Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[The Light]

Thanks for the guffaw. You're unable to remember your own post 271, in which you inquired about "this", which in the quoted post by SI within your post referred to Christ confirming the New Covenant.

Sorry that you don't get the last laugh.

I will research this.

 

[Timtofly]

The "prince that shall come" in Daniel is NOT Christ but the Antichrist. That is obvious on the face of it.

The antichrist destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD? Will the same antichrist return soon?

The verse does not say the prince destroyed Jerusalem. It says the people did. Which means the prince to come was not even present when the destruction happened, only the people were.

Do you all have reading and interpretation issues?

 

[Timtofly]

A figment of dispensational delusion.

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9.

He is Messiah.

Now if you could only leave human theology behind....

 

[Timtofly]

What is obvious is that the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary after Christs atonement. Jesus even said so himself.
Clearly refers to the legions Rome.

Lk 21
5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

You seem to be the only Amil in this thread who agrees with the other pre-mill on this issue.

You all are wrong.

The verse states the people destroy the city and the sanctuary. Josephus when writing about Gaius Cestius Gallus in 66 AD was referring to the armies surrounding Jerusalem. He was not Vespasian nor Titus. No one fled in 70AD. They all were killed or sold as slaves and food for the lions.

The destruction of the city was not just the walls being torn down. Even Titus was disgusted at the people in Jerusalem. They had literally destroyed and profained their own city and temple. Titus and the Romans in leveling the city actually cleaned up the area.

 

[The Light]

The antichrist destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD? Will the same antichrist return soon?

The verse does not say the prince destroyed Jerusalem. It says the people did. Which means the prince to come was not even present when the destruction happened, only the people were.

Do you all have reading and interpretation issues?

The verse is not talking about the destruction of the city and sanctuary in 70 AD. The verse is talking about the future destruction of the city and the sanctuary by AN Antichrist, the beast of the earth, the rider on the white horse.

The prince that shall come is the return of Horus, the false Messiah who the world is waiting for. Check the back of your dollar bill for confirmation.

 

[covenantee]

Now if you could only leave human theology behind....

Now if you could only understand plain Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

You seem to be the only Amil in this thread who agrees with the other pre-mill on this issue.

You all are wrong.

The verse states the people destroy the city and the sanctuary. Josephus when writing about Gaius Cestius Gallus in 66 AD was referring to the armies surrounding Jerusalem. He was not Vespasian nor Titus. No one fled in 70AD. They all were killed or sold as slaves and food for the lions.

The destruction of the city was not just the walls being torn down. Even Titus was disgusted at the people in Jerusalem. They had literally destroyed and profained their own city and temple. Titus and the Romans in leveling the city actually cleaned up the area.

The Christians all fled in 66 AD.

No Christians were left to flee in 70 AD.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm glad I'm not doing that. I believe that you have to be completely lacking in spiritual discernment in order to not recognize that Daniel 9:27 is talking about Christ confirming the new covenant with His sacrifice and offering which resulted in the virtual end of the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings.

Too bad god was having a bad day and decided not to inspire that this 7 year covenant ended the efficacy of the sacrifices. Normal people read that and understand it to mean the physical acts of sacrifice end. That is what God inspired to write! I don't think He needs an editor

 

[The Light]

Merely the historic orthodox Christian Church for 17 centuries.

John Calvin
"The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant...
Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many."

Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Church of Christ, Church of God (Anderson Indiana), Nazarene, Primitive Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Puritan.

I don't think that Christ is going to confirm a covenant for a week. Wouldn't any covenant made by God be eternal. And in the middle of this week would He break His covenant. God has never broken a covenant, so this doesn't seem likely.

As to the list of Churches that teach this, my first thought was this can't be right. I decided to check as you had a long list. Though I could not find them all relating to this teaching, I found enough to agree that you are correct. From my perspective, I did not really see this as possible, as I don't think that's what the Word says. It seems logical that the root of these teachings was the fact that there was no nation of Israel. Instead of agreeing with the word of God and realizing that blindness in part happens to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, these teachings changed this into the Church has replaced Israel. When you think about it, dispensationalism was being taught when the was no nation of Israel. And it seems they would be correct as God kept His Word and restored Israel as a nation and He will keep His Word that the 12 tribes will be the second harvest of the fig tree.

 

[covenantee]

I don't think that Christ is going to confirm a covenant for a week. Wouldn't any covenant made by God be eternal. And in the middle of this week would He break His covenant. God has never broken a covenant, so this doesn't seem likely.

