490 YEARS DONE!!!!!

Where does Daniel 9 address the start of Messiah's ministry? The only thing it says about the Messiah is that he is cut off. It says nothing about the start.

This is a huge problem you will not reckon with. The covenant of Matthew 28 is made by Christ one day before he ends sacrifices by his death. Dna 9 specifies that the covenant is made 3 1/2 years before the end of sacrifices. How do you reconcile that?

That doesn't even take into account that the covenant of Dan 9 isn't made by Messiah anyway, but rather by the prince who is to come.

That simply isn't true. We have a clear place for the cross of Christ right where Daniel put it ... at the end of hte 69 weeks when Messiah is cut off. The cross is clearly there.

Bob, these problems are huge and you keep ignoring them. Why?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan 9-26 And after threescore and two weeks ( this is the 3 1/2 years that Jesus preached the good news before He was crucified) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at the 490 year timeline carefully.


quote]
Daniel 9:
25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
[/quote]

7 weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (434 years) is 483 years. So it is 483 years from the start of the 490 year timeline to the introduction of the Messiah (the annointed one) - Christ's baptism.

Christ is the anointed one – anointed by the Holy Spirit.

And so when Christ begins His ministry He announced that prophetic time regarding the Messiah is fulfilled --

Mark 1:15 - "The Kingdom of God is at hand - the time is fulfilled"

And so begins Christ's 3.5 year ministry in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

So far the exact matching anti-type fulfillment in the NT is far more "explicit" in fulfilling the prophetic components of Daniel 9 - using this explicit and direct approach - than all other proposed solutions. None of them contain the direct references and language for Daniel 9 as we have seen here so far.

But here is where the chop-and-toss model stops and goes off to an undefined number of years in the future == leaving the ministry of Christ and the Cross of Christ completely -- EVEN though both are mentioned in the 490 year timeline!

But what happens "after the 483 years" - "after the 69 weeks" - "after the 7 plus 62 weeks" of prophetic time?

Again - using the Explicit language of the text - instead of the suppositions so common today.


Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,

Here is the explicit statement - AFTER the 483 years - that lead us TO the ministry of the Messiah - the next thing is the continuation of that timeline AFTER the 483 to the time of the Messiah's death. He is "cut off" from the living.

Isaiah 53
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

Instead of pointing us to an undefined gap of time as the event that follows "AFTER" the 69 weeks - Daniel's prophecy Continues on the SAME timeline - through the 490 years timeline. The 69 weeks takes us TO the advent of the Messiah and then After that 483 year boundary - comes the events of the Messiah in that last week - in the last 7 years in the week that follows the 69th week -- and what follows is the cross.

The Bible is clear on this - just at the point that a few want to argue "then AFTER the 69 weeks is a huge undefined gap of time".

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are no gaps in the timeline if you leave it intact as we do. It runs for 490 years and ends. The events of the destruction of Jerusalem are beyond the timeline. Your criticism may be that we have not included the destruction of Jerusalem in the 490 years -- but neither have you and even worse you have also omitted the cross and the work of Christ in confirming the New Covenant. The elements left out of your 490 year timeline are massive by comparison to our pointing out that the destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in Dan 9 is an event that goes beyond the 490 year timeline.

However to our credit the text does not say "490 years have been determined before the destructin of your city".

Rather there is a 'decree' of Christ given in Matt 23 about the city being left desolate that IS pronounced IN that 490 year timeline -- but the actual desolation does not happen until 70 ad about 35 years after the timeline ends.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. The text shows 483 years "until the Messiah" not - "until the Messiah is cut off".

#2. The text says that the Messiah is 'cut off' - AFTER the 483 years but not in that 483 year section. Since we don't chop up the timeline - that means the Messiah must be cut off in the week following that 693 week - but still IN the 490 year timeline.

#3.Galatians 1:6-9 tells us that there has been only one gospel. And the message of the New Covenant alone is life, forgiveness and restored fellowship with God as we see it in Heb 8:8-12).

At the start of Christ's ministry we have the covenant "strengthened" in the form of the Long promised Messiah of the New Covenant finally arriving.

In the middle of "the week" of seven years we have the New Covenant "strengthened" in the form of the atoning sacrifice being made.

Then in the last 3.5 years we have it "strengthened" in the form of the full message of the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah preached in its fullness to the Hebrew nation church - the "Holy Nation" "Royal Priesthood" - "People for God's own possession".

