Anybody believe that Daniel's 70TH week has been fulfilled by Jesus - and then Stephen?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,003
3,941
113
mywebsite.us
#81
Well......we can safely say that the Olivet discourse certainly is not a reference to a past event. :rolleyes:

For someone to say that the AoD isn't a future event is........nonsensical and absurd.
Luke 21:24 cannot be equivocated to fit a preterist regime. In fact the whole chapter destroys preterism. As does the entire rest of the Bible.
I am not a preterist.

I am not suggesting preterism.

I know you mean well - so did I when I believed it.

Tell me - what is your understanding of the parenthetical phrases in the Matthew and Mark accounts of the Olivet Discourse?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,149
7,208
113
#82
The Olivet Discourse does not make a direct reference to Daniel 9:27; rather, the reference is to Daniel 11:31.
Gary get a grip man. How in the world is the Olivet discourse referring to a past event? Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC....???

Absolutely the Olivet discourse is a reference to Daniel 9:27 AND Daniel 12:11. Both are speaking of the same thing. Yes I should've referenced Daniel 12:11 also. The Olivet discourse is referencing both of the Scriptures obviously.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,110
1,962
113
#83
The Olivet Discourse does not make a direct reference to Daniel 9:27; rather, the reference is to Daniel 11:31.
I would say it is INSTEAD a reference to Daniel 12:11 (the one whose chapter is prefaced with v.1's declaration "and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation..." [NOT "since the time that nationS existed," as some like to suggest it means; The CONTEXT is Daniel's people...])




[Dan9:27 only references in an indirect way (one of several), in its PLURAL use of the terms...]
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,149
7,208
113
#84
I would say it is INSTEAD a reference to Daniel 12:11 (the one whose chapter is prefaced with v.1's declaration "and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation..." [NOT "since the time that nationS existed," as some like to suggest])
Both. I don't see how you can leave Daniel 9:27 out of the mix....."midst of the week". Clearly speaking about the same event as Daniel 12:11. Maybe with a slightly different flavor.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,003
3,941
113
mywebsite.us
#85
Gary get a grip man. How in the world is the Olivet discourse referring to a past event? Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC....???

Absolutely the Olivet discourse is a reference to Daniel 9:27 AND Daniel 12:11. Both are speaking of the same thing. Yes I should've referenced Daniel 12:11 also. The Olivet discourse is referencing both of the Scriptures obviously.
No - the OD specifically makes reference to 'the abomination that maketh desolate' only.

No - they are not speaking of the same thing.

AE167 - yes - exactly - specifically.

Let me ask you again - what is your understanding of the parenthetical phrases...?
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,003
3,941
113
mywebsite.us
#86
Gary get a grip man. How in the world is the Olivet discourse referring to a past event? Antiochus Epiphanies 167BC....???
I have a grip - on the meaning of the parenthetical phrases...

Do you?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,110
1,962
113
#87
Both. I don't see how you can leave Daniel 9:27 out of the mix....."midst of the week". Clearly speaking about the same event as Daniel 12:11. Maybe with a slightly different flavor.
Not sure if you saw my addition to my post...

I'm saying that Jesus' reference to "AOD [singular / singular]" points back to Dan12:11 "AOD [singular / singular] *SET UP*"... and from there, we the readers can make the further connection back to the PLURALS ("abominaTIONS") in chpt 9, in v.27b's reference to "IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK" pointing to other passages also... (like 2Th2:4 *SITTETH*<--which is not the FIRST of his ARRIVAL on the scene, of ALL he will DO in his role [/ IN HIS TIME])






The main thing I would point out is the SEQUENTIAL nature of the Daniel 9:24-27 passage... (the "CUT OFF" [32ad] comes before the "PEOPLE OF" when they "DESTROY" [70ad]... and then the things in v.27 come SEQUENTIALLY AFTER that... SAME SEQUENCE that all other RELATED passages ALSO show to be the case... I mentioned some...)

...oh, and the fact that the passage says, "FROM _____ UNTO the Messiah the prince"... it does NOT state, "FROM _____ UNTO the ANOINTING [verb] of the prince" (i.e. something like the act of His "baptism"... No.)
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,003
3,941
113
mywebsite.us
#88
How in the world is the Olivet discourse referring to a past event?
The answer to this question is set forth by a proper understanding of the parenthetical phrases...
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,003
3,941
113
mywebsite.us
#90
How in the world is the Olivet discourse referring to a past event?
That is what I am trying to help you to understand. Nonetheless - believe it or not - it is true - the OD makes reference to a past event.

However - for you to understand it - you must "let go" of what you have been taught...
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,149
7,208
113
#91
That is what I am trying to help you to understand. Nonetheless - believe it or not - it is true - the OD makes reference to a past event.

However - for you to understand it - you must "let go" of what you have been taught...
Gary.....if your eschatology depends upon the Olivet discourse referring to a past event.....please jump off the crazy train. Before it runs off the rails.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,149
7,208
113
#92
Not sure if you saw my addition to my post...

