Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[cv5]

The central error: redefining “this generation” to avoid the plain meaning of Jesus’ words
In Matthew 24:34, the Greek phrase is: ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη hē genea hautē “this generation.”
Not:
“that future generation,”
“the generation that sees the signs,”
“the end‑time generation,”
“the last generation,”
“the tribulation generation.”

Jesus uses this (αὕτη), not that (ἐκείνη).
Every time Jesus says “this generation” in Matthew,
He means His contemporaries:
Matthew 11:16
Matthew 12:41
Matthew 12:42
Matthew 12:45
Matthew 23:36
Matthew 24:34
There is not one exception.
To reinterpret “this generation” as “a future generation” is not exegesis—it is system‑preservation.
Jesus explicitly says: “When YOU see…” (Matthew 24:15)
“If THEY say to YOU…” (24:23)
“I have told YOU beforehand.” (24:25)
He is speaking to His disciples, not a distant future generation.
The shift to a future generation is theological, not textual.
The “great tribulation” did occur in the first century
Jesus defines it: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”Matthew 24:21
This is a quotation of Daniel 12:1, which explicitly ties the tribulation to:
the destruction of Jerusalem,
the end of the temple system,
and the shattering of the holy people (Daniel 12:7).
Jesus applies Daniel’s prophecy to His generation (Matthew 23:36; 24:15).
The tribulation Jesus describes matches:
the Roman siege of Jerusalem (AD 70),
the famine,
the cannibalism recorded by Josephus,
the slaughter of over a million Jews,
the destruction of the temple,
and the end of the sacrificial system.
This is exactly what Daniel foretold.
Jesus is quoting Isaiah 13, Isaiah 34, Joel 2, and Amos 8—all of which use cosmic imagery to describe historical judgments:
Babylon’s fall
Edom’s fall
Israel’s fall
Assyria’s fall
In prophetic literature:
“sun darkened” = political collapse
“stars falling” = rulers dethroned
“heavens shaken” = covenantal upheaval
Jesus is using prophetic idiom, not astronomical prediction.
“Immediately after the tribulation” refers to the same first‑century context.
Jesus says: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…”Matthew 24:29
Which days?
The days He just described:
the abomination of desolation,
the siege of Jerusalem,
the flight to the mountains,
the destruction of the temple.
All first‑century events.
The “coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:30 is a quotation of Daniel 7:13, which is not the Second Coming but the enthronement of the Messiah.
Jesus is describing His ascension and vindication, not His return.
The “gathering of the elect” is not the rapture.
Jesus is quoting Isaiah 27:13, which describes:
the gathering of God’s people
after judgment
into the new covenant community.
This is fulfilled in:
the global expansion of the gospel,
the ingathering of Jews and Gentiles,
the formation of the church.
It is not a rapture text.
The “seven‑year tribulation” is not in Matthew 24
Matthew 24 never mentions:
seven years,
a future temple,
a future Antichrist,
a future covenant,
a future 70th week.
Those ideas come from Darby (1830s), not Jesus.
Jesus meant exactly what He said:
“This generation” = His contemporaries.
The tribulation = the destruction of Jerusalem.
Cosmic signs = prophetic imagery of judgment.
The coming of the Son of Man = His enthronement.
The gathering of the elect = the expansion of the church.
The 70th week = fulfilled in Christ.
No seven‑year tribulation exists in Scripture.
You are not wrong to see future elements in Matthew 24—Jesus does shift to the Second Coming in verse 36—but the idea that verses 4–31 refer to a future generation is not supported by the Greek, the context, or the prophetic background.

Your assertions are..... preposterous.

And BTW, nobody made a covenant with anybody for ONE WEEK back then. This passage alone debunks this absurd notion of continuous 70 weeks.

[Dan 9:27 KJV] 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.

 

[OMC]

The assertion that Daniel 9 teaches a continuous, historically fulfilled 70 weeks collapses when subjected to strict, grammatical-historical exegesis. A precise reading of the Hebrew text, coupled with the broader prophetic framework of the Old and New Testaments, demonstrates that the 70th week cannot be history.

Fruchtenbaum and classical dispensationalism systematically dismantle the continuous-fulfillment theory by adhering to the precise chronological markers and unfulfilled national mandates embedded in the text.

The Exegetical Necessity of the Prophetic Gap
The continuous-fulfillment theory ignores the explicit textual sequence of Daniel 9:26. The text states that after the sixty-two weeks (which follow the initial seven, totaling 69 weeks or 483 years), two specific events must occur:
* "Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing." The crucifixion occurs after the 69th week, but the text distinctly avoids placing it inside the 70th week.
* "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." This was fulfilled in 70 AD by the Roman legions under Titus.

If the 70 weeks were strictly continuous, the 70th week would have ended 7 years after the crucifixion (around 37–40 AD). Yet, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred 40 years later. Daniel 9:26 places the destruction of the Temple in an unspecified interval between the 69th week and the 70th week (Daniel 9:27). This mathematically and historically necessitates a prophetic parenthesis—the Church Age (Ephesians 3:3–6).

The Six Unfulfilled Mandates (Daniel 9:24)
The angel Gabriel explicitly restricts the 490-year timeline to Daniel's people (ethnic Israel) and his holy city (Jerusalem). For the timeline to be complete, six specific conditions must be fully realized for Israel:
* To finish the transgression: Israel’s national rebellion against God.
* To make an end of sins: The cessation of national sin.
* To make reconciliation for iniquity: While the basis of this was accomplished at the cross, the application to the nation of Israel awaits their national regeneration (Zechariah 12:10, Romans 11:26).
* To bring in everlasting righteousness: The establishment of the Messianic Kingdom on earth (Jeremiah 23:5–6).
* To seal up vision and prophecy: The fulfillment of all Old Testament prophetic revelation.
* To anoint the most Holy: The consecration of the Millennial Temple described in Ezekiel 40–48.
Because Jerusalem was destroyed (not restored) and Israel was driven into the Diaspora (not brought into everlasting righteousness), these mandates remain unfulfilled. Therefore, the final seven years required to accomplish them must be future.