At each step the covenant is strengthened until it reaches its complete zenith of proclamation to the Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still numerous problems that you simply will not address. The Messiah is not cut off in the 70th week. REad the text and you will see that very clearly. He is cut off after the 69th week, then hte covenant is made for one week. In the text, the cutting off of Messiah very clearly predates the 70th week and the covenant with Israel. There is nothing in Daniel 9 about the baptism. You are merely reading that in.

You again accuse us of leaving teh cross of Christ out. But that is flatly wrong. We do not. We say about it exactly what the text does.

But you just added to the text. After the 60 weeks Messiah is cut off. Daniel's prophecy continues on the same time line to be sure, but the events of the 70th week are not about the Messiah. You keep ignoring the fact that the covenant is made with Israel by the prince who is to come, not with Christ. The events of the 70th week have not yet happened.

You err when you say that the destruction of Jerusalem is not in the 70 weeks. Daniel 9 clearly includes it in teh 70th week after the covenant is broken and sacrifices are cut off. The final destruction is still to come and is prophesied in teh OT.

You final post about the new covenant is misguided since the covenant of Daniel 9 is not the new covenant, and even if it were your ideas don't match up. The new covenant is inaugurated on the night before Christ's crucifixion, not at the beginning of his ministry. You will search in vain for any reference to a covenant prior to that in the life of Christ. That should immediately tip you off that you ahve incorrectly identified it.

Again, this is very clear. You have simply read your ideas into the text rather than letting the plain sense of the text stand on its own.

 

The 70th week IS what comes AFTER 69 -- it is "your task" to prove that what follows 69 is NOT 70. You keep insisting that I must prove that 70 is what comes after 69 -- as if that is in doubt -- it is not.

By preserving the 490 year timeline as we do with all other timelines in scripture (as even YOU do with all OTHER timelines) -- 70 follows 69 and in that 70th week is where the Messiah is cut off. More specifically in the MIDST of that week HE puts a stop to sacrifices and offerings JUST as Hebrews 10 states - by HIS OWN sacrifice.

Actually the text says that an existing covenant -- is "strengthend" for one week. (More on that later).

No. In the text it comes AFTER 69th week and it is mentioned AFTER the appearance of the messiah which is the event that happens ON the end of the 69th week boundary.

"Your argument" is that it happens AFTER the 69th week but NOT in the 70th week. An impossibility by any measure unless you are arguing that it happens MORE Than 7 years AFTER the appearing of the Messiah.

Your position is unsolvable.

It says 69 weeks "until the Messiah" the term "Messiah" is the "annointed". I showed the texts IN the NT where FULFILLMENT is mentioned in the annointing of Christ by the Holy Spirit at His baptism -- to the point that EVEN Christ goes around with the message that prophet time "HAS BEEN FULFILLED" immediately following His baptism.

Did you miss that detail?

Then clarify for me - when the text says 69 weeksk "UNTIL MESSIAH the PRINCE" -- do you change that to "UNTIL MESSIAH THE PRINCE IS CRUCIFIED"??

I said "AFTER 69WEEKS" (7+62 weeks) the Messiah will be cut off.

The text says

Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, AND the People of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Indeed it is AFTER that 69th week which the text describes as 7 weeks and 62 weeks.

But Before that - the text tells us of the start of Christ's ministry saying that there is 7 weeks and 62 weeks "UNTIL MESSIAH THE PRINCE".

So we have BOTH - the appearing of the Messiah after 483 years AND THEN in the 70th week the week AFTER the 7+62 weeks - we have the "Messiah cut off".

You keep arguing that in the 70 week timeline - 70 does not follow 69.

I reject that speculative suggestion.

The text does not say "in the 70th week the prince who is to come will make a covenant with Israel for a week" -- you simply need it to say that.

The text does tell us about the week that comes AFTER the 69th week (7+62 weeks) though -- "Dan 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, AND the People of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. "

And the ONLY thing the text says about the "prince who is to come" is that his people destroy the city -- it never says "The prince who is to come makes a covenenat" with anyone.

Actually it does not say that. It points to a time to come - and says the city is destroyed - but it does not say that time "to come" is in the 70th week. And even your version omits the destruction of Jerusalem from that 70th week (unless of course you are further slicing and dicing and scattering bits around even IN the last 7 years of the 490 years -- are you doing that??).

You claim to ignore the introduction of the Messiah - but not the cross somehow, and then to ignore the destrcution of Jersusalem that followed the Messiah being cut off.

Your problems here are many.

