Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[covenantee]

The Seventy Weeks of Dan. 9:24-27. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

Whom to believe?

Scripture: Seventy weeks are determined.
Davy: Scripture is wrong; the 70th week is decapitated and orphaned and undetermined.

Who needs a hint?

 

[wooddog]

My thinking now is the following, maybe the gap is between the 69th and 70th week after all, though lately I have been thinking maybe it's in the middle of the week instead? After all, there is such a thing, that even though one changed their position to something else, initially when they held the former position, they were actually right all along to begin with. That's what I'm starting to wonder here, in my case, thus some of my thinking below.

No doubt, Jesus' baptism was significant. In my mind though, something even more significant than that would be the following.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.


Versus His baptism.

Matthew 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:


We then have one view at the end of the 483 years arriving at the former, and another view at the end of the 483 years arriving at the latter. It then is a question of, which event is more significant? It seems to me that the event that is more significant has to be what is being meant by this in Daniel 9:25---unto the Messiah the Prince. A keyword here is Prince. Prince and King seem to be meaning basically the same thing. In the former above it makes mention of a King in the context. I don't see that also being the case with the latter as well. Keeping in mind, Daniel 9:25 does not say this---unto the Messiah--which could maybe fit Matthew 3:16 had it said that. Except it didn't say that. It said this instead---unto the Messiah the Prince---which is then a good fit for this--- Behold, thy King cometh unto thee(Matthew 21:5)

One thing that can't be disputed is this. If Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:5 are meant at the end of the 483 years, no way can Christ be meant in verse 27 pertaining to middle of the week. As of Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:5, the cross is not still 3.5 years later, it is at the door.

Some conclude that Christ was born in 4 BC. Most conclude that when Christ died He was around 33 years of age. 4 BC to 29 or even 30 AD, wouldn't that make Him around 33 then? But if He was born in 4 BC but died in 33 AD, thus making Him 37 at the time, why are these same interpreters insisting He was around 33 when He died?

BTW, thanks for that link you provided per post #753. I'm finding it useful.

What is more significant the SPIRIT of GOD descending or a King riding a donkey over palm branches. The answer is in Matthew 21;25.

 

[wooddog]

Does Any of the interpreters take into account Jesus was anonymous carpenter during the 62 weeks?

 

[Davidpt]

What is more significant the SPIRIT of GOD descending or a King riding a donkey over palm branches. The answer is in Matthew 21;25.

I guess it hinges on where we are in the timeline of events 483 years later. Are we at Jesus' baptism? Or are we at Palm Sunday? If the former, I am still inclined to believe that it is Christ meant in the middle of the week in Daniel 9:27 in that case. If the latter, it's not even disputable that Christ can't be meant in verse 27 in that case.

If some are correct that Christ was born in 4 BC, what is in question, how old would Christ be 483 years later?

@jeffweeder proposed a starting point of 457 BC. Let's see how the math works out for that if Christ was born in 4 BC. 483 years later puts us at 26 AD. Therefore, making Christ around 30 years of age at the end of 483 years. Add another 3.5 years to that, we then arrive at sometime in 29 AD, that being when Christ goes to the cross. Thus making Him between 33 and 34 when He dies. A starting point of 457 BC for sure can fit this scenario, no doubt.

Let's now compare to what @Davy proposed as a starting point for the 70 weeks, using the link he provided in post #753.

This proposed scenario the starting point is not 457 BC, it is 454 BC. 483 years later puts us at 29 AD. And if Christ was born in 4 BC, that would make Him around 33 years of age at the end of the 483 years. A starting point of 454 BC appears it can fit this scenario as well, since both scenarios, what @jeffweeder proposed as a starting point, and what Bullinger proposed as a starting point, have Christ being between 33 and 34 when He dies. And not only that, both scenarios agree that Christ dies in 29 AD or so.

Both scenarios above have Christ dying sometime in 29 AD. Both scenarios have Christ being between 33 and 34 years of age when He dies. It then boils down to, assuming one of these proposed scenarios is correct, which event fits this better---unto Messiah the Prince? His baptism? Or Palm Sunday leading to His death a week later?

No doubt, both events are significant, yet one is more significant than the other. Maybe the key is this in verse 26---shall Messiah be cut off. This would be more relevant per a Palm Sunday scenario rather than per His baptism scenario.