The Covenant and the "Prince Who is to Come"
Daniel 9:27 introduces a new action: "And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week."
* The Antecedent: Grammatically, the "he" refers back to the closest antecedent in verse 26—the "prince who is to come" (whose people, the Romans, destroyed the city). This identifies a future geopolitical ruler emerging from a revived Roman sphere, not Jesus Christ. Christ did not make a seven-year covenant with "the many" (the leadership of Israel) that he broke at the three-and-a-half-year mark.

* The Covenant with Death: Isaiah 28:15 and 28:18 describe this exact event as Israel making a "covenant with death" and an "agreement with Sheol" out of a false sense of security, which God will ultimately annul.

* The Abomination of Desolation: Daniel 9:27 states this ruler will cause sacrifices to cease in the middle of the week (after 3.5 years). In Matthew 24:15, Jesus places the Abomination of Desolation squarely in the future, warning the Jews of a coming tribulation. He could not have been referring to Antiochus Epiphanes (167 BC), nor was He referring to His own crucifixion, as He warned of a specific, visible desecration of a future rebuilt Temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
Revelation 5 and the Time of Jacob's Trouble
The unfulfilled 70th week of Daniel maps perfectly onto the eschatology of the Book of Revelation, which provides the precise mechanics for how this final week is executed.
Once the Church is removed from the earth (typified in Revelation 4:1), a legal transaction occurs in heaven. In Revelation 5, God the Father holds a scroll sealed with seven seals—the title deed to the earth. Only the Lion of the tribe of Judah is found worthy to break the seals and reclaim dominion.

* The Trigger (Revelation 6:1-2): When Christ breaks the first seal, a rider on a white horse goes forth conquering. This is not Christ, but the Antichrist, whose emergence perfectly aligns with the signing of the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27, starting the prophetic clock.

* The Time of Jacob's Trouble (Jeremiah 30:7): The ensuing judgments are explicitly designed to break the stubborn will of the nation of Israel. As Hosea 5:15 states, God will return to His place until they acknowledge their guilt and seek His face—"in their affliction they will seek me earnestly."

The Chronological Symmetry
If the 70th week were historically fulfilled in the first century, the highly specific numerical timelines in Revelation and Daniel make no sense. The scriptures repeatedly divide this future seven-year period into two perfect halves of 3.5 years (prophetic years of 360 days), matching the mid-point violation in Daniel 9:27:
* Daniel 7:25 & 12:7: "A time, times, and half a time" (3.5 years).
* Revelation 11:2 & 13:5: The Gentiles trample the holy city and the Beast exercises authority for "forty-two months."
* Revelation 11:3 & 12:6: The two witnesses prophesy and the woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness for "1,260 days."
The 70th week is a highly technical, mathematically precise, and prophetically mandated period strictly concerning Israel. To spiritualize it or collapse it into the first century requires abandoning the literal hermeneutic that accurately governed the exact fulfillment of the first 69 weeks.

Your argument reflects the classical dispensational reading with admirable precision, yet the decisive issue is hermeneutical: Daniel 9’s structure does not permit the 70th week to be absorbed into the first century without violating the text’s own sequencing. Grammatically, verse 26 forces an interval—events explicitly placed after the 69th week but before the 70th. Historically, those events (the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem) do not fit inside a seven‑year window. Theologically, the six mandates of Daniel 9:24 remain unrealized for national Israel, which means the prophetic clock has not finished. And syntactically, the “he” of verse 27 cannot be Christ without collapsing the antecedent structure of the Hebrew. Jesus Himself places the Abomination of Desolation in the future, not the past, and Revelation’s symmetrical 3.5‑year divisions align seamlessly with a future, not historical, 70th week. Thus, under strict grammatical‑historical exegesis, the gap is not an artificial insertion but a textual requirement, and the 70th week remains future

 

[GaryA]

If the 70 weeks were strictly continuous, the 70th week would have ended 7 years after the crucifixion (around 37–40 AD). Yet, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred 40 years later.

Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week - which ended in 34 A.D.

The timing of the 70 weeks in the context of the prophecy of Daniel has absolutely nothing to do with the specific year of the destruction of Jerusalem - it is outside the context of the prophecy where timing is concerned. Trying to tie the two things directly together in any timing sense is error. It is "apples and oranges" in that sense.

 

[cv5]

Your argument reflects the classical dispensational reading with admirable precision, yet the decisive issue is hermeneutical: Daniel 9’s structure does not permit the 70th week to be absorbed into the first century without violating the text’s own sequencing. Grammatically, verse 26 forces an interval—events explicitly placed after the 69th week but before the 70th. Historically, those events (the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem) do not fit inside a seven‑year window. Theologically, the six mandates of Daniel 9:24 remain unrealized for national Israel, which means the prophetic clock has not finished. And syntactically, the “he” of verse 27 cannot be Christ without collapsing the antecedent structure of the Hebrew. Jesus Himself places the Abomination of Desolation in the future, not the past, and Revelation’s symmetrical 3.5‑year divisions align seamlessly with a future, not historical, 70th week. Thus, under strict grammatical‑historical exegesis, the gap is not an artificial insertion but a textual requirement, and the 70th week remains future

Here let me help you:

The Church age commenced PRECISELY on Pentecost.

So how then can the brand new MYSTERY Church Age commence WITHIN the bounds of the supposedly continuous 70 weeks that is ENTIRELY meant ONLY for the NATION ISRAEL?

Well, it obviously does not. And as I have PROFUSELY pointed out time and time again, the 5 "UNTIL" passages prove my position as absolutely boilerplate! Not to mention the RESTORATION passages!

Frankly, this matter is sooooo utterly simple to rightly comprehend that I can only conclude that the detractors are utterly hopelessly clueless and woefully biblically illiterate.