You would prefer that it not be the New Covenant but you have no other covenant to point to that is "Being strengthened" at the time of Christ IN that 70th week.

So you simply "make up a covenant" not mentioned in any place in scripture NOT even in the NT.

I am using an existing Covenant KNOWN by Daniel who is READING the 70 year timeline of Jeremiah and KNOWS about the New Covenant of Jer 31:33. A covenant that Christ DID strengthen in that 70th week FOLLOWING His introduction as the Messiah -- His baptism - His annointing by the Holy Spirit.

A lot of NT resource is being devoted IN DETAL to the fulfillment of this great messianic prophecy - and your choice is to "make up another covenant" ignore that it is an existing one being "strengthened" and replace the work of the Messiah in Heb 10 with some mythical work done at an undefined point in the future where the 70th week starts.

Your problems here are not solvable.

Actually the New Covenant is ratified by the death of Christ (confirmed and strengthened) but it is introduced long before that (Jer 31) and as Gal 3 points it - it is the ONE Gospel preached to Abraham and the covenant given OVER 400 years BEFORE sinai!

More on this in the next post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, NASB

(Shall make a covenant Stronger – firm?)

NKJV 27Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

Daniel is told that the period of "strengthening" the covenant last for the entire 7 years - for the entire 70th week that follows the 69th week. The historicist messianic view presented here promotes the full 7 year period as the time when the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-32 (Hebrews 8:8-12) is being "Confirmed" and strengthened.

Christ says explicitly that the work of the Messiah is very much tied to the covenant

At the start of Christ’s ministry – at the sermon on the mount Christ provides the blessings (Matt 5:3-11) and the curses (Matt 7:13-27) and affirms His own Law already given (Matt 5:21-48) declaring them to be unbreakable – He adds even deeper “stronger” meaning to the ones already in place (Matt 6:19-7:11).

This is in direct parallel to Moses giving the Covenant to Israel with the blessing and curse and the Law of God defined.

(Notice that IN the words of the New Covenant - the Law of the New Covenant is the existing moral code defining sin and rebellion -- Christ the Creator’s moral law known and in force at the time of Jeremiah )

#1. God’s Law- is still in place even in the New Covenant – it is that same law “Written on the heart”.

#2. This covenant is in place while God’s promise to Israel is in place that He would forgive them for their rebellion and would not cast them off.

#3. Christ comes to strengthen that Covenant – already in place – with promises to Israel already in place – with the Jer 31 promise of the city of Jeremiah's day rebuilt – already in place in Christ's day.

Peter shows this strengthening of existing salvation covenants, laws and promises in his letter to the church. Peter declares that this is the subject of the OT – this the great

Peter declares salvation’s covenantal promises of the OT to be “made more sure” in the fact of “seeing Christ” ministry during the time of His first coming.

Matt 26:28 "This is My blood of the Covenant", which is shed on behalf of Many for the forgiveness of sins"

1Cor 11:25 "This cup IS the New Covenant in My blood".

2Cor 3 tells us that it is the New Covenant alone that is "the ministry of righteousness" and "the covenant that gives life" .

Galatians 1:6-9 tells us that there has been only one gospel. And the message of the New Covenant alone is life, forgiveness and restored fellowship with God as we see it in Heb 8:8-12).

At the start of Christ's ministry we have the covenant "strengthened" in the form of the Long promised Messiah of the New Covenant finally arriving.

In the middle of "the week" of seven years we have the New Covenant "strengthened" in the form of the atoning sacrifice being made.

Then in the last 3.5 years we have it "strengthened" in the form of the full message of the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah preached in its fullness to the Hebrew nation church - the "Holy Nation" "Royal Priesthood" - "People for God's own possession".

At each step the covenant is strengthened until it reaches its complete zenith of proclamation to the Hebrews.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I never said 70 did not follow 69. What I have pointed out is that events that take place before the 70th week should take place before th 70th week. You deny that. Daniel says this: end of 69, Messiah cut off, beginning of 70. You want to change the order to end of 60=9, beginning of 70, Messiah cut off. That is changing what Daniel said and your whole point is based on that major mistake.

YOur attempt to argue for strengthening a covenant is weak. IT doesn't fit into the life of Christ, and it doesn't really apply to the text. The covenant is not strengthened in anyway. When God makes a covenant it is a covenant.

YOu still misidentify the one who makes hte covenant. It is clearly the prince who is to come, as you can see by the flow of the context. It would be hihgly unlikely for it to be Messiah since the nearest antecedent is the prince who is to come, and since the covenant Christ made doesn't fit into the context.