The text in verse 26 says after 483 years the Messiah is cut off. After can also mean at the conclusion of something. For example. After his 7 AM to 4PM shift has ended at 4 PM that day, he will then punch the time clock and get off the clock for the day, thus his shift has ended. No one per this example would argue that 'after' means days later, weeks later, or even years later. It clearly means at the conclusion of something in this case.

 

[Davy]

Scripture doesn't lie.

Dan 9
25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuance of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [the coming of] the Messiah (the Anointed One), the Prince, there will be seven weeks [of years] and sixty-two weeks [of years];

....

Your intent is obviously to mislead.

You failed to mention the very next Daniel 9:26 verse which reveals more about the 'threescore and two weeks' period...

Dan 9:25-26
25 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.

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.
KJV

Thus Jesus was crucified at the ending of the "threescore and two weeks."

 

[Davy]

The text in verse 26 says after 483 years the Messiah is cut off. After can also mean at the conclusion of something. For example. After his 7 AM to 4PM shift has ended at 4 PM that day, he will then punch the time clock and get off the clock for the day, thus his shift has ended. No one per this example would argue that 'after' means days later, weeks later, or even years later. It clearly means at the conclusion of something in this case.

I don't see it possible at all that Jesus' Ministry continued past the 69th week. There is no... suggestion in the Daniel 9:26 verse to make us think His 1st coming Ministry continued after He was "cut off" (crucified).

 

[jeffweeder]

Your intent is obviously to mislead.

You failed to mention the very next Daniel 9:26 verse which reveals more about the 'threescore and two weeks' period...

Dan 9:25-26
25 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.

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.
KJV

Thus Jesus was crucified at the ending of the "threescore and two weeks."

Nothing misleading about Messiah coming after 69 weeks. Afterall, he cut off after the 69 weeks and its not rocket science to figure out how long after the 69th week.


You have Messiah going to the cross and securing our redemption in the 69th week .

Seventy Weeks and the Messiah​

24 “Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] have been decreed for your people and for your holy city (Jerusalem), to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make atonement (reconciliation) for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness (right-standing with God), to seal up vision and prophecy and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

 

[wooddog]

I guess it hinges on where we are in the timeline of events 483 years later. Are we at Jesus' baptism? Or are we at Palm Sunday? If the former, I am still inclined to believe that it is Christ meant in the middle of the week in Daniel 9:27 in that case. If the latter, it's not even disputable that Christ can't be meant in verse 27 in that case.

If some are correct that Christ was born in 4 BC, what is in question, how old would Christ be 483 years later?

@jeffweeder proposed a starting point of 457 BC. Let's see how the math works out for that if Christ was born in 4 BC. 483 years later puts us at 26 AD. Therefore, making Christ around 30 years of age at the end of 483 years. Add another 3.5 years to that, we then arrive at sometime in 29 AD, that being when Christ goes to the cross. Thus making Him between 33 and 34 when He dies. A starting point of 457 BC for sure can fit this scenario, no doubt.

Let's now compare to what @Davy proposed as a starting point for the 70 weeks, using the link he provided in post #753.

This proposed scenario the starting point is not 457 BC, it is 454 BC. 483 years later puts us at 29 AD. And if Christ was born in 4 BC, that would make Him around 33 years of age at the end of the 483 years. A starting point of 454 BC appears it can fit this scenario as well, since both scenarios, what @jeffweeder proposed as a starting point, and what Bullinger proposed as a starting point, have Christ being between 33 and 34 when He dies. And not only that, both scenarios agree that Christ dies in 29 AD or so.

Both scenarios above have Christ dying sometime in 29 AD. Both scenarios have Christ being between 33 and 34 years of age when He dies. It then boils down to, assuming one of these proposed scenarios is correct, which event fits this better---unto Messiah the Prince? His baptism? Or Palm Sunday leading to His death a week later?

No doubt, both events are significant, yet one is more significant than the other. Maybe the key is this in verse 26---shall Messiah be cut off. This would be more relevant per a Palm Sunday scenario rather than per His baptism scenario.