 

[GaryA]

And BTW, nobody made a covenant with anybody for ONE WEEK back then.

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.

It is not that the covenant is for one week; rather, it is a confirmation of the [already-existing] covenant for one week.

Please see:

Seventy Weeks

 

[GaryA]

Your argument reflects the classical dispensational reading with admirable precision, yet the decisive issue is hermeneutical: Daniel 9’s structure does not permit the 70th week to be absorbed into the first century without violating the text’s own sequencing. Grammatically, verse 26 forces an interval—events explicitly placed after the 69th week but before the 70th. Historically, those events (the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem) do not fit inside a seven‑year window. Theologically, the six mandates of Daniel 9:24 remain unrealized for national Israel, which means the prophetic clock has not finished. And syntactically, the “he” of verse 27 cannot be Christ without collapsing the antecedent structure of the Hebrew. Jesus Himself places the Abomination of Desolation in the future, not the past, and Revelation’s symmetrical 3.5‑year divisions align seamlessly with a future, not historical, 70th week. Thus, under strict grammatical‑historical exegesis, the gap is not an artificial insertion but a textual requirement, and the 70th week remains future

Please see:

Seventy Weeks

 

[Lovette]

The assertion that Daniel 9 teaches a continuous, historically fulfilled 70 weeks collapses when subjected to strict, grammatical-historical exegesis. A precise reading of the Hebrew text, coupled with the broader prophetic framework of the Old and New Testaments, demonstrates that the 70th week cannot be history.

Fruchtenbaum and classical dispensationalism systematically dismantle the continuous-fulfillment theory by adhering to the precise chronological markers and unfulfilled national mandates embedded in the text.

The Exegetical Necessity of the Prophetic Gap
The continuous-fulfillment theory ignores the explicit textual sequence of Daniel 9:26. The text states that after the sixty-two weeks (which follow the initial seven, totaling 69 weeks or 483 years), two specific events must occur:
* "Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing." The crucifixion occurs after the 69th week, but the text distinctly avoids placing it inside the 70th week.
* "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." This was fulfilled in 70 AD by the Roman legions under Titus.

If the 70 weeks were strictly continuous, the 70th week would have ended 7 years after the crucifixion (around 37–40 AD). Yet, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred 40 years later. Daniel 9:26 places the destruction of the Temple in an unspecified interval between the 69th week and the 70th week (Daniel 9:27). This mathematically and historically necessitates a prophetic parenthesis—the Church Age (Ephesians 3:3–6).

The Six Unfulfilled Mandates (Daniel 9:24)
The angel Gabriel explicitly restricts the 490-year timeline to Daniel's people (ethnic Israel) and his holy city (Jerusalem). For the timeline to be complete, six specific conditions must be fully realized for Israel:
* To finish the transgression: Israel’s national rebellion against God.
* To make an end of sins: The cessation of national sin.
* To make reconciliation for iniquity: While the basis of this was accomplished at the cross, the application to the nation of Israel awaits their national regeneration (Zechariah 12:10, Romans 11:26).
* To bring in everlasting righteousness: The establishment of the Messianic Kingdom on earth (Jeremiah 23:5–6).
* To seal up vision and prophecy: The fulfillment of all Old Testament prophetic revelation.
* To anoint the most Holy: The consecration of the Millennial Temple described in Ezekiel 40–48.
Because Jerusalem was destroyed (not restored) and Israel was driven into the Diaspora (not brought into everlasting righteousness), these mandates remain unfulfilled. Therefore, the final seven years required to accomplish them must be future.

The Covenant and the "Prince Who is to Come"
Daniel 9:27 introduces a new action: "And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week."
* The Antecedent: Grammatically, the "he" refers back to the closest antecedent in verse 26—the "prince who is to come" (whose people, the Romans, destroyed the city). This identifies a future geopolitical ruler emerging from a revived Roman sphere, not Jesus Christ. Christ did not make a seven-year covenant with "the many" (the leadership of Israel) that he broke at the three-and-a-half-year mark.

* The Covenant with Death: Isaiah 28:15 and 28:18 describe this exact event as Israel making a "covenant with death" and an "agreement with Sheol" out of a false sense of security, which God will ultimately annul.

* The Abomination of Desolation: Daniel 9:27 states this ruler will cause sacrifices to cease in the middle of the week (after 3.5 years). In Matthew 24:15, Jesus places the Abomination of Desolation squarely in the future, warning the Jews of a coming tribulation. He could not have been referring to Antiochus Epiphanes (167 BC), nor was He referring to His own crucifixion, as He warned of a specific, visible desecration of a future rebuilt Temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
Revelation 5 and the Time of Jacob's Trouble
The unfulfilled 70th week of Daniel maps perfectly onto the eschatology of the Book of Revelation, which provides the precise mechanics for how this final week is executed.
Once the Church is removed from the earth (typified in Revelation 4:1), a legal transaction occurs in heaven. In Revelation 5, God the Father holds a scroll sealed with seven seals—the title deed to the earth. Only the Lion of the tribe of Judah is found worthy to break the seals and reclaim dominion.

* The Trigger (Revelation 6:1-2): When Christ breaks the first seal, a rider on a white horse goes forth conquering. This is not Christ, but the Antichrist, whose emergence perfectly aligns with the signing of the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27, starting the prophetic clock.

* The Time of Jacob's Trouble (Jeremiah 30:7): The ensuing judgments are explicitly designed to break the stubborn will of the nation of Israel. As Hosea 5:15 states, God will return to His place until they acknowledge their guilt and seek His face—"in their affliction they will seek me earnestly."

