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

[GaryA]

We will disagree, i have lived and studied Dispensationalism enough to read see and hear the subtleness as the lie in the Garden...

More foolish talk against Dispensationalism. I have yet to see you show us some SERIOUS ERRORS in Dispensationalism.

She kinda has a point - in a way, as harsh as it may sound, that is a good way to describe it...

The real issue is that anti-Dispensationalists hate the ideas of (a) the Pre-Tribulation Resurrection/Rapture and (b) redeemed and restored Israel after the Second Coming of Christ. These are both beautiful ideas yet for some strange reason some people just hate them.

I find it interesting to see someone I think of as being more 'conservative' using a more 'liberal' tactic like using 'anti-dispensationalist' to describe someone.

I am thinking that [at least] the absolute majority of those who do not agree with dispensationalism do not "hate" it so much as they love the truth and want to abide in it, share it with others, and rebuke/reprove false teaching of the scriptures.

 

[GaryA]

As long as you don't use 'anti-pretrib' when/where 'mid-trib' and 'post-trib' will suffice, I guess it is not so bad... haha

 

[SomeDisciple]

I find it interesting to see someone I think of as being more 'conservative' using a more 'liberal' tactic like using 'anti-dispensationalist' to describe someone.

When somebody says something like "Dispensationalism has such a low opinion of God the Father, God the Son God the Spirit." as beckie has, that is obviously anti-dispensationalist. I'm not even a hardline dispensationalist, and I recognize that this statement is completely unjustified and completely out of line- almost as out of line as using a colon in just any way you want. Straw-manning and making up your own grammar rules isn't a very good way to be persuasive.

 

[Beckie]

When somebody says something like "Dispensationalism has such a low opinion of God the Father, God the Son God the Spirit." as beckie has, that is obviously anti-dispensationalist. I'm not even a hardline dispensationalist, and I recognize that this statement is completely unjustified and completely out of line- almost as out of line as using a colon in just any way you want. Straw-manning and making up your own grammar rules isn't a very good way to be persuasive.

I read my words as positive to the Scriptures if being positive to Scriptures make me sound as if i am against Scofields dispensational teaching while using his quotes then so be it.

Dispensationalism is a very liberal view of Scripture.

 

[Beckie]

When somebody says something like "Dispensationalism has such a low opinion of God the Father, God the Son God the Spirit." as beckie has, that is obviously anti-dispensationalist. I'm not even a hardline dispensationalist, and I recognize that this statement is completely unjustified and completely out of line- almost as out of line as using a colon in just any way you want. Straw-manning and making up your own grammar rules isn't a very good way to be persuasive.

Please show me from Scofields notes how my view is out of line with Scripture?

 

[GaryA]

When somebody says something like "Dispensationalism has such a low opinion of God the Father, God the Son God the Spirit." as beckie has, that is obviously anti-dispensationalist. I'm not even a hardline dispensationalist, and I recognize that this statement is completely unjustified and completely out of line- almost as out of line as using a colon in just any way you want. Straw-manning and making up your own grammar rules isn't a very good way to be persuasive.

I am not making up rules of grammar.

The colon means whatever is after it is somehow related to whatever is before it. Whatever is after it is an 'expansion' of some kind from/of whatever is before it. However, that 'expansion' may be of various forms - it is not always 'explanation' or 'illustration'.

Again...

How does the last part of verse 26 (after the colon) "explain or illustrate" the first part of verse 26 (before the colon)?

While it is related to what is before the colon, what is after the colon does not 'explain' or 'illustrate' it.

When considering the 'grammar of the language', you must take into account the factors that affect the usage of the language.

You are thinking in terms of modern English; I am thinking in terms of the 'middle' English that the KJB was written in - back at the time (during the 'era') that it was written.

If you are going to read and study the KJB, you must do so with an understanding of the 'grammar of the language'. (Which you should naturally obtain more-and-more as you read and study it more-and-more.)

The thing you say "cannot be" is found throughout scripture - not just in this one verse. And, that is okay - because - it is "perfectly normal" in the "practical usage" of that language.

Again...