The text in verse 26 says after 483 years the Messiah is cut off. After can also mean at the conclusion of something. For example. After his 7 AM to 4PM shift has ended at 4 PM that day, he will then punch the time clock and get off the clock for the day, thus his shift has ended. No one per this example would argue that 'after' means days later, weeks later, or even years later. It clearly means at the conclusion of something in this case.

I guess it hinges on where we are in the timeline of events 483 years later. Are we at Jesus' baptism? Or are we at Palm Sunday? If the former, I am still inclined to believe that it is Christ meant in the middle of the week in Daniel 9:27 in that case. If the latter, it's not even disputable that Christ can't be meant in verse 27 in that case.

If some are correct that Christ was born in 4 BC, what is in question, how old would Christ be 483 years later?

@jeffweeder proposed a starting point of 457 BC. Let's see how the math works out for that if Christ was born in 4 BC. 483 years later puts us at 26 AD. Therefore, making Christ around 30 years of age at the end of 483 years. Add another 3.5 years to that, we then arrive at sometime in 29 AD, that being when Christ goes to the cross. Thus making Him between 33 and 34 when He dies. A starting point of 457 BC for sure can fit this scenario, no doubt.

Let's now compare to what @Davy proposed as a starting point for the 70 weeks, using the link he provided in post #753.

This proposed scenario the starting point is not 457 BC, it is 454 BC. 483 years later puts us at 29 AD. And if Christ was born in 4 BC, that would make Him around 33 years of age at the end of the 483 years. A starting point of 454 BC appears it can fit this scenario as well, since both scenarios, what @jeffweeder proposed as a starting point, and what Bullinger proposed as a starting point, have Christ being between 33 and 34 when He dies. And not only that, both scenarios agree that Christ dies in 29 AD or so.

Both scenarios above have Christ dying sometime in 29 AD. Both scenarios have Christ being between 33 and 34 years of age when He dies. It then boils down to, assuming one of these proposed scenarios is correct, which event fits this better---unto Messiah the Prince? His baptism? Or Palm Sunday leading to His death a week later?

No doubt, both events are significant, yet one is more significant than the other. Maybe the key is this in verse 26---shall Messiah be cut off. This would be more relevant per a Palm Sunday scenario rather than per His baptism scenario.

The text in verse 26 says after 483 years the Messiah is cut off. After can also mean at the conclusion of something. For example. After his 7 AM to 4PM shift has ended at 4 PM that day, he will then punch the time clock and get off the clock for the day, thus his shift has ended. No one per this example would argue that 'after' means days later, weeks later, or even years later. It clearly means at the conclusion of something in this case.

There is hard date for the beginning of John the Baptists ministry, Luke 3;1-3. Tiberius Caesar began to reign in 14 A.D. If you believe Bullinger's timeline Christ died before he was baptized.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"
Those against that Daniel 9:27 verse instead say there is no time gap between the 69th and 70th week, that Jesus fulfilled the 70th week. He did not though. Jesus was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week, leaving the 70th week unfulfilled.

Why are you being dishonest about what the scripture says? It does not say He was cut off at the end of the 69th week. It says He would be cut off AFTER the 69th week.

Daniel 9:25 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. 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.

Why are you changing the word "after" to "at the end of"? What does it say about you that you are willing to change God's Holy Word in order to make it fit your doctrine? What comes after 69? Obviously, 70. So, Jesus being cut off after the 69th week places His death some time within the 70th week. Very simple math.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nothing misleading about Messiah coming after 69 weeks. Afterall, he cut off after the 69 weeks and its not rocket science to figure out how long after the 69th week.


You have Messiah going to the cross and securing our redemption in the 69th week .

Seventy Weeks and the Messiah​

24 “Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] have been decreed for your people and for your holy city (Jerusalem), to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make atonement (reconciliation) for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness (right-standing with God), to seal up vision and prophecy and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

The willingness to blatantly lie that I see from some on here is absolutely disgusting. Some are so desperate to keep their doctrines afloat that they will resort to blatant lies to do so. It's unbelievable.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That of course is a LIE, probably gotten from the unbelieving Jews and Judaism. Christ's Ministry ended... with the ending of the 69th week.