As to the list of Churches that teach this, my first thought was this can't be right. I decided to check as you had a long list. Though I could not find them all relating to this teaching, I found enough to agree that you are correct. From my perspective, I did not really see this as possible, as I don't think that's what the Word says. It seems logical that the root of these teachings was the fact that there was no nation of Israel. Instead of agreeing with the word of God and realizing that blindness in part happens to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, these teachings changed this into the Church has replaced Israel. When you think about it, dispensationalism was being taught when the was no nation of Israel. And it seems they would be correct as God kept His Word and restored Israel as a nation and He will keep His Word that the 12 tribes will be the second harvest of the fig tree.

Israel was a nation when Christ began His ministry. He confirmed His Everlasting Covenant through the Gospel in person with the many Jews who accepted Him for 3 1/2 years until His death, then His disciples confirmed it in their ministries to the Jews for the remaining 3 1/2 years, which in total comprised the 70th week.

Thereafter, the Gentiles were included as well, and the Gospel was proclaimed to both Jews and Gentiles until the destruction of Israel in 70 AD.

The Everlasting Covenant has been proclaimed and will be proclaimed through the Gospel to the many who have received and will receive it (Matthew 26:28) until Christ returns.

This was the united understanding of the historic orthodox Christian Church for 17 centuries.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Are you trying to tell me that all these Churches incorrectly teach that it is Christ whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary. Man I'm still chuckling. I'm not buying any of that swamp land.

The problem is not with Messiah and Prince or Christ and King. The problem is with "confirm" and "establish".

The actual verb in Hebrew means strong or mighty. There is really nothing in the Hebrew about establishing nor confirming really. The Hebrew connotation is that He has a strong or mighty covenant with the many.

The issue is that a set of seven is mentioned twice in the Hebrew.

It reads: he shall have a strong covenant for a set of seven with the many of the set of seven.

No one wants to break up this set of seven. Yet the last half of the verse does that. It breaks the week in half.

Yet one group wants the whole set in the first century as Jesus on the Cross. The other group wants the whole set in the future as the AC.

Personally I don't see confirm as establish, but I guess that is the current understanding. Con means together firm means strong. There is no establishing specified in the word itself. To me make or establish is a bias added to make a point. The idea of the verse is a broken established covenant into two parts.

Yet no one wants to point out that the two parts are about a single week of days. Most want it to be about a week of years. And no one really allows a break in the covenant. They all view it as a solid week with no break up at all.

The one group adds establish to point to the Cross. The other groups adds establish to point to a future AC. The verse does not say make nor establish. The idea is that the strong covenant already was in existence before the week it was broken.

The first century group can never break their established covenant, rendering the last half of the verse pointless. God has not broken that Atonement Covenant for the last 7,000 years. So how does God break this Atonement to allow abomination and desolation to rule instead of God's grace and mercy? The only answer I can find is in Revelation 13 when Satan and his FP are allowed 42 months on earth of utter abomination and desolation. Satan is in control of earth 100%. The only time in creation that will ever happen.

Since it can only happen to those people of the set of seven, it has never nor ever could be any other period of time than the 42 months when Satan has 100% control of humanity on earth. That was not the case in the first century. Satan was never given 100% control in the first century.

And it is not a strong covenant with an AC. The AC has no power nor authority to give Satan 100% control over humanity. Only God has that ability. And the only people still on earth who are in that Atonement Covenant will be those beheaded who reject the mark of the beast. Certainly the strong covenant is not with those who have the mark.

The strong covenant is still in effect for those beheaded. But as each human takes the mark of the beast, they are removed from that covenant, and their names removed from the Lamb's book of life.

Thus the last half of that verse is indicative of that very phenomenon:

"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."

The Atonement will cease, no longer cover those who receive the mark. Each time the desolation becomes more intense. Until all have been beheaded or have received the mark. John gives us the length of 42 months, and then the consummation is complete.

The 3.5 days the 2 witnesses lay dead in Jerusalem will be when the 7 vials are poured out on the desolate.

This verse happens in the days of the sound of the 7th Trumpet.

 

[Keraz]

I don't think that Christ is going to confirm a covenant for a week. Wouldn't any covenant made by God be eternal. And in the middle of this week would He break His covenant. God has never broken a covenant, so this doesn't seem likely.

Not likely and even ridiculous.
The end times agreement referred to in Daniel 9:27, is a treaty of peaceful relations, between the leader of the One World Govt, Daniel 7:23, Revelation 17:12-13, who will come to the peoples by then; gathered from out of the nations, Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35, and living in all of the holy Land. He will come to them because they will have just recently destroyed a huge army that came to attack them from the North. Ezekiel 37 & 38

That leader of the OWG, will break the treaty when his body is taken over by Satan, Revelation 13:1-8
The first half of that 7 year treaty will be peaceful, that is why it isn't mentioned in Prophecy, but the second half is, in 3 formats: 3 1/2 years, 42 months and 1260 days. Those times all fit with a 360 day year, which it will be after the Sixth Seal. Isaiah 13:13
Then Jesus will Return and chain up Satan for the next thousand years. All as clearly described and logically set out.

