What if Daniel did have a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks?

[TheDivineWatermark]

I really don't know why God allowed the temple to stand for 40 more years. Maybe [...]. That generation would recognize that place in the temple as the "Holy Place". But finally in 70AD he took the entire temple from them forever to show that this was the end of the temple age.

So, it sounds like maybe you're suggesting that "that place" wasn't ACTUALLY "holy [ / the holy place]," at that point,

but was only PERCEIVED by them to be "holy [/the holy place]," because that's all they knew of, up till then (this had been called "the holy place" in their experience and history).

Am I reading you right? That Jesus just called it this, for their benefit/understanding of things (i.e. so they would know WHAT was being referred to, by His words ["when ye shall see... standing in the holy place"])?




[may the reader note my earlier posts elsewhere, where that post points out the connection between Jesus' word in Matt24:15 "abomination [SINGULAR]" back to Daniel 12:11]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

2) the SEQUENCE issues in His Olivet Discourse, where:

"SET B [circumstances]" are spelled out in Lk21:8-11 (same as in Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 -- called "the beginning of birth pangs");

"SET A [circumstances]" are spelled out in Lk21:12-24 (the 70ad events, including v.24's "UNTIL");

we know that is the SEQUENCE [SET A *before* SET B] because of verse 12's "BUT BEFORE all these [BEFORE all "the beginning of birth pangs" just described in vv.8-11]"... BEFORE all those... the "SET A [circumstances (i.e. the 70ad events)]" must take place [BEFORE those (BEFORE "the beginning of birth pangs")]!

"SET B [circumstances]" do not PRECEDE the "SET A [circumstances]"

Additionally, [in Lk21] verse 32's "ALL" ("till ALL be fulfilled") necessarily must INCLUDE the two "duration-involving" items that verse 24 had already just mentioned:

--"and [they] shall be led away captive into all the nations"; and

--"and Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN of the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled"

(i.e. "Gentile domination over Israel"... think: Neb's "dream/statue/image" with Neb as "head of gold" and which STARTED in 606/605bc and which Rev11:2 speaks of its CONCLUDING time-period, parallel to other passages speaking of that same specific time-period which leads up to Christ's "RETURN" to the earth [yet future]).




The placement of v.32's "TILL ALL be fulfilled" proves that it necessarily must INCLUDE these 2 items in v.24 (and that includes verse 24's "UNTIL").

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Here is something to consider, Caligula placed a statue of himself in the temple 7 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here is something to consider, Caligula placed a statue of himself in the temple 7 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

I thought it was that they should expect such a thing/event "IN THE MIDST of the Week" (rather than at the END of the Week/END of 7 years), per Daniel 9:27b (and/or Daniel 12:11 "and the abomination [singular] that maketh desolate SET UP [H5414]").

 

[Dave-L]

When Jesus returns, which will be very soon I believe, dispensationalist will think he's the antichrist.

Something to think about. They have already rejected his blood thinking the third temple will replace it. So that is highly likely.

 

[KJV1611]

Why, then, does it say of [that one], "WHOSE COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT]"... 2Th2:9a... you would think if it just meant every individual within themselves, that this "WHOSE COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT]" would not be used, but something more like "whose existence" (as in, it's always been there, existing in such a way).

What would you say is the difference ?

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

There is no difference between the two. The "him" in verse 9, that "Wicked", the son of perdition is our flesh, our ego or something like that. It's not a physical entity.

And all of us should know this because God makes it abundantly clear through out scripture that WE are the temple of God. This gets totally thrown out the window by dispensationalist.

I would probably change my view if someone could explain a logical way that "The Antichrist" could do that.

Part 2 coming.

 

[KJV1611]

1) --2Th2:9a [re: the man of sin] - "whose COMING [G3952 - parousia - "3952 (parousía / 'presence') is a "technical term with reference to the visit of a king or some other official, 'a royal visit' " (Souter)" (quoted from BibleHub); or, their ARRIVAL on the scene, so to speak];

Joh_6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Read that verse and analyze the language like you analyzed parousia. Did your analysis of the "real" meaning of blood or of eating or of drinking, did that reveal the true meaning of the passage?

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WILL SAY IN THIS RESPONSE.

The bible is an esoteric book. The true meaning IS NOT FOUND in the plain reading of the text. You can analyze every word in John 6:53 for eternity and never understand the true meaning. The true meaning is found by understanding what Jesus' blood and flesh represents to us as believers.

The same is true of the verses that we've been discussing. You can analyze all those words and NEVER arrive at the truth because you are trying to understand the meaning of an esoteric book by analyzing the plain text.

 

[KJV1611]

2) --Rev6:2 - "he WENT FORTH [G1831 - ex erchomai--from ek/ex G1537 and erchomai G2064] conquering and to conquer";

Jesus went forth counquering and to conquer sin and death on the cross.
Jesus wore a stephanos on the cross.
Jesus is the bow. That's why Joseph foreshadowing Christ wore a rainbow (covenant) coat of many colors. The bow is God's promise to Noah - the New Covenant.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white horse.

