to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and
to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
to seal up vision and prophecy, and
to anoint the most holy.
Jesus fulfilled this
Then the clock restarted in 1948 and then ran out in 1951?
FYI, Christians are Israel.
Truly the return of Israel to the land is a sign to this generation. But:
FYI, Christians are not Israel. Romans 9-11.
The clock did not restart in 1948. The Beast's Covenant restarts the clock.
Israel was in the land in Jerusalem after the 69th week
(between the crucifixion and AD 70 was about 40 years.)
Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the Times of the Gentiles is over.
Those Islamists are there now, treading around, occupying the Temple Mt.
The phrase 'to make an end of sins' has nothing to do with 70 A.D. or the Romans destroying the Temple. What the phrase is referring to was accomplished by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is not referring to a point in time when there would be no more sins committed ever again. It is referring to the [ 'spiritual' ] "process" by which sins were made-of-no-effect ( Romans 6:6;8:2 ) -- in the same sense of death being "swallowed up in victory" in 1 Corinthians 15:54.No it wasn't for thy people the Jews & Jerusalem. Instead of ending sin in Jerusalem, the Romans destroyed the place and sinned big time. The Holy City has had no end of sin nor everlasting righteousness yet.
In general, I actually agree with this.No, the proof for your assertions is your own burden. If you expect to be believed here, you just saying things won't do it. Bible proof is required.
Your "grammatical analysis" is in error.26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one [Christ] be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city
The people who destroyed the City of Jerusalem are Romans. That implies that the prince's people are Romans. Thus this prince is a Roman. He cannot be Christ.
and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he
The antecedent of this he is the Roman prince of vs. 26, not Christ.
shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he [The Roman Prince]
shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.
Except that the 490-year clock ended 490 years after "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"...But the clock is still stuck on Week 69.
This is where a lot of people have been led to believe an erroneous doctrine. Not one word of this is actually present in Daniel's prophesy.Now if a Roman prince made a 7 year covenant with Israel which allowed Israel to have its temple, ...
I hope this helps...The phrase 'to make an end of sins' has nothing to do with 70 A.D. or the Romans destroying the Temple. What the phrase is referring to was accomplished by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is not referring to a point in time when there would be no more sins committed ever again. It is referring to the [ 'spiritual' ] "process" by which sins were made-of-no-effect ( Romans 6:6;8:2 ) -- in the same sense of death being "swallowed up in victory" in 1 Corinthians 15:54.
To try to explain it another way --- the words 'to make an end of sins' are referring to the "setting up for the fall of" sins - the 'causation' of the ultimate "end of sins" by virtue of the "robbing sin of its power"...
Christ accomplished this in the middle of the 70th week.
![]()
I did no grammatical analysis; I did bring in the context.
PRETERISM = ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND HERMENEUTICS
(trying to make Daniel 9 already fulfilled long ago)
Anyone who trusts the Lord Jesus (having Him properly defined) as Savior is a Christian ("whosoever believes") and my brother in Christ. Christians do not agree on eschatology (the future in prophecy). It does not bother me when a brother disagrees with me on eschatology (a-, pre-, mid-, Post-Toastie). It does bother me when someone gets on his high horse and attacks a Christian for disagreeing with Him on eschatology, as if that were heresy. And I have not seen that in this thread.
If you took Spanish, you know what the preterite tense is (past). Thus preterism tries to establish that what many regard as future prophecy is in fact already fulfilled long ago. Having said that, I confess that Preterism is Alice-in-Wonderland hermeneutics. There are apparently quite a variety of different Preterist positions. I discovered that fact by looking at the PreteristArchive site, a wonderful site with freely downloadable theological works. But a through-going preterist would deny that there is any future prophecy whatsoever to be fulfilled, denying even that a return of Christ is predicted (serious error).
IMHO:
By searching the internet, you can find a ton of material for & against preterism. But what it boils down to largely is trying to force the fulfillment of prophecy to the first century AD, particularly the cross and AD 70. This requires tortuous twisting of truth expressed in prophecy, allegorical interpretation. Probably much more will be learned on this topic by looking at internet sites for & against, instead of trying to settle this on a thread in this forum.
Rev 1 "Behold, he comes with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen."
This has not happened yet, nor:
But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be raptured [rapiemur, harpagesometha, caught up] in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. [end of 1 Th 4]
[Day of the Lord, the "tribulation," follows in 1 Thes 5].
The 70th Week of Daniel, by no stretch of imagination, has yet happened.
I think for some idiots it ran out in 1988 on the theory that 40 years was a generation & this generation shall not pass away until . . .
Except that the 490-year clock ended 490 years after "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"...
![]()
Yes, Dispensationalists love to make Christians look like idiots.
Rev 1 "Behold, he comes with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen."
This has not happened yet,
[/FONT]
It says those who pierced Jesus will see Jesus come. They all died in the first century. Unless maybe you're one of those people who hold all Jews responsible for killing Jesus. Then, yes, in the spirit of Satan, there are a lot of Christ-killers, Jews, running around today. But, as for me, I'll stick to the context of Revelation's claim that it's referring to events "at hand", in that day.
"Earth" is from a Greek word that usually means the local region, not the whole planet. Hence, in a different context, the word might be translated like, the "land" of Israel. I'm not making this up, like your side makes up "soon" means thousands of years. So, all the tribes of that region will see Jesus come.
That just leaves what does seeing Jesus means. We see in the old testament "clouds" being used as reference to judgement. We also see even in Revelation itself Jesus threatening to "come" to judge, in judgement unrelated to any other judgement. For this last point, I'll save you the effort of finding a verse and I'll just give you one, Revelation 2:5b I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.. "I will come" clearly means judgment against one of the churches, not a personal appearance.
In fact, the reason the word "clouds" even appears in Revelation 1:7 is because Jesus won't make a literal appearance, so the symbology of clouds is used. Those who killed Jesus will face Jesus coming in judgement against them, which is exactly what happened in 70AD.
Now that was a cheap shot. I think you should retract that one. Dispensationalists are not date setters. The rapture has no signs & we do not know when, only it is imminent.
What you posted is what some anti-dispensationalists love to do, take vicious pot shots at the Brethren.