I am not going to comment point by point since most of your comments are based on these faulty premises. When you start wrongly, it is virtually impossible to come out to the right conclusion. Begin by reading Wood's commentary on Daniel. It will give you a lot of good info and a good start on understanding this passage.

You still continue to force something on the text which the text simply cannot and will not bear. The text is pretty plain and you should be adjusting your system to fit the text, rather than adjusting the text to fit your system as you currently are doing.

 

I deny that there is any reference to "AFTER the 69th week but BEFORE the 70th week" in the entire chapter --- not even ONE such reference.

Did you find one?

We do find "AFTER the 69th week" the Messiah will be cut off - but you claim this is "IN the 69th week" or "AFTER 69 but not in the 70th", and obviously both of those are a problem.

Nope. Daniel says "AFTER the 69th week the Messiah will be cut off".

26"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (NASB)

26"And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, (NKJV)

26And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, YLT

26And after the sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,(DARBY)

26And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off (ESV)

Do you see "a pattern"?

The pattern is that even though your Bible does not SAY "near the end of the 69th week" or even "right at the end of the 69th week" -- you still "read that INTO the text" because you know instinctively that you can not let it say "AFTER the 69th week the Missiah will be cut off" since this puts it AFTER 69 (IE. 70).

Recall that you just confessed that 70 comes after 69.

Nope. I "need" it to say "AFTER the 69th week" because I already "think" that 70 comes AFTER 69! Get it?

Nope - I want to say that "AFTER 69" there is not "MORE 69". I want to say that "AFTER 69"
there is "70".

You want to say "AFTER 69 is MORE 69".

Did you find that?

That was from Youngs Literal Translation. Are you saying that the literal translation is weaker than a more paraphrased version?

Sure it does.

#1. Christ starts off HIS ministry saying that prophetic "TIME is fulfilled" at the very start of HIS ministry (see Mark 1).

#2. Christ established the covenental form of "blessing and curses" in Matt 5-7 -- sermon on the Mount just as Moses did with the covenant at Sinai.

#3. Peter himself uses the same terminology stating that BECAUSE of their SEEING the life and ministry of Christ "WE have the Word made MORE SURE".

#4.Then Christ Himself draws the covenant into MAtt 26:28 so there can be no "speculation" that it is not there.

So here you are stuck confessing that Christ DID strengthen the New Covenent and literally identified it -- but you must say "but I hope this is not the covenant Daniel is speaking of in Dan 9 so that I can break up the 490 year timeline".

Unfortunately for that speculative view - the text does not say "the prince who is to come strengthens the covenant".

So how will you insist that this IS in the text even though the text does not say that?

Here again you expose an error in your view. You 'need' to find in the previous verse - to actors, the Messiah and the "prince who is to come" and then given a choice between these two actors - you need to be allowed to choose "the prince who is to come".

But the problem is that in vs 26 the TWO choices are A - The Messiah, or B-the PEOPLE of the prince who is to come.

Those are the TWO entities introduced in vs 26. So when we see the singular "He shall strengthen the covenant" -- there is only ONE choice -- it has to be the Messiah and not THE PEOPLE OF the PRINCE.

So your view is stuck "again".

"Your view" forces the text to say "At the END of the 69th week" or "NEAR the end of the 69th week" -- when in fact the text clearly says "AFTER the 69th week".

Clearly , the text will not bear the use you are making of it.

"Your view" forces the text to introduce the prince who is to come -- as the actor in vs 26 when in fact it is the PEOPLE of the prince that take action in vs 26 and the only other primary antecedent is "THE MESSIAH" in vs 26 which clearly is the preference.

"Your view" needs the text to say "the prince who is to come shall make a covenant with Jerusalem for one week" -- but it does not.

Your view must either ignore the ministry of Christ - or the death of Christ. This clearly is not the expected outcome for this key Messianic prophecy.

Finally - your view forces the text to omit the detail about "Strengthening the Covenant" -- something that Young's Literal translation points out IN the text -- and changes the text to "he shall MAKE A covenant" or he shall start/begin a covenant for one week.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Read the text. IT is plain on teh page. You can see the order of events and see that you have 69, cutting off, 70. That is an order and you are trying to change it.

I made no such claim on the first. Daniel made the claim on the second. It is plain from the text.

Nope. Daniel says "AFTER the 69th week the Messiah will be cut off".</font>[/QUOTE]Which is what I said, Bob. Don't change my words. I was showing the order that the text gives.