Jesus did all of that and all of those things can be found in the Old Testament. Why would I believe this is "The Antichrist" when Christ fulfilled every point to the letter?

The bible is an esoteric book. The literal text conceals the true meaning. "WENT FORTH" means went forth, we all know what that means, the definition of the word is clear. Again, you can analyze all the words of Rev 6:2 forever and never arrive at the true meaning.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Here is something to consider, Caligula placed a statue of himself in the temple 7 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

1. Did everyone see it?
2. It still does not fit the timeline, That would be LONG after the 7 years..

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

There is no difference between the two. The "him" in verse 9, that "Wicked", the son of perdition is our flesh, our ego or something like that. It's not a physical entity.

So, I ask again...

"Why, then, does it say of [that... (entity?)], "WHOSE COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT]"... 2Th2:9a... "

What are you saying the "[whose] COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT]" refers to (since you're saying it refers to the "ego / flesh")?

You mean, when a person is BORN? or when they are CONCEIVED? or after they are born again and then LOSE IT? or... when are you saying this "COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT]" speaks of in each individual's life, in this verse?

And all of us should know this because God makes it abundantly clear through out scripture that WE are the temple of God. This gets totally thrown out the window by dispensationalist.

I personally haven't "thrown [it] out the window". I've addressed it numerous times.

I've said, Paul (whenever he speaks of "the Church which is His body" as "temple") NEVER uses the "definite article ['the']".

I would probably change my view if someone could explain a logical way that "The Antichrist" could do that.

In Revelation 11:1, the phrases "the temple of God," and "THEM that worship THEREIN" are clearly DISTINCT entities/items.

And the time-period named in that passage (v.2) is the same as that of Revelation 13:5-7,1 (re: the "beast out from the sea," which passage is PARALLEL to some things we see also in Daniel 7:25,20-24,27 [7a,13a] [and this passage includes a description: "whose look is more stout than his fellows" v.20b]).

Then, I've made the point that Jesus' use of the wording "abomination [SINGULAR] of desolation SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL THE PROPHET..." (Matt24:15) and how that points back to the "abomination [SINGULAR]" used in Daniel 12:11 "the abomination [SINGULAR] which maketh desolate SET UP [H5414]" and I had provided an entire post (several times) on the PARALLELS to this "SET UP [H5414]" word, as found in related passages elsewhere (tho different words) like "SITTETH [transitive verb, in that verse]" and "STANDING [transitive verb, in that verse]"...

I do not recall much (if any) response to that post, though.

And then, with regard to that Daniel 12:11 verse, I pointed out how verse 13 tells of Daniel when he will "[rest, in death, and] STAND in thy lot [i.e. be resurrected ('to stand again on the earth')] at the END of the DAYS [the END of the DAYS referred to IN THAT CONTEXT, vv.6-7,1,11, etc... But NO ONE can tell me "WHEN" Daniel did that (was resurrected, to 'STAND in thy LOT') in their scenario/scheme-of-things-viewpoint... because it hasn't yet come to pass. It's "FUTURE," just as all the other things I've pointed out about the "CHRONOLOGY issues" [that Scripture itself reveals] show, as well.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Joh_6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Read that verse and analyze the language like you analyzed parousia. Did your analysis of the "real" meaning of blood or of eating or of drinking, did that reveal the true meaning of the passage?

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WILL SAY IN THIS RESPONSE.

The bible is an esoteric book. The true meaning IS NOT FOUND in the plain reading of the text. You can analyze every word in John 6:53 for eternity and never understand the true meaning. The true meaning is found by understanding what Jesus' blood and flesh represents to us as believers.

The same is true of the verses that we've been discussing. You can analyze all those words and NEVER arrive at the truth because you are trying to understand the meaning of an esoteric book by analyzing the plain text.

What I think you're trying to say is that Jesus never spoke about literal things, at back of what He was saying on the "surface". He always meant "spiritualized" things. So let's attach "spiritual meanings" to all He spoke of, right?

What I would say, is that you understand what He meant by "eat My flesh" and "drink My blood" because you've compared Scripture with Scripture (John 6:51, 54, 56 with that of other passages in which we can know WHAT He did, and when).


So, to this point, I will again post a cpl links (even if you yourself are not interested, I hope it helps the readers to see MY point):


--Dr Paul Martin Henebury [17-min vid on "SPIRITUALIZATION" (why it is FLAWED!)]:

--Dr Paul Martin Henebury ["40 Reasons for Not Re-interpreting the OT by the NT: the Last Twenty" --two points of which I will quote below]: https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty

[quoting from that link]

33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.

34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature.

[end quoting; bold and underline mine; more at link... and the other "20" at a link you can find there]

 

[cv5]

Has already happened.
When the zealots took over the temple and used it as a fortress.
The. Temple was destroyed and will never be again, because Aaron's staff is gone, the Ark of the covenant is gone, the veil is torn too to bottom the Holy of Holies can only exist in Christ. Even if someone built a replica of the temple today it would not be the temple, not would it be sanctified by God. In fact it would be an abomination, so how could an abomination stand in the Holy place if the Holy place is in Christ alone, and can never be outside of Christ?

