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

[BABerean2]

God specifically wrote the ten commandments on stone and Jesus said the Law, which means the whole covenant may not be changed.

In Galatians 3:16-29, the Apostle Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.
He says the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 we find a clear contrast between the "ministry of death engraved on stones" and the New Covenant.
We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire(Mount Sinai), but to the New Covenant of Christ.

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

The New Covenant is a higher standard, based on the following scripture, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


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

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

What you seem to be saying is that you do not have a personal relationship with God and without the Bible you would not know God exists. The Bible rarely specifically says anything the Bible is mostly abstract. The times God is specific you do not believe it: God specifically wrote the ten commandments on stone and Jesus said the Law, which means the whole covenant may not be changed.

Dispensationalism is a concoction made by men.

That is about as far fetched and off base an evaluation of Dispensationalism as any I have ever run across. If you want to debate an issue, you should begin by learning at least a little bit about the thinking of the people you wish to debate.

Almost every part of your post is completely incorrect.

I indeed have a deeply personal relationship with God. And He has revealed himself in all of creation. So even people who have never seen a Bible should know that God exists. But the only place where God has revealed how to have a relationship with Him is in the Bible. And if any person imagines they have a relationship with God that is not based on the Bible, that relationship is only imaginary. It does not exist.

And while much of the Bible is indeed abstract, much of it is very specific and explicit about many things, including many things about the future.

Dispensationalism is based on simply believing the explicit statements that God has made about things that He has done in the past and that He is going to do in the future. And there are literally hundreds of explicit and specific statements about such things.

Future battles, and in some cases campaigns, are described in great detail, specifically naming the nations involved. And even in one case going so far as to define the daily progress of a future invading army. It even goes so far as to define the future borders of the land of Israel so precisely as to make it possible to draw them on a map, even today. And it gives explicitly stated instructions about how that plot of real estate is to be divided among the twelve tribes of Israel. And these are but a few of very many such explicitly stated prophecies.

 

[Erik Nelson]

In Galatians 3:16-29, the Apostle Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.
He says the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 we find a clear contrast between the "ministry of death engraved on stones" and the New Covenant.
We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire(Mount Sinai), but to the New Covenant of Christ.

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

The New Covenant is a higher standard, based on the following scripture, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


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

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

.

You both may be right.

Paul wrote to gentiles. The Jerusalem Council of c.50 AD (= Acts 15) ruled that gentiles were not the lost & dispersed children of Jacob / Israel, but just (non-Israelite) children of Noah. Hence, gentiles only had to obey the Noachide Laws God gave to Noah (= Genesis 7-9 or so)

Whereas the "Judaizers" were correct in the sense, that actual natural national Israelite Messianic Christians still could & did keep the Laws of Moses given, additionally, to their fathers on Mt. Sinai, as Paul did on his return to Jerusalem and taking of Nazirite vows (= Acts 21).

Judaizers interpreted gentiles converting to Christ as the lost & dispersed Israelites, scattered amongst the nations, returning to the fold... and so demanded that they "return to" keeping the whole Law of Moses... as their assumed fathers had "originally done" in the days of David... however, the Church ruled that gentile Christians were actually really just gentiles, children of Noah but not Israel. So, since their ancestors had never been under the Laws of Moses God gave only to Israel, but yet God sanctioned them with Holy Spirit anyway, the Church accepted gentiles the way they were, without any additional requirements, other than the Laws of Noah.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Personally offer that the 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness prefigured the 40 year gap from Crucifixion in 30 AD to 70 AD

If so,

• Jesus being saved from massacre of the Innocents = Moses saved from Pharaoh's massacre of Israelite children
  
• trial before Caiaphas = Moses before Pharaoh
  
• the Crucifixion & Ascension = Exodus from "Egypt"
• 70 AD = entrance into the Promised "Canaan"
• 70 - 312 AD = period of the "Judges" = Apostolic & Early Church Fathers
• 312 AD = a couple of centuries later, after "Judges" = Constantine = "David" & "united Kingdom")
• to 1453 AD = thousand year Messianic "united Kingdom" = Millennium
• to present = Rev 20:7-9

If so, God in heaven made ancient human history on earth prefigure & foreshadow modern history

 

[sparow]

In Galatians 3:16-29, the Apostle Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.
He says the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 we find a clear contrast between the "ministry of death engraved on stones" and the New Covenant.
We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire(Mount Sinai), but to the New Covenant of Christ.

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

The New Covenant is a higher standard, based on the following scripture, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


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

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

.