But it clearly does not come right after 69. That is again, obvious from the text. When you read Daniel's earlier prophecies (and later ones) you see time gaps in between the various features. It is a common thing in prophecy to have a sort of mountian top view when things look close together but you cannot see the distance between them.

No, I don't. And you can read my posts and see that. The text says that after 69 weeks the Messiah is cut off. You get that??? After 69 weeks. Not in it.

No, I am saying it is an incorrect understanding of gbr.

Right, what time? The time of the Messiah. Not the time spoken of in Dan 9.

Boy, and you accuse dispensationalists of abusing the SOM. That is not a covenant or a covenantal form.

2 Peter 2 shows that the word is more sure than the actual seeing of it is. We don't need to see to believe. We have the word.

And this is a major error of yours I previously showed. You have finally gotten to the only covenant reference in the life of Christ (you made the others up). And this covenant reference is the night before his crucifixion (and your "ending of sacrifices), not 3 1/2 years. Your view will not fit the text of Dan 9. One day cannot equal 3 1/2 years with serious problems.

[I don't have to hope at all. A simple comparison that is not prejudiced by trying to defend a position shows us very clearly that Matt 26 covenant is not the same as Dan 9. It could not be clearer. In Dan 9, the covenant is made by the prince who is to come; in Matt 26 it is by Christ. In Dan 9 it is made after the Messiah is cut off; in Matt 26, it is made before Messiah is cut off. One need only read the text to see that.

That is the normal reading fo the text. You take the nearest antecedent which is hte prince who is to come. That is a general rule of hermeneutics. Of course, you have violated so many rules of hermeneutics that one more won't hurt, right?

The prince who is to come is the nearest antecedent. (Why do I have to poitn out this basic stuff??) He is an actor.

No, you clearly didn't read well. The prince is the actor in v. 27, not v. 26. It is clear that v. 26 is a reference to his armies that destroy the city, and v. 27 to their leader who then makes a covenant with a conquered people.

Already refuted this. Why repeat it? YOu know it isn't true.

No, I am not omitting anything. I am rightly interpreting it in the context. When you read this context, it is a context of judgment. Your view is so at odds with that. IT just doesn't make sense of the words Daniel used, or the context that Daniel writes in.

You need to avail yourself of Wood's commentary for starters. It will go a long way towards disabusing yourself of these ideas that you are forcing on the text.

 

Yes, in fact most of the prophecies of Jesus second coming were before his first coming. That would include the whole OT, in which there are more than 300 messianic prophecies, many of which deal with his second coming.

No, again, go read the text. Messiah is cut off after the 69 weeks. Then the 70th week begins and the Jewish sacrifices are cut off after 3 1/2 weeks. Just read the text and the order in the text. It is clear.

No, it quite clearly is not, since the events of Daniel 9 have not yet all happened. You can't simply rearrange the text to fit your system. You have to change your system. I challenge you again to simply read the text and look at the order in which Daniel says things. IT is in order for a reason. It is not your prerogative to change it.

 

There should be no impasse. I took the text directly for what it says. Look again at the order and wording.

1. "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,
2. and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
3. "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week,
4. but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

There are four easily seen chronological events. You rearrange the 2 and 3, and switch the identification of "he." In so doing, you come up with a timeline that is contradictory to the text. The text says the sacrifices end 1/2 years after the covenant is made. Christ died less than 24 hours after making the covenant.

In reality, there are several ways we could look at it. In fact, Christ didn't make the covenant referenced in Matt 26. God did, and it made it not one day or three and half year before Christ's death, but more 600 years before when he made it in the time of Isaiah. That covenant simply hasn't yet been completely fulfilled.

The covenant made in Dan 9:27 in the context is a covenant that allows Jewish sacrifices even though the Jewish people have been conquered by the people of the prince who is to come. It is a gift to the conquered people to allow them to continue their own religious practices. But in the middle of the week, those sacrifices are ended.

Your position is not the position communicated by the text. All you need to do is put aside your presuppositions and read it normally.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that you just confessed that 70 comes after 69.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obvioulsy -- that is wrong. I have shown in the text that your view ignores what is IN Dan 9 regardig the 490 year timeline.

It ignores the introduction of the Messiah at His baptism or it ignore His death (you have been unnable to do anything but claim they are both the same thing - as unworkable as that is)

Instead of supporting your view the text says that there is 483 years until Messiah the Prince.

It does NOT say 483 "UNTIL Messiah the Prince is crucified" as you "needed" it to say.

