Jesus and that was the start of the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy in 27 AD

 

[sparow]

We find below that the ten commandments are the Sinai covenant, and that the Sinai Covenant did not exist before Mount Sinai.


Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.


Below we find the beginning of the battle between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant of Christ.
During most of the history of the Church the Judaisers have won the day.


Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.


Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Peter could not have been talking about circumcision here, because it was something he did bear.)


Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

.

It is true what we call the old covenant was made with Israel, what the Bible calls the new covenant is made with Israel also; and later extended to gentiles. The everlasting Abrahamic covenant co exists with these; maybe not for gentiles.

Covenant is an old English word originally meaning a pact between witches; the Hebrew word that is translate covenant means a pact that involves cutting and shedding blood or flesh. Circumcision and the Sabbath as perpetual covenants may not be required for gentiles but are required for Israelites who are many in addition to Jews who are few, around the world.

The plan of salvation was devised before creation; the Sinai covenant is part of that plan of which the new covenant is the continuation of.

There is no battle between the covenants; the battle is between men who choses to wear their own garments and use only God's name, and God.

Acts 15:10, Peter is addressing or answering a Pharisee from the group who made the Law a heavy burden and as a result had the kingdom of God taken from them.

 

[sparow]

We may have to agree to disagree.

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn,

Seeing as how the 2300 day vision is tied to the little horn we must first establish the identity of the little horn.

You say you understand SDA teaching but do you agree with SDA teaching on the identity of the little horn?

Yes I agree; the RCC created the gap between week 69 and week 70 to hide itself; the RCC is antichrist but the term "THE antichrist" is fiction. When at the beast we see the RCC, what we should see is a gold head, silver chest, bronze middle and iron legs.

 

[BABerean2]

Circumcision and the Sabbath as perpetual covenants may not be required for gentiles but are required for Israelites who are many in addition to Jews who are few, around the world.

There is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ.

Paul had to correct Peter over this issue in the Galatian church.


Gal_2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;


Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 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.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

.

 

[jgr]

Yes I agree; the RCC created the gap between week 69 and week 70 to hide itself; the RCC is antichrist but the term "THE antichrist" is fiction. When at the beast we see the RCC, what we should see is a gold head, silver chest, bronze middle and iron legs.

Indirectly, but ultimately, true. In the RCC counter-reformation, the Jesuits' Francisco Ribera contrived the fallacy of a singular futurized antichrist to distract from the Reformers' recognition of an antichrist in the apostate papacy. Dispensationalism then incorporated the fallacy as an integral dogma, necessitating the insertion of a gap between the 69th and 70th week, and perverting Scripture's descriptions of Christ's covenant achievements at Calvary in Daniel 9:27 into the abominations of the futurized antichrist.

You are correct that "THE antichrist" is fiction. Every day the Christian Church has encountered, and will encounter, antichrists, of which there are many, as John describes in his epistles (e.g. 1 John 2:18). The apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of its long era, but never was the only antichrist.

Neither will there be a future singular "THE antichrist".

 

[A71]

But didn't John point out that the antichrist is both singular and plural? What did he mean by this?

1John 2 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

There is no mention of the antichrist in Revelation, so I am
Assuming the antichrist is simply the ongoing expectation by the Jews of the Messiah. I.e. Rejection of Jesus.

Indirectly, but ultimately, true. In the RCC counter-reformation, the Jesuits' Francisco Ribera contrived the fallacy of a singular futurized antichrist to distract from the Reformers' recognition of an antichrist in the apostate papacy. Dispensationalism then incorporated the fallacy as an integral dogma, necessitating the insertion of a gap between the 69th and 70th week, and perverting Scripture's descriptions of Christ's covenant achievements at Calvary in Daniel 9:27 into the abominations of the futurized antichrist.

You are correct that "THE antichrist" is fiction. Every day the Christian Church has encountered, and will encounter, antichrists, of which there are many, as John describes in his epistles (e.g. 1 John 2:18). The apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of its long era, but never was the only antichrist.

Neither will there be a future singular "THE antichrist".

Indirectly, but ultimately, true. In the RCC counter-reformation, the Jesuits' Francisco Ribera contrived the fallacy of a singular futurized antichrist to distract from the Reformers' recognition of an antichrist in the apostate papacy. Dispensationalism then incorporated the fallacy as an integral dogma, necessitating the insertion of a gap between the 69th and 70th week, and perverting Scripture's descriptions of Christ's covenant achievements at Calvary in Daniel 9:27 into the abominations of the futurized antichrist.