I'm saying that Jesus' reference to "AOD [singular / singular]" points back to Dan12:11 "AOD [singular / singular] *SET UP*"... and from there, we the readers can make the further connection back to the PLURALS ("abominaTIONS") in chpt 9, in v.27b's reference to "IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK" pointing to other passages also... (like 2Th2:4 *SITTETH*<--which is not the FIRST of his ARRIVAL on the scene, of ALL he will DO in his role [/ IN HIS TIME])






The main thing I would point out is the SEQUENTIAL nature of the Daniel 9:24-27 passage... (the "CUT OFF" [32ad] comes before the "PEOPLE OF" when they "DESTROY" [70ad]... and then the things in v.27 come SEQUENTIALLY AFTER that... SAME SEQUENCE that all other RELATED passages ALSO show to be the case... I mentioned some...)

...oh, and the fact that the passage says, "FROM _____ UNTO the Messiah the prince"... it does NOT state, "FROM _____ UNTO the ANOINTING [verb] of the prince" (i.e. something like the act of His "baptism"... No.)
Yes very good point thank you. I will endeavor to be more precise in this regard in the future.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#93
Gary.....if your eschatology depends upon the Olivet discourse referring to a past event.....please jump off the crazy train. Before it runs off the rails.
I think we should keep Luke 21 in mind, I believe both 70AD and the Great Tribulation were addressed. The disciples erroneously supposed that the seize of Jerusalem and His second coming were the same event described in many OT prophecies, such as Zechariah 14:1-9, but that's not the case. You see, in Exodus, Moses descended from Mount Sinai twice, first time as a man, and second time with a shining, majestic appearance, and then he began to build the Tabernacle of Meeting where God dwelt with the Israelites. Those are a paradigm of the two comings of Jesus.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,110
1,962
113
#94
that marked the total rejection of the gospel by Jews, therefore shortly after that Paul had the Damascus conversion, and he brought the gospel to the Gentiles, aka "nations, goyim", hence the "time of Gentiles", the church age.
We agree on much... but here I must disagree.

The phrases "the TIMES of the Gentiles" and "the FULNESS of the Gentiles BE COME IN [G1525]" ought not to be conflated. They refer to distinct things.


The phrase "the TIMES of the Gentiles" refers to "Gentile domination over Israel" (which started in 606 / 605bc, think: Neb's "dream / statue / image" with Neb as "head of gold"... and which will not be concluded until the END of the future great tribulation, at the time of Christ's Second Coming to the earth, per Rev11:2 [at the end of the "42 mos"]--It is connected with the idea of Jerusalem being "TRODDEN DOWN of the Gentiles [UNTIL]" Lk21:24c not to mention "and they shall be led away captive INTO ALL THE NATIONS"... (and let the readers see also its connection to v.32 of that passage [re: "this generation shall not pass away TILL"] where "TILL ALL be fulfilled" necessarily MUST INCLUDE the contents of what v.24 had just said! i.e. a couple / few very "OF-LENGTHY-DURATION" items)...

This phrase does not speak to "the Church age" (all those coming to faith "in this present age [singular]"), as many claim... no.
 
Feb 25, 2022
14
0
1
ombowstring.net
#95
You are rocking the leaky boat that the majority are clinging to and they will come after you.
Hope you can handle the sometimes harsh replies.
Has anyone here read "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" by Marvin Rosenthal? It is by far the best book on the last days that I have come upon. The seven year period of the end of life on earth as we know it begins when the beast, 666, signs a peace treaty with Israel. The Rapture occurs roughly half way through this seven year timeframe. The Great Tribulation is the 3 1/2 year period following the Rapture when Jesus opens the book sealed with seven seals.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,110
1,962
113
#96
Hi @ombowstring , and welcome to CC. = ) I see this is your first post.

In answer to your question, "has anyone here read 'The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church' by Marvin Rosenthal?" Yes.
And here's how I would respond (and have posted about in the past)... at the bottom half of the following post, in the video there, David Hocking mentions Rosenthal and his book and some biblical facts regarding a certain point which impacts that particular viewpoint (it actually might be in the longer version of his message, this video linked in this post is the CONDENSED version, and I cannot recall if his mention of him is in there, or in the longer version of the same message):

Post #64 (different thread, some time back) - https://christianchat.com/threads/revelation-study.198143/post-4522228






Hope to see you around the boards. = )
 