You are stuck with a system that ignores the first coming of the Messiah - and that chops up the 490 year timeline without reference to the INTRODUCTION of Christ, and the Curcifixion AND the Heb 10 impact on Sacrifices and Offerings that the Messiah's death had --

This gap is glaring in your presentation and I have pointed it out repeatedly.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your view must either ignore the ministry of Christ - or the death of Christ. This clearly is not the expected outcome for this key Messianic prophecy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have not shown how BOTH the introduction of Christ - the MESSIAH AND the Cross of Christ ARE BOTH in your 490 year timeline. Though I have asked you to show it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You have not shown the both the death of Christ and the development of the Ford mustang in the time line either. Why? For the same reason I have not. One of htem is not there. How many times do we have to go through this Bob? The passage addresses only one thing about the Messiah ... his cutting off. Anythign else is reading into the text somethign that is clearly not there.

I don't need it to say that. It says that after 483 years, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing. Why is that hard? My view puts that occasion where the text does ... before the destruction of the city and the 70th week. Your view puts it where the text does not. That is clear from simply reading hte passage. Have you evern read this passage? The more you comment, the less it seems like you have. You keep repeating the same stuff that has been shown to be absent from the passage.

 

We have been over this.

The text says AFTER the 7+62 but you say either IN the 7+62 or you opt for a strange idea of "AFTER 7+62 but not actually IN the week that comes AFTER the 7+62". Bot of your positions have failed so far.

Indeed - we have the PEOPLE of the prince who "is to come" as of the 70th week - still TO come because here we are already AFTER the 7+62 (which puts us into the last week) and the PEOPLE that do the destroying are doing it for a prince "STILL TO COME".

HE - being the Messiah and NOT "The PEOPLE of the prince who is TO COME"

He (the Messiah) makes firm a covenant -- or as YLT says "He strengthens a covenant".

We have already shown that the Messiah stated that "Prophetic time had been fulfilled" at the START of His ministry (Mark 1)

We have already shown that HE (the MESSIAH) did just as predicted in Daniel 9 and we see it explicitly stated in Hebrews 10.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nope. The text clearly says "there will be 7 weeks and sixty-two weeks UNTIL Messiah the prince".

It does not say "UNTIL Messiah the prince is crucified" - it says that the Messiah comes at the end of that 69 week 483 year period. And Christ HIMSELF admits it - saying at the START of His ministry that prohetic time has been fuliflled!

Get it?

The great event to which all the Hebrew economy anticipated - the coming of the Messiah was exactly and explicitly fulfilled right on time.

The annointed one - came and started His ministry right on time!

How sad that you "need" to make all this about the antichrist to the point of ignoring the key features of this great messianic prophecy.

So this beginning of His work as the Messiah happens at the END of the 483 years - at the 69th week boundry


Then AFTER the 69th week ANOTHER KEY event in the Messianic prophecy takes place. How sad for your view that it must say that what happens IN THE 69 weeks must also happen AFTER the 69 weeks! If nothing else this should have awakened you to your error.

Indeed AFTER the 69th week - (i.e. in the 70th week) He is crucified. But IN the end of the 69th week - His ministry BEGINS.

TWO details given in Daniel 9 ONE IN the 69 week timeline and one AFTER the 69th week in this great 490 year timeline.

IT is really easy and obvious when you leave the text alone and just let it say - what it is saying. But when you must bend it so that what happens IN The 69th week ALSO HAPPENS AFTER the 69th week - (as you seem bent on doing) the logic is indefensible and simply fails.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are stuck with a system that ignores the first coming of the Messiah[/qutoe]No it doesn't. The first coming is addressed by his being cut off (killed). How do you kill someone who never came the first time?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND the Heb 10 impact on Sacrifices and Offerings that the Messiah's death had --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As are the ones in Heb 10 where the Jewish system of sacrifices and offerings is said to have no more value - after the cross. The MESSIAH makes an end of it.

It is very clear - Daniel predicts the work of the Messiah in causing these sacrifices "to cease" and in Hebrews taking them away is connected to the covenant that is made.

He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

It could not be any more specifically fulfilled!

The story you tell about the future far beyond the 490 years of Daniel 9 -- is hard to retrofit back into this 490 year timeline that takes us to the ministry of christ IN 483 years and then AFTER the 483 years takes us to the crucifixion of Christ and his "taking away" the sacrifices and offerings IN ORDER to more firmly establish the New Covenant.

In Christ,

Bob