How does the last part of verse 26 (after the colon) "explain or illustrate" the first part of verse 26 (before the colon)?

What is your answer?

Does not make sense, you say...?

That is because you are not properly interpreting the 'grammar of the language'.

When you learn to do that, it will make perfect sense.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Be careful how you answer someone.

You confused him by changing the context.

He was thinking in terms of the context of the wording of the passage - you answered from a much broader scope which was theological in nature.

You see how he responded...?

People may not always "catch on" to a shift in context away from the one they are focused on. If you must shift the context/focus, it is better to illustrate that to them in some way.

"Food for thought..."

You can’t take the reductionist approach by cutting out this passage and analyzing it word by word. To see the forest from the trees, and to truly understand the gravity and significance of this prophecy, it has to be put into a much broader theological context.

And the wording of that passage alone doesn’t suggest any Antichrist. As I explained, general Titus was the leader of the Roman legion that destroyed Jerusalem, if that “prince” were referring to him, then how did he confirm a covenant with many and break it after three and a half years afterwards in the next verse? That never happened in history. How does that make any sense?

 

[ombowstring]

When Israel returned to the promised land after the 70 years captivity, God said they would have to continue to pay the price of rebellion for 490 years. This would be completed when Jesus returned and ruled the world for 1000 years from David's throne.
Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new covenant that God would establish {please go and read the details}.
When God said he would establish a new covenant, it was a done deal. The only question is when it would be confirmed with the blood of a sacrifice.
God also said that after 483 years He would send the Messiah, the Prince, who would be cut off after three and a half years.
This was fulfilled at the baptism of Jesus when it was announced from Heaven that "This is my Son".
"HE", the Messiah the Prince, (Jesus) immediately began to confirm the new covenant with many just as verse 27 states.
If you will remember, Jesus only went to the Jews and instructed His disciples to do the same.
While Israel as a nation rejected the new covenant, many Jews accepted it.
HE, the Messiah the prince, would be cut off in the mist (near the middle) of the 70th week when HE went to the cross to seal the new covenant with His blood.
When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". The new covenant was sealed with His blood.
With the new covenant non sealed, the need for the sin (animal) sacrifices was not longer needed or was it accepted by the Father.
To continue to offer sacrifices was an abomination to God because if was open rebellion against the new covenant that had been sealed with the blood of His son.
This abomination is what brought about the judgment of Jerusalem, the temple, and the nation being totally destroyed at the hand of the "people of the prince"( Vespasian's army under the comm and of his son Titus).
Daniel 12 speaks of 1290, and 1260 days remaining from the death of Jesus until He returns to rule from David's throne for 1000 years. This is the last half of the 70th week.
I believe the 1290 is the time of the anti-christ from the time he is identified (when he stand up after the head wound) until Jesus returns.
I believe 1260 is the time that Israel is in the wilderness protected by God for 1260 days and coincides with the time the anti-christ makes war on the saints.
The 1335 days is the time from the identifying of the antichrist until the the completion of the seals, trumps and bowls, with the seven bowls of God's wrath being poured out during the last 45 days of the 1335 after Jesus returns.

I am sure most if not all will disagree, but that is my understanding.
The point is that the anti-christ will come.
He will bring great tribulation.
Jesus will return, the anti-christ and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire.
God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked.
Jesus will rule from David's throne for 1000 years.

Where did you get these ideas? Did you come up with these theories on your own? It's impossible for me to comment on your thoughts point by point because there's no way for me to verify all that I would agree or disagree with. But I can say some things.

You wrote, "Daniel 12 speaks of 1290, and 1260 days remaining from the death of Jesus until He returns to rule from David's throne for 1000 years." It's been over 2000 years since the Crucifixion, which is a lot more time than 1290 + 1260 = 2550 days. Are you saying that Jesus has returned and is ruling on David's throne? Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the Father as I understand it.

Matthew 24 is an exact foretelling of the Book of Revelation. My understanding is that the last week, the last 7 years, begins when Israel signs a peace treaty with 666. Then the beginning of sorrows commences. Matthew 24:4-8 - "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows."