The Chronological Symmetry
If the 70th week were historically fulfilled in the first century, the highly specific numerical timelines in Revelation and Daniel make no sense. The scriptures repeatedly divide this future seven-year period into two perfect halves of 3.5 years (prophetic years of 360 days), matching the mid-point violation in Daniel 9:27:
* Daniel 7:25 & 12:7: "A time, times, and half a time" (3.5 years).
* Revelation 11:2 & 13:5: The Gentiles trample the holy city and the Beast exercises authority for "forty-two months."
* Revelation 11:3 & 12:6: The two witnesses prophesy and the woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness for "1,260 days."
The 70th week is a highly technical, mathematically precise, and prophetically mandated period strictly concerning Israel. To spiritualize it or collapse it into the first century requires abandoning the literal hermeneutic that accurately governed the exact fulfillment of the first 69 weeks.

The destruction of the temple is not limited to the 70 weeks, it just says "afterwards". It was determined that Jerusalem would be desolate until the end of time. There is no third temple or Faustian deal or any of that political thriller.

 

[Lovette]

If the 70 weeks were strictly continuous, the 70th week would have ended 7 years after the crucifixion (around 37–40 AD). Yet, the destruction of Jerusalem occurred 40 years later.

The destruction of Jerusalem was "determined" in both 9:26 and 9:27, as the "abomination of desolation," it was NOT limited in the 490 year timespan. These 490 years must be continuous as God's reprieval for the 70 years of exile, mentioned in 9:2. If you read Jeremiah, referenced in 9:2, you'd see that those 70 years were retribution for 70 missed shemitah years. Every seventh year was a shemitah year, the land should lay fallow, but that had been ignored for 70 shemitah years, Isarel owe the Holy Land 70 years of rest, mounting up to 7x70=490 years; therefore they were evicted from the land for 70 years. Daniel pleaded to God for mercy on Israel, God responded with another 490 years of restoration.

 

[cv5]

The destruction of the temple is not limited to the 70 weeks, it just says "afterwards". It was determined that Jerusalem would be desolate until the end of time. There is no third temple or Faustian deal or any of that political thriller.

Your theory is ridiculous, ignorant and infantile.

[Dan 9:24 KJV] 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (qodesh qodashim).

Within classical and revised dispensational theology, the phrase "to anoint the most Holy" in Daniel 9:24 is not a reference to Jesus Christ as a person, but rather a direct prophetic guarantee of a literal, physical, and perfectly holy future Temple in Jerusalem.

Scholars like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, John F. Walvoord, and R.B. Thieme Jr. rely on a strict historical-grammatical hermeneutic to prove that this prophecy mandates a future Millennial Temple (often classified as the Fourth Temple, succeeding the future desecrated Tribulation Temple).

Here is the structured proof utilizing the linguistic, contextual, and theological arguments of elite dispensational scholarship.

1. The Linguistic Proof: Qodesh Qodashim
The fundamental dispensational argument rests on the Hebrew phrase translated "the most Holy," which is qodesh qodashim (Holy of Holies).
* Never Applied to the Messiah: Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out that qodesh qodashim occurs nearly 40 times in the Old Testament. In its overwhelming usage, it refers exclusively to the innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle or Temple, or to the holy objects within it (Exodus 29:37; 40:10). It is not used as a title for a person. Therefore, translating it as a reference to Christ (as Covenant theologians often do) violates the consistent Old Testament usage of the term.

* The Act of Anointing: In the Law of Moses, the Tabernacle and its holy vessels were literally anointed with oil to consecrate them for divine service (Exodus 40:9-10). Dispensationalists argue that Daniel is predicting a future, ultimate consecration of a physical sanctuary.

2. The Contextual Proof: The Scope of Daniel 9
John F. Walvoord, in his authoritative commentary Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, argues that Daniel 9:24 sets the parameters for the entire "Seventy Weeks" prophecy.
* "Thy People and Thy Holy City": The angel Gabriel explicitly limits the prophecy to Daniel’s people (ethnic Israel) and Daniel’s holy city (literal Jerusalem). Because the context is strictly Jewish and geographic, the "most Holy" must be the geographical, spiritual center of Jerusalem: the Temple.

* The Six Culminating Goals: Daniel 9:24 lists six goals that must be accomplished by the end of the 70th week. The first three deal with the eradication of sin ("finish transgression," "make an end of sins," "make reconciliation"). The final three deal with the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom ("everlasting righteousness," "seal up vision and prophecy," "anoint the most Holy"). Because everlasting righteousness has not yet been brought to earth, the 70th week remains unfulfilled. Therefore, the anointing of the Holy of Holies must also be a future, literal event.

3. The Theological Proof: Why it MUST be a Future Temple
R.B. Thieme Jr. and J. Dwight Pentecost (Things to Come) emphasize the absolute necessity of literal fulfillment for the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.

* Failure of the Second Temple: The Second Temple (built by Zerubbabel and expanded by Herod) was never "anointed" in the eschatological sense, nor did the Shekinah Glory ever return to its Holy of Holies as it did in Solomon's Temple. Furthermore, it was destroyed in 70 AD, meaning it did not usher in "everlasting righteousness."

* Desecration of the Tribulation Temple: Dispensationalists teach that a Third Temple will be built during the 70th Week (the Tribulation), but this cannot be the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 because the Antichrist will desecrate it—the "Abomination of Desolation" (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15).

* The Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40–48): Because God’s promises to Israel are unconditional and literal, a perfect, holy sanctuary must exist during the Messianic Kingdom. Fruchtenbaum links Daniel 9:24 directly to the massive, highly detailed Temple described in Ezekiel 40-48. This Millennial Temple will be built by Christ Himself upon His return (Zechariah 6:12-13). It is this perfect sanctuary that will be officially "anointed" and consecrated as the dwelling place of the Shekinah Glory for the 1,000-year reign of Christ.

By applying a consistent literal interpretation to the Hebrew text and the immediate context of Daniel's prophecy, these scholars demonstrate that "anoint the most Holy" cannot be spiritualized into a reference to the Church or Christ’s baptism. It stands as a strict chronological marker: at the exact end of the 490 prophetic years, a perfectly holy physical Temple will be consecrated in Jerusalem for the Millennial Kingdom.