You are not one to accuse someone else of lying when you dishonestly change the word "after" to "at the end of" in this verse:

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There's actually several time gap examples written of in God's Word. In Luke 4 at the start of Christ's Ministry, He quoted from Isaiah 61, but He closed the Book before reaching the last phrase of Isaiah 61:2. That because that last phrase is about His future 2nd coming.

What amount of time does Isaiah 61:1-2 refer to in terms of a length of time given for what is written there to be fulfilled? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. But Daniel 9:24-27 does. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Try coming up with a legitimate example to show that any prophecy referencing a specific amount of time for the prophecy to be fulfilled (like Daniel 9:24 does) has gaps in it.

How about another prophecy referenced within the same book?

Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; 2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

So, here is a prophecy that Daniel referenced from the book of Jeremiah that was to be fulfilled in 70 years. Was there any gap in the fulfillment of that prophecy? Did 69 years go by but then the 70th year was fulfilled much later or is yet to be fulfilled? No, obviously not. It's referring to 70 continuous years with no gaps. I guess you'll have to keep looking for an example of a prophecy that would involve a certain amount of time which had gaps in it. Good luck with that.

 

[Davidpt]

There is hard date for the beginning of John the Baptists ministry, Luke 3;1-3. Tiberius Caesar began to reign in 14 A.D. If you believe Bullinger's timeline Christ died before he was baptized.

I don't understand your point here? It seems a moot point to me. We have to keep in mind that the two proposed timelines, there is a 3 year difference between when they begin. That doesn't change anything about when Luke 3:1-3 is meaning. If one timeline starts in 457 BC and the other one 3 years later in 454 BC, it simply means Luke 3:1-3 is meaning 483 years after that of 457 BC vs 480 years after that of 454 BC. 483 years after that of 457 BC is 26 AD. 480 years after that of 454 BC is 26 AD. At this point neither timeline has arrived at 29 AD yet. The former timeline cannot even get to 29 AD within 483 years. The latter timeline still can the fact it has 3 more years in order to fulfill 483 years as of Luke 3:1,3.

What's in question here, where are we in the first century 483 years later after the 70 weeks initially begin? Are we in 26 AD or in 29 AD 483 years later?

How you then can conclude that this would mean Christ is crucified before He is baptized, is beyond me? There is no logic to that. 26 AD comes before 29 AD, and 483 years later from 454 BC is not 26 AD, it is 29 AD. Even if Bullinger is wrong, and maybe he is, he is not saying 483 years later it is then 26 AD, thus Luke 3:1. @jeffweeder is the one who is saying that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Both scenarios above have Christ dying sometime in 29 AD. Both scenarios have Christ being between 33 and 34 years of age when He dies. It then boils down to, assuming one of these proposed scenarios is correct, which event fits this better---unto Messiah the Prince? His baptism? Or Palm Sunday leading to His death a week later?

No doubt, both events are significant, yet one is more significant than the other. Maybe the key is this in verse 26---shall Messiah be cut off. This would be more relevant per a Palm Sunday scenario rather than per His baptism scenario.

How do you determine that one of the events has to be more than significant than the other? That makes no sense to me. Both were extremely significant. Comparing them doesn't make any sense. If we are honest about it, we can acknowledge that it's just not clear from the text itself as to what "unto Messiah the Prince" is referring to. You can speculate all you want about it, but the truth of the matter can only come from looking at scripture as a whole to see what fits the best.

The text in verse 26 says after 483 years the Messiah is cut off. After can also mean at the conclusion of something. For example. After his 7 AM to 4PM shift has ended at 4 PM that day, he will then punch the time clock and get off the clock for the day, thus his shift has ended. No one per this example would argue that 'after' means days later, weeks later, or even years later. It clearly means at the conclusion of something in this case.

After means at least some amount of time after the 69th week has ended, even if a very short time. That does not place His death at the end of the 69th week as some very dishonestly try to claim. When that 69th week is over, it's over. Any time after that, even a millisecond, is not part of the 69th week and would logically have to be including as part of the 70th week instead if someone looks at it objectively without doctrinal bias.