Disagree. The Holy Place is wherever God puts His Name. But beyond that, the exact location of the foundation of the Temple is now known almost to a few meters. They will find the foundation. See Bob Cornuke on YouTube. This location is as chosen and Holy as it ever was. As is Jerusalem, Israel, and the Isaelites. Furthermore, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants must be fulfilled, as they are unconditional. There are vast portions of scripture and prophecy that proclaim the future fulfillment and millenial reign on earth from Jerusalem.

 

[cv5]

Joh_6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Read that verse and analyze the language like you analyzed parousia. Did your analysis of the "real" meaning of blood or of eating or of drinking, did that reveal the true meaning of the passage?

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WILL SAY IN THIS RESPONSE.

The bible is an esoteric book. The true meaning IS NOT FOUND in the plain reading of the text. You can analyze every word in John 6:53 for eternity and never understand the true meaning. The true meaning is found by understanding what Jesus' blood and flesh represents to us as believers.

The same is true of the verses that we've been discussing. You can analyze all those words and NEVER arrive at the truth because you are trying to understand the meaning of an esoteric book by analyzing the plain text.

This jabbering about the bible being an esoteric book is pathetic gnostic bunk, humbug and rubbish. A grade school child can understand the bible perfectly well. And you cannot?

 

[iamsoandso]

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

There is no difference between the two. The "him" in verse 9, that "Wicked", the son of perdition is our flesh, our ego or something like that. It's not a physical entity.

And all of us should know this because God makes it abundantly clear through out scripture that WE are the temple of God. This gets totally thrown out the window by dispensationalist.

I would probably change my view if someone could explain a logical way that "The Antichrist" could do that.

Part 2 coming.

KJV,,,,

consider this...

If Paul wrote 2Thess. about 51-52 ad and he is wording these things as if they had not taken place yet(fulfilled by Jesus 20 years prior)...then Paul fully knowing Jesus had come prior to this would be saying it had been fulfilled instead of going to be future tense.

 

[iamsoandso]

Jesus went forth counquering and to conquer sin and death on the cross.
Jesus wore a stephanos on the cross.
Jesus is the bow. That's why Joseph foreshadowing Christ wore a rainbow (covenant) coat of many colors. The bow is God's promise to Noah - the New Covenant.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white horse.

Jesus did all of that and all of those things can be found in the Old Testament. Why would I believe this is "The Antichrist" when Christ fulfilled every point to the letter?

The bible is an esoteric book. The literal text conceals the true meaning. "WENT FORTH" means went forth, we all know what that means, the definition of the word is clear. Again, you can analyze all the words of Rev 6:2 forever and never arrive at the true meaning.

Again is it saying it is going to happen or that Jesus did this before the Revelation was given to John on Patmos?

 

[cv5]

Jesus went forth counquering and to conquer sin and death on the cross.
Jesus wore a stephanos on the cross.
Jesus is the bow. That's why Joseph foreshadowing Christ wore a rainbow (covenant) coat of many colors. The bow is God's promise to Noah - the New Covenant.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white horse.

Jesus did all of that and all of those things can be found in the Old Testament. Why would I believe this is "The Antichrist" when Christ fulfilled every point to the letter?

The bible is an esoteric book. The literal text conceals the true meaning. "WENT FORTH" means went forth, we all know what that means, the definition of the word is clear. Again, you can analyze all the words of Rev 6:2 forever and never arrive at the true meaning.

That is some kind of word salad there buddy.

 

[iamsoandso]

I think it to be an error in study to miss this https://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/6-2.htm https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-1.htm

In that if Jesus had fulfilled this prior to the writing of Revelation then the word https://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm would not have been used in it's future tense. In Revelation 5 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/5.htm it is pointed out that these things were given after the Lord was slain not before.

 

[iamsoandso]

It's simple actually at the time the Revelation was received by John on Patmos Jesus had already been slain(Rev.5:6) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/5-6.htm

The beast had received it's deadly wound and resided in the pit at the time it was written/received https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/17-8.htm

So this is after Jesus death and after the beast received it's deadly wound. And before it ascended up from the pit.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Disagree. The Holy Place is wherever God puts His Name. But beyond that, the exact location of the foundation of the Temple is now known almost to a few meters. They will find the foundation. See Bob Cornuke on YouTube. This location is as chosen and Holy as it ever was. As is Jerusalem, Israel, and the Isaelites. Furthermore, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants must be fulfilled, as they are unconditional. There are vast portions of scripture and prophecy that proclaim the future fulfillment and millenial reign on earth from Jerusalem.

Those covenants are fulfilled in Jesus, and his church.
Don't make the same error as the Jews who executed Jesus, not recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy because it don't look to us as our interpretations expected.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

This jabbering about the bible being an esoteric book is pathetic gnostic bunk, humbug and rubbish. A grade school child can understand the bible perfectly well. And you cannot?

While mean spirited, and uncalled for, your main point is correct.