 

[OMC]

The Church age commenced PRECISELY on Pentecost.

So how then can the brand new MYSTERY Church Age commence WITHIN the bounds of the supposedly continuous 70 weeks that is ENTIRELY meant ONLY for the NATION ISRAEL?

Well, it obviously does not. And as I have PROFUSELY pointed out time and time again, the 5 "UNTIL" passages prove my position as absolutely boilerplate! Not to mention the RESTORATION passages!

Frankly, this matter is sooooo utterly simple to rightly comprehend that I can only conclude that the detractors are utterly hopelessly clueless and woefully biblically illiterate

You said: “Detractors are utterly hopelessly clueless and woefully biblically illiterate.”
Brother, this is where I must speak to you as a professor — not to correct your doctrine, but to correct your disposition.

Scripture forbids this attitude:​

• “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but gentle, patient, correcting with meekness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25).
• “If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know” (1 Cor. 8:2).
• “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1).
• “Restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1).
• “Speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

Your argument is strong. Your tone is not.
You are speaking as though your opponents are beneath you.
That is not the posture of a man who understands grace.

 

[Lovette]

Your theory is ridiculous, ignorant and infantile.

[Dan 9:24 KJV] 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (qodesh qodashim).

Within classical and revised dispensational theology, the phrase "to anoint the most Holy" in Daniel 9:24 is not a reference to Jesus Christ as a person, but rather a direct prophetic guarantee of a literal, physical, and perfectly holy future Temple in Jerusalem.

Scholars like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, John F. Walvoord, and R.B. Thieme Jr. rely on a strict historical-grammatical hermeneutic to prove that this prophecy mandates a future Millennial Temple (often classified as the Fourth Temple, succeeding the future desecrated Tribulation Temple).

Here is the structured proof utilizing the linguistic, contextual, and theological arguments of elite dispensational scholarship.

1. The Linguistic Proof: Qodesh Qodashim
The fundamental dispensational argument rests on the Hebrew phrase translated "the most Holy," which is qodesh qodashim (Holy of Holies).
* Never Applied to the Messiah: Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out that qodesh qodashim occurs nearly 40 times in the Old Testament. In its overwhelming usage, it refers exclusively to the innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle or Temple, or to the holy objects within it (Exodus 29:37; 40:10). It is not used as a title for a person. Therefore, translating it as a reference to Christ (as Covenant theologians often do) violates the consistent Old Testament usage of the term.

* The Act of Anointing: In the Law of Moses, the Tabernacle and its holy vessels were literally anointed with oil to consecrate them for divine service (Exodus 40:9-10). Dispensationalists argue that Daniel is predicting a future, ultimate consecration of a physical sanctuary.

2. The Contextual Proof: The Scope of Daniel 9
John F. Walvoord, in his authoritative commentary Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, argues that Daniel 9:24 sets the parameters for the entire "Seventy Weeks" prophecy.
* "Thy People and Thy Holy City": The angel Gabriel explicitly limits the prophecy to Daniel’s people (ethnic Israel) and Daniel’s holy city (literal Jerusalem). Because the context is strictly Jewish and geographic, the "most Holy" must be the geographical, spiritual center of Jerusalem: the Temple.

* The Six Culminating Goals: Daniel 9:24 lists six goals that must be accomplished by the end of the 70th week. The first three deal with the eradication of sin ("finish transgression," "make an end of sins," "make reconciliation"). The final three deal with the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom ("everlasting righteousness," "seal up vision and prophecy," "anoint the most Holy"). Because everlasting righteousness has not yet been brought to earth, the 70th week remains unfulfilled. Therefore, the anointing of the Holy of Holies must also be a future, literal event.

3. The Theological Proof: Why it MUST be a Future Temple
R.B. Thieme Jr. and J. Dwight Pentecost (Things to Come) emphasize the absolute necessity of literal fulfillment for the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.

* Failure of the Second Temple: The Second Temple (built by Zerubbabel and expanded by Herod) was never "anointed" in the eschatological sense, nor did the Shekinah Glory ever return to its Holy of Holies as it did in Solomon's Temple. Furthermore, it was destroyed in 70 AD, meaning it did not usher in "everlasting righteousness."

* Desecration of the Tribulation Temple: Dispensationalists teach that a Third Temple will be built during the 70th Week (the Tribulation), but this cannot be the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 because the Antichrist will desecrate it—the "Abomination of Desolation" (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15).

* The Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40–48): Because God’s promises to Israel are unconditional and literal, a perfect, holy sanctuary must exist during the Messianic Kingdom. Fruchtenbaum links Daniel 9:24 directly to the massive, highly detailed Temple described in Ezekiel 40-48. This Millennial Temple will be built by Christ Himself upon His return (Zechariah 6:12-13). It is this perfect sanctuary that will be officially "anointed" and consecrated as the dwelling place of the Shekinah Glory for the 1,000-year reign of Christ.

By applying a consistent literal interpretation to the Hebrew text and the immediate context of Daniel's prophecy, these scholars demonstrate that "anoint the most Holy" cannot be spiritualized into a reference to the Church or Christ’s baptism. It stands as a strict chronological marker: at the exact end of the 490 prophetic years, a perfectly holy physical Temple will be consecrated in Jerusalem for the Millennial Kingdom.

Then your dispensational theology is erroneous, not only the gap, you have to invent all those political thriller and third temple stuffs to make it work, none of that was implied in the text. The only temple standing is the body temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[OMC]

Your theory is ridiculous, ignorant and infantile.

[Dan 9:24 KJV] 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (qodesh qodashim).

Within classical and revised dispensational theology, the phrase "to anoint the most Holy" in Daniel 9:24 is not a reference to Jesus Christ as a person, but rather a direct prophetic guarantee of a literal, physical, and perfectly holy future Temple in Jerusalem.

Scholars like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, John F. Walvoord, and R.B. Thieme Jr. rely on a strict historical-grammatical hermeneutic to prove that this prophecy mandates a future Millennial Temple (often classified as the Fourth Temple, succeeding the future desecrated Tribulation Temple).