I do no use Paul as an authority but I am prepared to discuss what he has said.

Paul and Christ also contested the Pharisee's doctrines of men which did bring bondage.

Paul's epistles are not universal but are private communications and are arguments relative to the point being made, which we are not necessarily privy to.



Galatians 4:24-25 (NKJV)
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

I think Paul's allegory stinks; the two covenants were made with Abraham; Ismael was promised certain things but the promise of the king, the kingdom and the inheritance were through Isaac. One would assume Judah is through Isaac, not through Hagar; even if Paul's point or lesson is true, he uses misinformation to get there.

The promise came to Israel; gentiles have the option of being folded into Israel.

Everything in Matt 5 was equally applicable to the Old covenant; Christ changed not the Law, He corrected error.

 

[BABerean2]

I do no use Paul as an authority but I am prepared to discuss what he has said.

Paul and Christ also contested the Pharisee's doctrines of men which did bring bondage.

Paul's epistles are not universal but are private communications and are arguments relative to the point being made, which we are not necessarily privy to.



Galatians 4:24-25 (NKJV)
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

I think Paul's allegory stinks; the two covenants were made with Abraham; Ismael was promised certain things but the promise of the king, the kingdom and the inheritance were through Isaac. One would assume Judah is through Isaac, not through Hagar; even if Paul's point or lesson is true, he uses misinformation to get there.

The promise came to Israel; gentiles have the option of being folded into Israel.

Everything in Matt 5 was equally applicable to the Old covenant; Christ changed not the Law, He corrected error.

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.


Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Personally offer that the 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness prefigured the 40 year gap from Crucifixion in 30 AD to 70 AD

If so,

• Jesus being saved from massacre of the Innocents = Moses saved from Pharaoh's massacre of Israelite children
  
• trial before Caiaphas = Moses before Pharaoh
  
• the Crucifixion & Ascension = Exodus from "Egypt"
• 70 AD = entrance into the Promised "Canaan"
• 70 - 312 AD = period of the "Judges" = Apostolic & Early Church Fathers
• 312 AD = a couple of centuries later, after "Judges" = Constantine = "David" & "united Kingdom")
• to 1453 AD = thousand year Messianic "united Kingdom" = Millennium
• to present = Rev 20:7-9

If so, God in heaven made ancient human history on earth prefigure & foreshadow modern history

Erik,

Don K. Preston is an advocate of Full-Preterism.
He should not be used as a source of truth on this forum.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Messianic Christians still could & did keep the Laws of Moses given, additionally, to their fathers on Mt. Sinai,

Only one Israelite ever kept the Laws of Moses.

Eph_2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


He is found in Matthew 1:1, and Galatians 3:16.

.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Only one Israelite ever kept the Laws of Moses.

Eph_2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


He is found in Matthew 1:1, and Galatians 3:16.

.

well, yes, "tried to" keep the Law, then

Messianic Jewish Christians, to this day, are required to keep the Law, given to their ancestors at Sinai

gentile Christians are required to keep the Noachide Laws given to their ancestor, as clarified by the Church at the Jerusalem Council of 50 AD

 

[Erik Nelson]

Erik,

Don K. Preston is an advocate of Full-Preterism.
He should not be used as a source of truth on this forum.

.

Not without a grain of salt, no, but he defends partial preterism in the process

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from (in theory)

on this one particular topic of the gap in Daniel's countdown clock, I think he has a lot to say

 

[BABerean2]

Not without a grain of salt, no, but he defends partial preterism in the process

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from (in theory)

on this one particular topic of the gap in Daniel's countdown clock, I think he has a lot to say

I did not hear him refer to the text of Daniel chapter 9.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Messianic Jewish Christians, to this day, are required to keep the Law, given to their ancestors at Sinai

No.
They are victims of the Judaisers, if they believe this.

Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
(That would be Mount Sinai.)
Heb 12:19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
Heb 12:20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
Heb 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.



My wife and I support the ministry of Word of Messiah, which is made up of Jewish Christians.

Sam Nadler, who is head of the organization, acknowledges the fact that they are not required to keep the Law of Moses.

However, they still celebrate the Jewish feasts, etc.

Doesn't Keeping the Law Keep Me Right With God? | Word of Messiah Ministries

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No.
They are victims of the Judaisers, if they believe this.

My wife and I support the ministry of Word of Messiah, which is made up of Jewish Christians.

Sam Nadler, who is head of the organization, acknowledges the fact that they are not required to keep the Law of Moses.

However, they still celebrate the Jewish feasts, etc.