 

[wooddog]

I don't understand your point here? It seems a moot point to me. We have to keep in mind that the two proposed timelines, there is a 3 year difference between when they begin. That doesn't change anything about when Luke 3:1-3 is meaning. If one timeline starts in 457 BC and the other one 3 years later in 454 BC, it simply means Luke 3:1-3 is meaning 483 years after that of 457 BC vs 480 years after that of 454 BC. 483 years after that of 457 BC is 26 AD. 480 years after that of 454 BC is 26 AD. At this point neither timeline has arrived at 29 AD yet. The former timeline cannot even get to 29 AD within 483 years. The latter timeline still can the fact it has 3 more years in order to fulfill 483 years as of Luke 3:1,3.

What's in question here, where are we in the first century 483 years later after the 70 weeks initially begin? Are we in 26 AD or in 29 AD 483 years later?

How you then can conclude that this would mean Christ is crucified before He is baptized, is beyond me? There is no logic to that. 26 AD comes before 29 AD, and 483 years later from 454 BC is not 26 AD, it is 29 AD. Even if Bullinger is wrong, and maybe he is, he is not saying 483 years later it is then 26 AD, thus Luke 3:1. @jeffweeder is the one who is saying that.

Both scenarios are wrong. According to Luke Jesus was baptized year 29 A.D. ,or after. Tiberius Caesar began his reign in 14 A.D. plus 15 years the year John the Baptist began his ministry 29 A.D.. Jesus Christ was 30 years old according to Luke 3;22,23 when he was ANNOINTED by the HOLY SPIRIT. Jesus could only be born in 1 B.C. and died in 33 or 34 A.D. Now use whatever timeline you like and call Dr. Luke? By the way I was watching TBN yesterday right after I posted and a young guy by the name of Andy Stanley was preaching exactly what I told you about Luke. Good preaching and teaching and timely. Look it up.

 

[Davidpt]

How do you determine that one of the events has to be more than significant than the other? That makes no sense to me. Both were extremely significant. Comparing them doesn't make any sense. If we are honest about it, we can acknowledge that it's just not clear from the text itself as to what "unto Messiah the Prince" is referring to. You can speculate all you want about it, but the truth of the matter can only come from looking at scripture as a whole to see what fits the best.

Let's look at it like this, for example. Being hypothetical here of course. Christ's baptism happened but His death and resurrection didn't. Per this scenario is His baptism alone enough to save sinners? Obviously not. Therefore, though both events are significant, Christ's baptism would be pointless unless He also dies and rises. Which He did of course. But that is beside the point since we are being hypothetical here.

We also have to think about this from the perspective of unbelieving Jews as well. If something was going to convince them that the Messiah meant in Daniel 9 is meaning Jesus, what is more likely to convince them that Jesus is the Messiah meant? Someone that is baptized at the end of 483 years? Or someone that dies at the end of 483 years? As to the former, baptizing is not a ritual Jews practiced before Christ came along, but sacrificing would be. Not meaning the sacrificing of humans of course.

Still coming from the perspective of unbelieving Jews. If we then say Daniel 9:27 and this part should convince an unbelieving Jew that the Messiah is meaning Jesus---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--how so? From their perspective no one caused animal sacrificing to cease 487.5 years later the fact animal sacrificing continued for another 40 years post Christ having died on the cross.

On a different note, this 454 BC timeline proposed by @Davy via what Bullinger concluded might not even be valid to begin with. And I'm surprised someone hasn't pointed it out by now. I came across the following article below earlier which I apparently did not not already know but others posting in this thread likely already know. I'm familiar with the 444 BC scenario but I guess it went over my head at the time that it is meaning a decree was not made in 454 BC after all, it was made 10 years later instead.

So , unless 454 BC is a valid starting point regardless what the article below concludes, that pretty much settles it then, 483 years later can't be meaning when Christ dies but must be meaning when Jesus is baptized instead, regardless of my hypothetical above and what I argued pertaining to the perspective of unbelieving Jews. . That only matters if 454 BC is indeed a valid starting point. Therefore, if 483 years later is meaning His baptism, in that case, surely Christ is meant in verse 27 pertaining to the covenant and the midst of the week. Per my view I'm still where I was. All of verse 27 involves the 70th week, therefore, the gap is not after the 69th week, it is after the middle of the 70th week.