R

RichMan

Guest
#97
Has anyone here read "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" by Marvin Rosenthal? It is by far the best book on the last days that I have come upon. The seven year period of the end of life on earth as we know it begins when the beast, 666, signs a peace treaty with Israel. The Rapture occurs roughly half way through this seven year timeframe. The Great Tribulation is the 3 1/2 year period following the Rapture when Jesus opens the book sealed with seven seals.
Have not read the book. If he states that the beast signs a peace treaty with Israel, that is enough for me to reject his belief as accurate.
There is no Scripture that states or even implies that the beast will sign a peace treaty with Israel.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
#98
Have not read the book. If he states that the beast signs a peace treaty with Israel, that is enough for me to reject his belief as accurate.
There is no Scripture that states or even implies that the beast will sign a peace treaty with Israel.
That's nothing but a political thriller in the genre of apocalyptic literature with a tinge of biblical prophecy.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
12,821
8,596
113
#99
It really frustrating that the dispensationalist view is almost universally adopted by every pastor in every church - when it comes to Daniel's 70 weeks and other prophecies in Daniel. Although there's a consensus that those 70 weeks are 490 years, and Jesus was the "Messiah the Prince" who appeared after the first 69 weeks, somehow the Antichrist is shoehorned in to fulfill the final week, and that is where the idea of 7 year tribulation comes from, despite the numerous other verses in Daniel and Revelation which indicate that it will only last for three and a half years. If anyone reads this passage of 9:24-27 FOR THE FIRST TIME without any presumption or such influence, is it crazy to have a natural impression, that these are 70 CONTINUOUS weeks, and all "he" is referring to the same Messiah?

Actually, that had always been the historic view of this prophecy that Jesus had fulfilled all 70 weeks until the popularization of dispensationalism in late 1800s!

Now allow me to elaborate a bit. I'm not a KJV only person, KJV is not perfect, but for this specific prophecy, you must use KJV 'cuz this part is subtlely corrupted in modern versions. In KJV, Daniel 9:27 reads:

"And he shall CONFIRM the covenant with many for one week: 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."

First of all, in 9:25, notice that the first 7 and 62 weeks are deliberately separated, this implies that these are not only 70 x 7 years, but also 10 x 49 jubilee cycles. Jews returned to their homeland and rebuild Jerusalem, that perfectly fulfilled the description of jubilee in Lev. 25. Therefore the 70th week is a part of last jubilee cycle, it shouldn't be separated from the 64th-69th weeks.

I'm not gonna dive in to the nitty gritties of the six goals in 9:24, you can read the links below for that. Here I just wanna point out two words in 9:27 - CONFIRM and FOR. Although Jesus did make a new covenant, He FULFILLED the old covenant of salvation by offering Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, that's why He legally caused "sacrifice and the oblation to cease". See Heb. 9b and 10a for a better understanding.

https://christianitybeliefs.org/end...ed-daniel-924-during-the-70th-week-of-daniel/
https://age2come.com/why-daniels-70-weeks-are-fulfilled/
https://www.mikeblume.com/nogap.htm

Then notice the wording in the next sentence: FOR the overspreading of abominations. This indicates that He didn't cause any abomination, the abomination is ALREADY in there, and FOR that He shall make it desolate as a punishment. This was fulfilled when He cleansed the temple and declared that "Your house shall be left DESOLATE." The sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD was the final "consummation" of that judgement.

On top of all these, this interpretation will reveal to you some crucial information:

- Jesus's ministry lasted exactly 3.5 years;
- Since He was crucified on Passover, dial back 3.5 years is the Feast of Tabernacle, that's when He was really born;
- Dial back 9 months further, you get Hanukkah, that's when He was conceived;
- The Great Tribulation only lasts 3.5 years as Antichrist's "ministry", which is the antithesis of Jesus's

Now what about the second half of the 70th week? Although there's no solid proof in the Scripture, it is reasonable to assume that the stoning of Stephen marked the end. That was a turning point. They were given 3.5 years to repent, and many did at the Pentecost (Acts 2:37-38), but apparently the Pharisees didn't. When Stephen was stoned, that sealed their fate, from there on the gospel was shifted to the Gentiles.

And by the way, just to be clear, I'm no preterist or idealist. There will an Antichrist, which was described in bloody details in 11:36-45 and the entire chapter 12, that's what "abomination of desolation" is really referring to in the Olivet Discourse.
This was an interesting take on this passage. Several HUGE problems however.

In the scenario you've laid out, Jesus is the One who causes the animal sacrifices to stop, however, in 70 AD it wasn't Jesus who caused the sacrifices to stop but the Romans.

Also, the passage itself does NOT designate the Messiah as the one who causes the sacrifices to stop.

In fact, The immediate person predecessor in the text, clearly refers to the "prince that shall come".

Why would the reader jump back over the he, referring to the prince that shall come, to the Messiah the Prince?

It grammatically makes no sense.
 
Feb 24, 2022
1,346
288
83
This was an interesting take on this passage. Several HUGE problems however.

In the scenario you've laid out, Jesus is the One who causes the animal sacrifices to stop, however, in 70 AD it wasn't Jesus who caused the sacrifices to stop but the Romans.

Also, the passage itself does NOT designate the Messiah as the one who causes the sacrifices to stop.

In fact, The immediate person predecessor in the text, clearly refers to the "prince that shall come".

Why would the reader jump back over the he, referring to the prince that shall come, to the Messiah the Prince?

It grammatically makes no sense.
How does it make any sense to insert the Antichrist in Gabriel's answer to Daniel's prayer - for mercy and deliverance?

And since Jesus was called Messiah the Prince in 9:25, how is it weird that both Messiah and the prince are referring to him?