Doesn't Keeping the Law Keep Me Right With God? | Word of Messiah Ministries

.

Do Messianics practice 8th day circumcision of their sons?


.

 

[keras]

Do Messianics practice 8th day circumcision of their sons? .

Absolutely they do.
If anyone doesn't circumcise their sons, they are doing them a serious disservice.
It has been medically proven to be hygienic and a good disease preventative.

 

[sparow]

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.


Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

I presume the underlined is something you take literally.

Deuteronomy 5:3 (NKJV)
3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

Taking this literally was made with only those who were alive on that day; but what about Exodus 31:16 (NKJV)
16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.

Deuteronomy 5:14 (NKJV)
14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

So the gentile within the gate has to keep the Sabbath also. And add Abraham's covenant, the gentile also needs to be circumcised.

<<Hebrews 7:12 (NKJV)
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. >>

Once again taking literature illiterately fails. Also I believe the writer of Hebrews is in error. I have never noticed this before but the reason Hebrews gives for changing the Law is that Jesus was a Jew and Jews under Moses were not priests; so because Jesus was a Jew the Law need to be changed to allow a Jew to be a priest (Hew 7:14). As well as being a Jew I expect Jesus was a descendant of all the tribes; Mary's father or uncle was a priest.

With out the Law unchanged, Jesus would have no credentials, the office and duties of High Priest would be undefined; it is true that the administration of the Law is different but that does not require a change in Law.

 

[Douggg]

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

In context, Paul was explaining that the laws of Moses, carried on to the people by the Aaron priesthood, did not make anyone perfect, and thus no-one can have eternal life - by virtue of that law..

Differently, Jesus, who was the order Melchizedek priesthood, that we receive eternal life by the grace of God, through what Jesus did on the cross.

 

[BABerean2]

In context, Paul was explaining that the laws of Moses, carried on to the people by the Aaron priesthood, did not make anyone perfect, and thus no-one can have eternal life - by virtue of that law..

Differently, Jesus, who was the order Melchizedek priesthood, that we receive eternal life by the grace of God, through what Jesus did on the cross.

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

In both 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 the Sinai Covenant is contrasted with the New Covenant.

We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire. (Sinai)

.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

In both 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 the Sinai Covenant is contrasted with the New Covenant.

We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire. (Sinai)

.

Paul is warning against rejecting the Graces of God... but please note, Paul did not teach Jews to forsake the law, such was the libel of his opponents. The Jewish Christians did not come (back) to Sinai because they had already been there... Paul didn't say leave Sinai behind...

he's just saying that the present circumstances are even more serious than those in the days of Moses, I'm not sure Hebrews 12 implies quite as much as you suggest



NIV CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS STUDY BIBLE - HEBREWS 12

12:16 sexually immoral, or … godless like Esau. In Ge 25:31 – 34, Esau did not act as if he viewed life from a long-range perspective, much less an eternal one (the rabbis inferred from this text that he denied the future resurrection of the dead). Noting Esau’s actions, the Diaspora Jewish writer Philo regarded Esau as enslaved by sensual and temporal desires. Jewish tradition deemed Esau sexually immoral, probably originally based on his initial preference for Gentile wives (Ge 26:34 – 35), which dismayed his parents (Ge 26:35; 28:8).

12:17 sought the blessing with tears. Despite his tears (Ge 27:38), it was too late for Esau to regain the blessing, because the first blessing could not be annulled. He was effectively disinherited from the promise (cf. Heb 6:12 – 18).

 

[BABerean2]

Paul is warning against rejecting the Graces of God... but please note, Paul did not teach Jews to forsake the law, such was the libel of his opponents. The Jewish Christians did not come (back) to Sinai because they had already been there... Paul didn't say leave Sinai behind...

he's just saying that the present circumstances are even more serious than those in the days of Moses, I'm not sure Hebrews 12 implies quite as much as you suggest

What does the text below say about the Sinai Covenant?
Does Paul compare the Sinai Covenant to slavery?

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
(Is the author referring to Mount Sinai in the verse above?)
Heb 12:19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
Heb 12:20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
Heb 12:21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Is the author contrasting the Sinai Covenant to the New Covenant in the passage above?

Some of us have not let go of the bondwoman, at this point in time.
You cannot fully embrace the New Covenant, until you let go of the old.


The New Covenant: Bob George

.

 

[Douggg]

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

In both 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:18-24 the Sinai Covenant is contrasted with the New Covenant.

We are not come to the mountain that burns with fire. (Sinai)

.

By Christ, I am saved, not by works.