Here is the structured proof utilizing the linguistic, contextual, and theological arguments of elite dispensational scholarship.

1. The Linguistic Proof: Qodesh Qodashim
The fundamental dispensational argument rests on the Hebrew phrase translated "the most Holy," which is qodesh qodashim (Holy of Holies).
* Never Applied to the Messiah: Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out that qodesh qodashim occurs nearly 40 times in the Old Testament. In its overwhelming usage, it refers exclusively to the innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle or Temple, or to the holy objects within it (Exodus 29:37; 40:10). It is not used as a title for a person. Therefore, translating it as a reference to Christ (as Covenant theologians often do) violates the consistent Old Testament usage of the term.

* The Act of Anointing: In the Law of Moses, the Tabernacle and its holy vessels were literally anointed with oil to consecrate them for divine service (Exodus 40:9-10). Dispensationalists argue that Daniel is predicting a future, ultimate consecration of a physical sanctuary.

2. The Contextual Proof: The Scope of Daniel 9
John F. Walvoord, in his authoritative commentary Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, argues that Daniel 9:24 sets the parameters for the entire "Seventy Weeks" prophecy.
* "Thy People and Thy Holy City": The angel Gabriel explicitly limits the prophecy to Daniel’s people (ethnic Israel) and Daniel’s holy city (literal Jerusalem). Because the context is strictly Jewish and geographic, the "most Holy" must be the geographical, spiritual center of Jerusalem: the Temple.

* The Six Culminating Goals: Daniel 9:24 lists six goals that must be accomplished by the end of the 70th week. The first three deal with the eradication of sin ("finish transgression," "make an end of sins," "make reconciliation"). The final three deal with the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom ("everlasting righteousness," "seal up vision and prophecy," "anoint the most Holy"). Because everlasting righteousness has not yet been brought to earth, the 70th week remains unfulfilled. Therefore, the anointing of the Holy of Holies must also be a future, literal event.

3. The Theological Proof: Why it MUST be a Future Temple
R.B. Thieme Jr. and J. Dwight Pentecost (Things to Come) emphasize the absolute necessity of literal fulfillment for the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.

* Failure of the Second Temple: The Second Temple (built by Zerubbabel and expanded by Herod) was never "anointed" in the eschatological sense, nor did the Shekinah Glory ever return to its Holy of Holies as it did in Solomon's Temple. Furthermore, it was destroyed in 70 AD, meaning it did not usher in "everlasting righteousness."

* Desecration of the Tribulation Temple: Dispensationalists teach that a Third Temple will be built during the 70th Week (the Tribulation), but this cannot be the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 because the Antichrist will desecrate it—the "Abomination of Desolation" (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15).

* The Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40–48): Because God’s promises to Israel are unconditional and literal, a perfect, holy sanctuary must exist during the Messianic Kingdom. Fruchtenbaum links Daniel 9:24 directly to the massive, highly detailed Temple described in Ezekiel 40-48. This Millennial Temple will be built by Christ Himself upon His return (Zechariah 6:12-13). It is this perfect sanctuary that will be officially "anointed" and consecrated as the dwelling place of the Shekinah Glory for the 1,000-year reign of Christ.

By applying a consistent literal interpretation to the Hebrew text and the immediate context of Daniel's prophecy, these scholars demonstrate that "anoint the most Holy" cannot be spiritualized into a reference to the Church or Christ’s baptism. It stands as a strict chronological marker: at the exact end of the 490 prophetic years, a perfectly holy physical Temple will be consecrated in Jerusalem for the Millennial Kingdom.

Your argument is strong enough to stand without calling anyone “ridiculous, ignorant, or infantile.” That tone weakens your case, not strengthens it.

 

[cv5]

You said: “Detractors are utterly hopelessly clueless and woefully biblically illiterate.”
Brother, this is where I must speak to you as a professor — not to correct your doctrine, but to correct your disposition.

Scripture forbids this attitude:​

• “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but gentle, patient, correcting with meekness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25).
• “If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know” (1 Cor. 8:2).
• “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1).
• “Restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1).
• “Speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

Your argument is strong. Your tone is not.
You are speaking as though your opponents are beneath you.
That is not the posture of a man who understands grace.

Facts are facts. Sorry fake sorry.

And before you start proffering false prophetical analysis, first do your homework. Because you are waaayyyy behind in class.

 

[cv5]

Your argument is strong enough to stand without calling anyone “ridiculous, ignorant, or infantile.” That tone weakens your case, not strengthens it.

Look man, we have more than enough referees and attitude coaches around here who want to be the boss of somebody. So quit wasting keystrokes.

Rather, get to work determining where you went off the rails and ended up in the weeds on your prophecy interpretation.

 

[OMC]

Facts are facts. Sorry fake sorry

The Core Issue: You’re Right About the Data, But Wrong About the Delivery.
Your exposition of qōdesh qodāshîm, Daniel 9:24, the 70 Weeks, the Millennial Temple, and the dispensational hermeneutic is academically legitimate. You cited:
Fruchtenbaum
Walvoord
Thieme
Pentecost
These are not fringe voices. They are the backbone of classical and revised dispensational scholarship.

Your argument is not the problem.
Your attitude is.
You can say: “The Hebrew text demands this interpretation.”
But you cannot say: “Anyone who disagrees is infantile.”
Confidence is biblical.
Contempt is fleshly.

You said: “Facts are facts. Sorry fake sorry.”
That’s not confidence.
That’s dismissal.

You said: “Ridiculous, ignorant, infantile.”
That’s not boldness.
That’s derision.

You said: “Hopelessly clueless and biblically illiterate.”
That’s not clarity. That’s contempt.

You may not care. But Scripture does.
Your attitude may not bother you, but Scripture says it does bother God.