----------------------------------------------------------------
A major problem scholars see with Futurism is in fitting the dates to modern archaeological findings. The Futurist view was conceived a century ago, when archaeology was not as far advanced, and therefore Scofield stated at that time, “In the present state of biblical chronology the date of the [second] decree of Artaxerxes cannot be unanswerably fixed farther than to say that it was issued between 454 to 444 BC.” (Note to Dan. 9:25). Some holding the Futurist position, however, have assumed a date of 455 BC for Artaxerxes’ second decree, because this would carry the first 69 weeks to the (supposed) date of the death of Messiah (dated incorrectly as 29 AD), leaving the 70th week to roam free after a parenthesis of unknown duration. But scholarship has now proven the date of the second decree to be ten years later, in 445 B.C. A leading Futurist scholar, John Walvoord states, “Most scholars, whether conservative or liberal, accordingly, accept the 445 B.C. date for Nehemiah’s [second] decree.” (Daniel, Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 227) Adding on 69 weeks (483 years) to this corrected date would place the death of Christ in 39 AD, an obvious impossibility!

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Seventy Weeks of Daniel prophecy in Daniel chapter nine

www.messianics.us

 

[Davy]

Nothing misleading about Messiah coming after 69 weeks. Afterall, he cut off after the 69 weeks and its not rocket science to figure out how long after the 69th week.

That above is a distorting of the actual Bible Scripture which declares Jesus being "cut off" with the end of the 69th week.

So just 'who'... would want to pass a false doctrine that blames Jesus with setting up the "abomination of desolation" when Jesus in His Olivet discourse instead was warning His servants about that abomination in a future Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15)?

The FALSE JEWS of the "synagogue of Satan" of course are the ones trying to wrongly push Jesus' Ministry into the 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

 

[Davy]

Why are you being dishonest about what the scripture says? It does not say He was cut off at the end of the 69th week. It says He would be cut off AFTER the 69th week.

You white-washed wall! You reject the proof of Daniel 9:26 which declares Messiah being "cut off" with the "threescore and two" weeks, and you FALSELY CLAIM I'm being dishonest??

May God rebuke you!

 

[Davy]

You are not one to accuse someone else of lying when you dishonestly change the word "after" to "at the end of" in this verse:

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.

After... DOES NOT MEAN the "threescore and two" weeks continued, silly!

All you are showing is your following a LIE instituted by false Jews of the "synagogue of Satan", trying to SLANDER Jesus Christ. How? Because trying to push Jesus' Ministry into the 70th week when the 70th week events only involve the future coming ANTICHRIST is to try and claim Jesus is that Antichrist! So by you latching onto that false LIE by the false Jews, it mean you follow THEM IN THAT LIE TOO!

 

[Davy]

What amount of time does Isaiah 61:1-2 refer to in terms of a length of time given for what is written there to be fulfilled? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. But Daniel 9:24-27 does. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Try coming up with a legitimate example to show that any prophecy referencing a specific amount of time for the prophecy to be fulfilled (like Daniel 9:24 does) has gaps in it.

What a SILLY argument the above is!

In Luke 4 at the start of Christ's Ministry, He read from the Book of Isaiah 61...

Luke 4:16-21
16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him.
21 And He began to say unto them, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
KJV


Now little children, let's read what Jesus quoted from the Book of Isaiah in that synagogue at the start of His Ministry. (It's hard to believe I have to cover this for little children that just won't... take the time to read their Old Testament.)

Isa 61:1-2
61 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
KJV

Jesus read everything above EXCEPT that last phrase in red above. Jesus closed the Book of Isaiah and did not read that last part of verse 2. WHY?

Because that last part of Isaiah 61:2, "and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;" is about Christ's FUTURE RETURN.

So HOW LONG, little children, has it been since Jesus read that, and that last phrase of Isaiah 61:2 is still... yet to come to pass with His return? It's been around 2,000 years since Jesus read that, and He has NOT returned yet even today!

And Biblically illiterate folks want to say that has nothing to do with a GAP of time??


Brethren in Christ -- always remember that those who put their trust in man instead of in God in His Word as written, only deceive themselves, and you, if you allow it. And how can we know when they are following men's doctrines instead of God's Word? Easy, men's doctrines always... follows illogical crazy ideas that cannot be supported in God's Word. You will always find men's traditions lacking when compared to God's written Word.