Matthew 24:9-14 - "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The Scripture above occurs in the first 3 1/2 years of the tribulation period. The beginning of the Great Tribulation is foretold in Matthew 24:15 - "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)". My understanding is the abomination of desolation is the image of the beast that people must worship or be killed. This ushers in the last 3 1/2 years of the 7 year period known as the last days when the worst horrors described in Revelation are unleashed. It's impossible to pinpoint exactly when the Rapture occurs, but it is described here: Matthew 24:29 - 31
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Again, I recommend Rosenthal's book, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, to delve more deeply into these matters. It's been a number of years since I read the book and I'm pointing out only a few of my thoughts about the end times.

 

[RichMan]

Where did you get these ideas? Did you come up with these theories on your own? It's impossible for me to comment on your thoughts point by point because there's no way for me to verify all that I would agree or disagree with. But I can say some things.

You wrote, "Daniel 12 speaks of 1290, and 1260 days remaining from the death of Jesus until He returns to rule from David's throne for 1000 years." It's been over 2000 years since the Crucifixion, which is a lot more time than 1290 + 1260 = 2550 days. Are you saying that Jesus has returned and is ruling on David's throne? Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the Father as I understand it.

Matthew 24 is an exact foretelling of the Book of Revelation. My understanding is that the last week, the last 7 years, begins when Israel signs a peace treaty with 666. Then the beginning of sorrows commences. Matthew 24:4-8 - "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows."

Matthew 24:9-14 - "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The Scripture above occurs in the first 3 1/2 years of the tribulation period. The beginning of the Great Tribulation is foretold in Matthew 24:15 - "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand". My understanding is the abomination of desolation is the image of the beast that people must worship or be killed. This ushers in the last 3 1/2 years of the 7 year period known as the last days when the worst horrors described in Revelation are unleashed. It's impossible to pinpoint exactly when the Rapture occurs, but it is described here: Matthew 24:29 - 31
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Again, I recommend Rosenthal's book, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church, to delve more deeply into these matters. It's been a number of years since I read the book and I'm pointing out only a few of my thoughts about the end times.

I failed to mention that at the death of Jesus, the time of the 70th week was suspended and will resume at the reveling of the anti-christ.
The first half of the 70th week is the three and an half year ministry of Jesus and the second half is the 1290 days of the anti-christ reign.
The reign of the anti-christ is 1290 days. He will drive Israel into the wilderness after 30 days where they will be protected by God for 1260 days.

So you believe that the three and a half year ministry of Jesus where he presented Himself as the promised Messiah and confirmed the new convent with His blood is not part of the 70th week.
I believe it is.
When was Jesus announce as the Messiah?
What Scripture states that the anti-christ makes a seven year covent with Israel and what Scriptures states he breaks that covenant after three and an half years.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What Scripture states that the anti-christ makes a seven year covenant with Israel and what Scriptures states he breaks that covenant after three and an half years.

Keep digging and you will find out. There is buried treasure in them thar hills.

 

[RichMan]

Keep digging and you will find out. There is buried treasure in them thar hills.

The anti-christ is not mentioned in Daniel 9.
If I missed it please point out what verse he is mentioned in.

 

[RichMan]

Keep digging and you will find out. There is buried treasure in them thar hills.

Point out where I missed it.

 

[Beckie]

The anti-christ is not mentioned in Daniel 9.
If I missed it please point out what verse he is mentioned in.

IS antichrist mentioned in The Revelation of Jesus Christ?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Point out where I missed it.

What's the fun in that? Prospectors love finding nuggets on their own.

 

[RichMan]

What's the fun in that? Prospectors love finding nuggets on their own.

Come on now. You can not show me because the anti-christ is not mentioned in Daniel 9.

 

[ombowstring]

I failed to mention that at the death of Jesus, the time of the 70th week was suspended and will resume at the reveling of the anti-christ.
The first half of the 70th week is the three and an half year ministry of Jesus and the second half is the 1290 days of the anti-christ reign.
The reign of the anti-christ is 1290 days. He will drive Israel into the wilderness after 30 days where they will be protected by God for 1260 days.