 

[cv5]

The destruction of Jerusalem was "determined" in both 9:26 and 9:27, as the "abomination of desolation," it was NOT limited in the 490 year timespan. These 490 years must be continuous as God's reprieval for the 70 years of exile, mentioned in 9:2. If you read Jeremiah, referenced in 9:2, you'd see that those 70 years were retribution for 70 missed shemitah years. Every seventh year was a shemitah year, the land should lay fallow, but that had been ignored for 70 shemitah years, Isarel owe the Holy Land 70 years of rest, mounting up to 7x70=490 years; therefore they were evicted from the land for 70 years. Daniel pleaded to God for mercy on Israel, God responded with another 490 years of restoration.

The assumption that the 490 years must run continuously because they are a "reprieval" for the 70 years of exile fails both historically and exegetically.

Dispensational scholars demonstrate that linking the continuous nature of the past Babylonian exile to the future 70 Weeks prophecy ignores the explicit textual divisions Gabriel provided to Daniel.

1. The Pre-Prophecy Gap (Alva J. McClain)
If the 490 years were an immediate, continuous "reprieval" for the 70 years of exile (Daniel 9:2), the countdown would have started the exact moment the 70-year exile ended. It did not.
Alva J. McClain points out that Gabriel explicitly delayed the start of the 490-year clock. Daniel 9:25 states the timeline only begins "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." The 70-year exile ended when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild the Temple (around 538 BC). However, the decree to rebuild the city and walls of Jerusalem did not occur until Artaxerxes issued it to Nehemiah in 444/445 BC (Nehemiah 2).
This creates a nearly century-long gap between the end of the 70-year exile and the start of the 70 Weeks. The 490 years cannot be a mathematically continuous extension of the 70 years because God intentionally inserted a historical gap before the prophetic clock even started ticking.

2. The Intentional Division of the Timeline (John F. Walvoord)
A continuous, uninterrupted 490-year timeline contradicts the structure of the prophecy itself. John F. Walvoord emphasizes that Gabriel did not present the 70 weeks as a single block of time. He deliberately divided it into three distinct segments: 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and 1 week (7 years).
If the fulfillment was meant to be an unbroken continuum, breaking it into three blocks would be entirely unnecessary. Walvoord argues that this segmentation was provided specifically to accommodate the prophetic gap (the Church Age) between the 69th and 70th weeks. The Jewish prophetic clock runs during the first 69 weeks, stops at the rejection of the Messiah, and will resume for the final 7 years once God resumes His direct national dealings with Israel during the Tribulation.

3. The Exegetical Proof of the Gap in Verse 26 (Arnold Fruchtenbaum)
Arnold Fruchtenbaum proves that a gap between the 69th and 70th week is not a theological invention, but a strict grammatical necessity driven by the word "after" in Daniel 9:26.
The prophecy establishes a rigid sequence of events:
* Verse 25: The 69 weeks (483 years) run their course until the appearance of the Messiah.
* Verse 26: After the 69 weeks, two specific events occur: the Messiah is "cut off" (the crucifixion in ~33 AD), and the city and sanctuary are destroyed (by Rome in 70 AD).
* Verse 27: The 70th week (the final 7 years) begins when the Antichrist confirms a covenant with Israel.
Because the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD happened almost 40 years after the crucifixion, these two events could not possibly fit into the 7 years of the 70th week. Fruchtenbaum notes that Daniel 9:26 places the crucifixion and the destruction of the city in a textual "no man's land"—they happen after the 69th week, but before the 70th week begins in verse 27.

By forcing the 490 years to be continuous, the author must completely ignore the chronological realities of verse 26, effectively placing the destruction of Jerusalem either outside the prophecy altogether or cramming decades of history into a 7-year window. The text demands a gap; the continuous fulfillment theory breaks the text to avoid one.

 

[cv5]

The Core Issue: You’re Right About the Data, But Wrong About the Delivery.
Your exposition of qōdesh qodāshîm, Daniel 9:24, the 70 Weeks, the Millennial Temple, and the dispensational hermeneutic is academically legitimate. You cited:
Fruchtenbaum
Walvoord
Thieme
Pentecost
These are not fringe voices. They are the backbone of classical and revised dispensational scholarship.

Your argument is not the problem.
Your attitude is.
You can say: “The Hebrew text demands this interpretation.”
But you cannot say: “Anyone who disagrees is infantile.”
Confidence is biblical.
Contempt is fleshly.

You said: “Facts are facts. Sorry fake sorry.”
That’s not confidence.
That’s dismissal.

You said: “Ridiculous, ignorant, infantile.”
That’s not boldness.
That’s derision.

You said: “Hopelessly clueless and biblically illiterate.”
That’s not clarity. That’s contempt.

You may not care. But Scripture does.
Your attitude may not bother you, but Scripture says it does bother God.

You have an attitude problem: you are hyper critical of "tone" that you don't seem to like much.

Please seek whatever remedy that you would like.

As for me, I could care less about your attitude or anyone else's.

I'm here to talk turkey friend. And nothing else.

BTW, these detractors are getting absolutely wrecked, and it is glorious to behold. Because of course God's prophetic Word is being Glorified as true and infallible despite their best efforts to the contrary!

 

[OMC]

And BTW, nobody made a covenant with anybody for ONE WEEK back then. This passage alone debunks this absurd notion of continuous 70 weeks.

[Dan 9:27 KJV] 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.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of historical fact and textual structure.

Daniel 9:27 says: “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
There is zero historical record of:
Jesus making a 7‑year covenant
The apostles making a 7‑year covenant
Israel making a 7‑year covenant
Rome making a 7‑year covenant
Any ruler making a 7‑year covenant
Any covenant being broken at the 3.5‑year mark
Nothing in the first century matches Daniel’s description.

This alone destroys the continuous‑70‑weeks theory.

The grammar of Daniel 9:27 forbids applying the covenant to Christ.
The antecedent of “he” is: “the prince that shall come” (v. 26)
Not the Messiah.