 

[Timtofly]

The verse is not talking about the destruction of the city and sanctuary in 70 AD. The verse is talking about the future destruction of the city and the sanctuary by AN Antichrist, the beast of the earth, the rider on the white horse.

The prince that shall come is the return of Horus, the false Messiah who the world is waiting for. Check the back of your dollar bill for confirmation.

There is no future destruction of a city with a temple. Another false theory of man.

Jesus will set up His temple and throne, but it will never be destroyed for 1,000 years. What other verse do you have to support your theory?

 

[Enoch111]

Do you all have reading and interpretation issues?

I believe you have such issues. There was no Antichrist around 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

Not likely and even ridiculous.
The end times agreement referred to in Daniel 9:27, is a treaty of peaceful relations, between the leader of the One World Govt, Daniel 7:23, Revelation 17:12-13, who will come to the peoples by then; gathered from out of the nations, Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35, and living in all of the holy Land. He will come to them because they will have just recently destroyed a huge army that came to attack them from the North. Ezekiel 37 & 38

That leader of the OWG, will break the treaty when his body in taken over by Satan, Revelation 13:1-8
The first half of that 7 year treaty will be peaceful, that is why it isn't mentioned in Prophecy, but the second half is, in 3 formats: 3 1/2 years, 42 months and 1260 days. Those times all fit with a 360 day year, which it will be after the Sixth Seal. Isaiah 13:13
Then Jesus will Return and chain up Satan for the next thousand years. All as clearly described and logically set out.

And unknown in the historic orthodox Christian Church for 17 centuries.

 

[Keraz]

And unknown in the historic orthodox Christian Church for 17 centuries.

As Isaiah 42:18-20 tells us it would be.
Jesus said that the understanding of the Prophesies was taken away from the wise and learned; that is: the ECF's, and all the Church leaders up to now. But Daniel 12:10 does say that a few people will finally understand in the end times.

If you have an objection to what I point out from Scripture, then address it by showing proofs of your beliefs.

 

[Brakelite]

You all are wrong.

Considering that no-one on this thread agrees with anyone else on every issue, your statement above is absolutely correct. Everyone is wrong in some things, some moreso than others, some less so. But don't try taking the highest seat and calling yourself rabbi and making claims that you have everything well understood and correct. "You are all wrong" applies to everybody, including me. The trick is finding one truth, then taking things step by step to form a chain of truth that cannot be broken. All truth in eschatology is connected. Even a short chain to a point of unknown, is better than a collection of random truths and half truths and lies that have no connecting links and calling that mish mash of guesswork eschatology.

 

[The Light]

There is no future destruction of a city with a temple. Another false theory of man.

Jesus will set up His temple and throne, but it will never be destroyed for 1,000 years. What other verse do you have to support your theory?

Soon there will be another Temple on the Temple mount, and there will be a future destruction of this Temple and the city. It is at that time the woman flees to her place of protection that has been prepared for her.

Revelaton 12
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Here is a verse that proves that the destruction is a future event.

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

They ask the Lord, when will these things be (when there will not be one stone upon another at the Temple mount) and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? If the destruction that is described has already happened, what sign was there when these things came to pass. The answer is that these things have not happened, and the sign has not happened.

The destruction is a future event and the people of the prince that will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

[Timtofly]

I believe you have such issues. There was no Antichrist around 70 AD.

I never posted there was.

 

[Timtofly]

Soon there will be another Temple on the Temple mount, and there will be a future destruction of this Temple and the city. It is at that time the woman flees to her place of protection that has been prepared for her.

Revelaton 12
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Here is a verse that proves that the destruction is a future event.

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

They ask the Lord, when will these things be (when there will not be one stone upon another at the Temple mount) and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? If the destruction that is described has already happened, what sign was there when these things came to pass. The answer is that these things have not happened, and the sign has not happened.

The destruction is a future event and the people of the prince that will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

There is nothing about a temple and city destroyed in Revelation 12.

The temple and city was partially destroyed in 70AD. At the Second Coming Jerusalem will be totally destroyed and changed by Jesus. That is the only destruction that will occur. There is no temple that will be built and destroyed.

Those verses you gave are still about current Jerusalem, not about a future Jerusalem.

The Temple was destroyed by Jesus' people in the first century. That already happened. There was no Prince in 70AD. Jesus will be the King at the Second Coming that is to come. Israel is still the people of Jesus who is both Christ and King. Jesus is both Messiah and Prince. Jesus is the anointed ruler.

Jesus is the 70th week. Jesus was the anointed Lamb at the first coming. Jesus will be the ruling Lion at the Second Coming.