You are correct that "THE antichrist" is fiction. Every day the Christian Church has encountered, and will encounter, antichrists, of which there are many, as John describes in his epistles (e.g. 1 John 2:18). The apostate papacy was the predominant antichrist of its long era, but never was the only antichrist.

Neither will there be a future singular "THE antichrist".

 

[jgr]

But didn't John point out that the antichrist is both singular and plural? What did he mean by this?

1John 2 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

There is no mention of the antichrist in Revelation, so I am
Assuming the antichrist is simply the ongoing expectation by the Jews of the Messiah. I.e. Rejection of Jesus.

John didn't futurize the reference to the single antichrist, but stated that it found fulfillment in the multiple antichrists who were already present.

John is the only one to use the term "antichrist(s)".

 

[A71]

John didn't futurize the reference to the single antichrist, but stated that it found fulfillment in the multiple antichrists who were already present.

John is the only one to use the term "antichrist(s)".

Hmm. Well it is definitely future

and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come

What he meant by it is another matter

 

[jgr]

Hmm. Well it is definitely future

and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come

What he meant by it is another matter

"...ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."

You have heard (in the past) that antichrist shall come (in the future).

"...even now are there many antichrists..."

The future is now as I (John) am writing this.

 

[A71]

Matthew 24

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

 

[A71]

Jesus was talking to his disciples about their generation, and all the various deceptions that would arise, primarily from the camp of the Judaizers. (In essence, he was telling the disciples to follow his leading, rather than end up in the wrong place when Judea was torched).

But his warnings are double-edged, I think, because he frames his warnings in reference to his return, so it also has an ongoing relevance; it applies at all times prior to his return.

He says to avoid being lead into the desert and the secret chamber. What is 'the desert', and what is 'the secret chamber'?

The secret chamber - tameion - is a reference to mystery Babylon, which is of course occult Judaism, Kabbalism.

The desert - eremos - has a double meaning. It also refers to the desolation of the Temple, so Jesus is also warning that he will not return out of the Temple.

So effectively Jesus warns that when he returns, it will not be out of occult Judaism, Kabbalism. This warning surely refers directly to the Kabbalistic false messiah who will be set up in the rebuilt temple.


23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Matthew 24

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

This prophecy is being fulfilled today in our world.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No I am not. John was baptizing prior to the baptism of Jesus. John baptized Jesus and that was the start of the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy in 27 AD

Thats about 3 years to soon, and no OT prophesy indicated the messiah would come be being baptised, the prophesu said he would be introduced entering jerusalem on a donkey..

 

[BABerean2]

Thats about 3 years to soon, and no OT prophesy indicated the messiah would come be being baptised,

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.


Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


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.

.

 

[DavidPT]

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.


Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


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.

.

What if all of those things listed in verse 24 are in chronological order though, meaning that is the last thing to be fulfilled? What then? How do you make that work with your theory above?

 

[BABerean2]

What if all of those things listed in verse 24 are in chronological order though, meaning that is the last thing to be fulfilled? What then? How do you make that work with your theory above?

Why would you insist that a list of things in the verse are necessarily in chronological order?

Those things all occurred during the earthly ministry of Christ, based on Hebrews 10:16-18, and Acts of the Apostles 10:38.

.

 

[DavidPT]

Why would you insist that a list of things in the verse are necessarily in chronological order?

Those things all occurred during the earthly ministry of Christ, based on Hebrews 10:16-18, and Acts of the Apostles 10:38.

.

I think it's a safe bet to assume, that I don't know for a fact those events are in chronological order, and neither do you know for a fact they aren't. But in the event they might be, that would clearly indicate you are applying---to anoint the most holy--to something that the angel providing the info wasn't. Even if those events aren't in chronological order, that still wouldn't prove that you are applying that to the same event the angel was applying it to. Per the former, there would be 0 chance you might be correct. Per the latter, there's a 50/50 chance you might be correct, but certainly not a 100% chance you might be though.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.


Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


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.

.

Zechariah 9:9 (NKJV): The Coming King
9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.

This is when messiah the prince is introduced to jerusalem, fulfilling dan 9 and finishing the 69th week

 

[DavidPT]

If you are loosing the argument, you do not need to make it personal.

If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen for a while.

Some of the most intelligent people that I know are able to twist God's Word to make it fit their man-made doctrines...

.

I probably just don't know you well enough yet. Maybe after I get to know you better as time goes on, I'll have a good laugh about as to why I even initially reacted the way I did at the time. On a side note, your post here did provide a good laugh in the meantime though, where you apparently are inferring you are the one winning the arguments. That's pretty funny, I have to admit.

FWIW though, whatever issues I initially had at the time, I'm pretty much over that now.