Featured Help with Daniel's 69 weeks

I do not think I can be much help. I have more questions than answers. However, one thing that stands out to me is that verse 26 says, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off..." To me that seems to put the crucifixion after the sixty-nine weeks of years (7 + 62), and sometime into the seventieth week. If so, that would make it hard for the birth of Christ to be at the end of the 69th week, since he was over thirty years of age when he was crucified.

 

Philip Mauro....the 70th week of Daniel 9

 

Well, there are a few issues.
1) Having a correct archaeological date for the beginning of the 69 weeks being interperted as weeks of years.
2) How the weeks of years are interperted and so to be calculated.

The calculation I used. 7 times 69. Based on the assumption of 360 day years. 483 times 360. To convert to our years by dividing by 365.25 days. 173880 divided by 365.25. Gives me 476 years to the crucifixion. So using 30 AD and subtracting 476 years I get a -446 AD. Converting this to BC becomes 447 BC. The archaeological date that I had was 445 BC. I do not have my references here at this moment. I intend to post that info later today.

 

Get Sir Robert Anderson's book the coming prince. It is at least worth a read.

 

However, two of the things determined in the Seventy Weeks is to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity (cf. Hebrews 2:17). If that is not the work accomplished when Messiah was cut off, what is it? If it is, however, many common dispensational theories put the crucifixion outside of the Seventy Weeks.

One of his books is The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. It can be previewed on Google HERE.

 

Daniel 9:26 while not proving the time gap between the 69th and 70th week it certainly allows for it since the prince that is to come will come from the people that will (future) destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The inference being that there would also be some time from the destruction to the unveiling of the prince. It would also take time for that prince to make the covenant with the many vs. 27 which also requires a temple and a sacrificial system. The covenant is broken at the mid way point of the covenant. Since there is no such covenant in history it is still in the future so the gap continues.

 

I do not know, but I would doubt it.

 

You doubt correctly. Mauro lands it “at the Lord’s baptism.” From p 29 in link below:

It is clear, therefore, in the light of Scripture that the 483 years “unto the Messiah” terminated at the Lord’s baptism, when His ministry as “the Messiah” began. Moreover, the prophecy itself furnishes a means whereby we can check up our conclusions thus far, and test their correctness. To this we will refer later on. The terms of the prophecy make it plain that the expiration of the sixty-ninth week would bring the fulfillment, of the greatest of all promises, the manifestation of Christ to Israel; and we have now shown that the records of the New Testament mark the era of His manifestation with the utmost precision.​

https://asrmartins.b-cdn.net/wp-con...enty-Weeks-and-the-Great-Tribulation-1923.pdf

 

No I wish I could help but haven't even heard of anyone trying to make the case in the OP.

 

I had not known that. And the BC year used was 444BC which calculates the 33AD date. [Historically and Biblical bad]

What connection do you see or had heard between the 69 weeks and the birth of Christ?