So you believe that the three and a half year ministry of Jesus where he presented Himself as the promised Messiah and confirmed the new convent with His blood is not part of the 70th week.
I believe it is.
When was Jesus announce as the Messiah?
What Scripture states that the anti-christ makes a seven year covent with Israel and what Scriptures states he breaks that covenant after three and an half years.

First of all, let me correct one statement that I made. It's been almost 2000 years since the Crucifixion, not over 2000 years.

No, I see no reason to believe that the 70th week, also known as "the time of Jacob's trouble", has anything to do with Jesus' ministry. I know of no Biblical justification for this view. This would be your interpretation, correct?

As I recall from reading Rosenthal, Daniel 9:27 - "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." is a reference to the treaty signed between Israel and 666 and is the time of the 70th week.

Again, I would have to read his book again to speak more authoritatively on what Rosenthal posited.

 

[RichMan]

First of all, let me correct one statement that I made. It's been almost 2000 years since the Crucifixion, not over 2000 years.

No, I see no reason to believe that the 70th week, also known as "the time of Jacob's trouble", has anything to do with Jesus' ministry. I know of no Biblical justification for this view. This would be your interpretation, correct?

As I recall from reading Rosenthal, Daniel 9:27 - "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." is a reference to the treaty signed between Israel and 666 and is the time of the 70th week.

Again, I would have to read his book again to speak more authoritatively on what Rosenthal posited.

Please show me Scripture that states the anti-christ signs a seven year treaty with Israel.
Please anyone show me Scripture.
It is not there.

 

[GaryA]

The post you quoted in the post I quoted in this post was only meant to be a little friendly advice pertaining to "answering" another user when quoting their post.

What does your post have to do with my post???

I am not against you.

It is not my intent to "attack" you in any way.

You can’t take the reductionist approach by cutting out this passage and analyzing it word by word. To see the forest from the trees, and to truly understand the gravity and significance of this prophecy, it has to be put into a much broader theological context.

I generally agree - forest and trees - multi-level scope - context context context - I understand quite well; however, all of that is beside the point...

My post was outside that scope of things.

His post involved confusion over the relationship between words in a verse or two of scripture.

Your answer totally "departed" from the context of his post.

All I am saying is - if you are going to do that - don't be too surprised at the responses you get...

If you are going to 'connect' with someone on the 'common ground' of understanding, then you would do better to start within the context of their post and "lead" them to the context of your post - by including the "leading" in your post. In other words, "help" them get to the place that/where you are making your discussion.

I hope this is making sense...

And the wording of that passage alone doesn’t suggest any Antichrist.

I agree 100%!

As I explained, general Titus was the leader of the Roman legion that destroyed Jerusalem, if that “prince” were referring to him, then how did he confirm a covenant with many and break it after three and a half years afterwards in the next verse? That never happened in history. How does that make any sense?

Please see post #130.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The post you quoted in the post I quoted in this post was only meant to be a little friendly advice pertaining to "answering" another user when quoting their post.

What does your post have to do with my post???

I am not against you.

It is not my intent to "attack" you in any way.


I generally agree - forest and trees - multi-level scope - context context context - I understand quite well; however, all of that is beside the point...

My post was outside that scope of things.

His post involved confusion over the relationship between words in a verse or two of scripture.

Your answer totally "departed" from the context of his post.

All I am saying is - if you are going to do that - don't be too surprised at the responses you get...

If you are going to 'connect' with someone on the 'common ground' of understanding, then you would do better to start within the context of their post and "lead" them to the context of your post - by including the "leading" in your post. In other words, "help" them get to the place that/where you are making your discussion.

I hope this is making sense...


I agree 100%!


Please see post #130.

I’m not against you either. I appreciate your agreement. I just thought that the wording of 9:26 is not confusing at all, nothing confusing about the grammar either. It’s unbelief for many people to accept that “people” of the same Messiah would come to destroy the sanctuary. That’s why it is necessary to see it in a much broader theological context.

 

[RichMan]

Come on boys and girls, you disagree with my belief that there is no Scripture that support a seven year treaty between the anti-christ and israel but no one has shown me the Scripture that proves what you believe.