This is basic Hebrew syntax:
The nearest antecedent controls the pronoun.
The “prince” is the subject of the previous clause.
The Messiah is not the subject of the previous clause.

Therefore: “He shall confirm the covenant”= the prince of the people who destroyed Jerusalem= a future ruler from the Roman sphere= not Jesus Christ
This is not dispensational bias. It is grammar.

The covenant is political, not salvific.
Christ did not:
make a political covenant
with Israel’s leaders
for seven years
that He then broke
causing sacrifices to cease
and triggering abominations
Every element of the text contradicts the idea that Christ is the covenant‑maker.

The cessation of sacrifice cannot refer to Christ’s death.
Daniel says: “In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.”
But historically:
Sacrifices continued until 70 AD.
They did not cease at Christ’s death.
They did not cease 3.5 years after Christ’s ministry.
They ceased when the Temple was destroyed.
Therefore: The cessation of sacrifice is not the crucifixion.
It is the abomination of desolation.
Jesus Himself confirms this in Matthew 24:15.

The abomination of desolation is future, not past.
Jesus places the abomination:
after His earthly ministry
before His second coming
during a time of unprecedented tribulation
in a future Temple
This alone proves: Daniel 9:27 was not fulfilled in the first century.
The structure of Daniel 9 requires a gap.
Daniel 9:26 explicitly says:
Messiah is cut off after the 69th week
Jerusalem is destroyed after the 69th week
These events occur before the 70th week
But they do not occur inside the 70th week
This creates an interval between week 69 and week 70.
This interval is the Church Age.
Your point is correct: The Church Age cannot begin inside a timeline decreed exclusively for Israel.
The covenant of Daniel 9:27 is the trigger for the 70th week.
The 70th week begins when: “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
Since no such covenant occurred in the first century:
the 70th week did not begin
the 70th week did not run
the 70th week did not end
the 70th week is still future
This is airtight.
Did I miss anything?

 

[Lovette]

The assumption that the 490 years must run continuously because they are a "reprieval" for the 70 years of exile fails both historically and exegetically.

Dispensational scholars demonstrate that linking the continuous nature of the past Babylonian exile to the future 70 Weeks prophecy ignores the explicit textual divisions Gabriel provided to Daniel.

1. The Pre-Prophecy Gap (Alva J. McClain)
If the 490 years were an immediate, continuous "reprieval" for the 70 years of exile (Daniel 9:2), the countdown would have started the exact moment the 70-year exile ended. It did not.
Alva J. McClain points out that Gabriel explicitly delayed the start of the 490-year clock. Daniel 9:25 states the timeline only begins "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." The 70-year exile ended when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild the Temple (around 538 BC). However, the decree to rebuild the city and walls of Jerusalem did not occur until Artaxerxes issued it to Nehemiah in 444/445 BC (Nehemiah 2).
This creates a nearly century-long gap between the end of the 70-year exile and the start of the 70 Weeks. The 490 years cannot be a mathematically continuous extension of the 70 years because God intentionally inserted a historical gap before the prophetic clock even started ticking.

2. The Intentional Division of the Timeline (John F. Walvoord)
A continuous, uninterrupted 490-year timeline contradicts the structure of the prophecy itself. John F. Walvoord emphasizes that Gabriel did not present the 70 weeks as a single block of time. He deliberately divided it into three distinct segments: 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and 1 week (7 years).
If the fulfillment was meant to be an unbroken continuum, breaking it into three blocks would be entirely unnecessary. Walvoord argues that this segmentation was provided specifically to accommodate the prophetic gap (the Church Age) between the 69th and 70th weeks. The Jewish prophetic clock runs during the first 69 weeks, stops at the rejection of the Messiah, and will resume for the final 7 years once God resumes His direct national dealings with Israel during the Tribulation.

3. The Exegetical Proof of the Gap in Verse 26 (Arnold Fruchtenbaum)
Arnold Fruchtenbaum proves that a gap between the 69th and 70th week is not a theological invention, but a strict grammatical necessity driven by the word "after" in Daniel 9:26.
The prophecy establishes a rigid sequence of events:
* Verse 25: The 69 weeks (483 years) run their course until the appearance of the Messiah.
* Verse 26: After the 69 weeks, two specific events occur: the Messiah is "cut off" (the crucifixion in ~33 AD), and the city and sanctuary are destroyed (by Rome in 70 AD).
* Verse 27: The 70th week (the final 7 years) begins when the Antichrist confirms a covenant with Israel.
Because the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD happened almost 40 years after the crucifixion, these two events could not possibly fit into the 7 years of the 70th week. Fruchtenbaum notes that Daniel 9:26 places the crucifixion and the destruction of the city in a textual "no man's land"—they happen after the 69th week, but before the 70th week begins in verse 27.

By forcing the 490 years to be continuous, the author must completely ignore the chronological realities of verse 26, effectively placing the destruction of Jerusalem either outside the prophecy altogether or cramming decades of history into a 7-year window. The text demands a gap; the continuous fulfillment theory breaks the text to avoid one.

There's no antichrist in this prophecy, it's inserted into it by your false 7-year tribulation narrative. And your calculation is wrong, the period was counted from the decree of rebuilding the city, explicitly mentioned in 9:25. The end of sacrifice was fulfilled by Jesus on the cross, for he was the ultimate sacrifice. God had had enough of animal sacrifice, see Is. 1:11.

And once again, 70AD was never meant to be put into the 70 weeks framework, it only says that desolation was "determined". Nothing about the third temple, antichrist or faustian deal was remotely implied, you have to make up all those stuffs to complete your narrative.

 

[OMC]

As for me, I could care less about your attitude or anyone else's.

I'm here to talk turkey friend. And nothing else

You may not care about tone.You may not care about delivery.You may not care about how others receive you.
But Scripture does.
And Scripture does not give you the option to detach your manner from your message.
You can choose not to care.You cannot choose to make it irrelevant.