490 YEARS DONE!!!!!

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, there has been almost 2000 years, but nothing is floating. EVerything between the 69th and 70th week has been fulfilled. There is nothing floating at all.

Tell me this Tammy ... Why won't you or Bob dare do a timeline from the text? Why do you guys refuse to do such a simple exegetical task?

 

[prophecynut]

According to Daniel 9:26 the Anointed One was not "cut off" in the 70th "seven"; He was cut off after the 7 and 62 "sevens" had run their course. This means that there is an interval between the 69th and 70th "sevens." This interval was anticipated by Christ when He prophesied the establishing of the church (Mt. 16:18). This necessitated the setting aside of the nation Israel for a season in order that His new program for the church might be instituted. Christ Predicted the setting aside of the nation (Mt. 21:42-43). The present Church Age is the interval between the 69th and 70th "sevens."

Amillenarians teach that Christ's First Advent ministry was in the 70th "seven," that there was no interval between the 69th and 70th "sevens," and that the six actions predicted in Daniel 9:24 are being fulfilled today in the church. This view, however:

A. ignores the fact that verse 26 says " after the 62 "sevens" and not " in the 70th "seven.

B. overlooks the fact that Christ's ministry on earth was three and one-half years in length, not seven.

C. ignores the fact that God's six actions pertain to Daniel's "people" (Israel) and His "Holy City" (Jerusalem), not the church.

 

[Grasshopper]

A. ignores the fact that verse 26 says " after the 62 "sevens" and not " in the 70th "seven.

B. overlooks the fact that Christ's ministry on earth was three and one-half years in length, not seven.

C. ignores the fact that God's six actions pertain to Daniel's "people" (Israel) and His "Holy City" (Jerusalem), not the church.

a. 70 comes after 69.

b. In the middle of the week, Messiah brings an end to sacrifice and offerings by His death.

c. God's six actions pertain to Daniel's "people" (Israel) and His "Holy City" (Jerusalem), not the church. Exactly right.

Jerusalem's destruction was determined during the 70th week due to the Jew's rejection of the Messiah. It was fulfilled 40 years later.

 

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:

b. In the middle of the week, Messiah brings an end to sacrifice and offerings by His death.

Sacrifices did not end with the death of Jesus, Jews continued to offer sacrifices and offerings until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans.

After His ascension his disciples "were continually in the temple blessing God" (Lk. 24:53) while the Jews continued to offer sacrifices. Acts 2:46 indicates that the disciples attended the temple "day by day." It is quite probable that sacrifices were conducted during that time. Acts 3:1 says that "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour." The ninth hour would be around 3 P.M.
and this was the time that the burnt offering would be sacrificed every evening (EX. 29:39; Lev. 6:20; Josephus Ant. xiv.4.3 [65]). The other two times for prayer for later Judaism were mid-morning (the third hour, 9:00 A.M.), and sunset. Obviously, Luke does not tell us that Peter and John were going to participate in the sacrifice, but the specification of the time seems to imply that such participation was probably the reason for their attendance.


"After King Solomon ended up building the Temple on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, this became the ONLY place where Israelites could sacrifice. Although the Israelites continued to sacrifice in other places as well, this was considered sinful. The Babylonians ultimately conquered and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. With the destruction of the Temple, all animal sacrifices came to a complete halt."

"Only when the Jews were allowed to rebuild the Temple (called the Second Temple) did animal sacrifices resume. It was this second Temple which the Maccabees fought to purify after the Greeks had performed pagan rituals there and which King Herod rebuilt and expanded in his reign. However, in the year 70 C.E., the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and this second Temple in a great war against the Jews. Since the Second Temple was destroyed, there has never been any animal sacrifices in Judaism."

http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr469.htm

 

[Pastor Larry]

b. In the middle of the week, Messiah brings an end to sacrifice and offerings by His death.

Incorrect. Go back and read the text normally. The one who makes the covenant is the "prince who is to come" ... antichrist. It is not the Messiah. As was pointed out, Christ's death did not end the sacrifices for Daniel's people. They continued.

 

[Grasshopper]

Incorrect. Go back and read the text normally. The one who makes the covenant is the "prince who is to come" ... antichrist. It is not the Messiah.

Would that be the same prince of verse 25? Where is anti-christ referenced anywhere in the passage?

As was pointed out, Christ's death did not end the sacrifices for Daniel's people. They continued.

He brought an end to sacrifices as atonement for sin. However there are those (Gill, Matthew Henry) who say the prince is Titus who did in fact bring an end to sacrifices when he destroyed the Temple. I could accept either view, but lean toward an unbroken 70 weeks.

 

[prophecynut]

The personal pronoun "He" beginning verse 27 refers to the last person spoken of in the previous sentence which in the "ruler" who comes. He cannot be the Messiah because he came as a suffering servant at his first coming and will not become "ruler" until his Second Coming to reign victoriously.

It is the people of the ruler who destroys the "city and sanctuary." If this ruler is the Messiah then it would have to be the Jews who destroy Jerusalem and their own sanctuary. Does this make sense to you?

When the ruler comes, his people (Muslims) will destroy the city and the sanctuary, which is part of the "desolations" and wars that will continue until the end. The end for Israel was prophesied by Ezekiel 7:1-27, 22:3-4; Daniel 8:19, 12:12-13; Mt. 13:39,49, 24:3,14.

The end of Israel's rebellion against their God did not come when Titus destroyed Jerusalem, it will after the Second Coming. The end of the age did not occur in 70 A.D., it will when Christ returns. The end mentioned in Dn. 9:26 was not fulfilled in Titus, it will be when the "beast" (Antichrist) and the false prophet are "thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur," Rev. 19:19-20.

Titus never confirmed a 7 year covenant with the nations that border Israel.

The desolations of 9:26-27 is not associated with Titus in 70 AD, rather it occurs "in that day" (Isa. 17:9; 64:10) when the Antichrist and his people "trample on the holy city for 42 months (Rev. 11:2).

The ruler who comes is the king who exalts himself "at the time of the end" (Dn. 11:36-45). The time of the end "will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then (12:1). "There will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now - and never equaled again (Mt. 24:11).

The ruler to come has to appear in the time of the end when desolations and wars have been decreed during the second half of the 7 year covenant or 70th week.

 

[Grasshopper]

The personal pronoun "He" beginning verse 27 refers to the last person spoken of in the previous sentence which in the "ruler" who comes.

And prince in verse 26 refers back to prince in verse 25 who is called Messiah. Are you going to be consistent in your grammer?

If this ruler is the Messiah then it would have to be the Jews who destroy Jerusalem and their own sanctuary. Does this make sense to you?

Perfect sense. Read Josephus. Incredible war within the walls of Jerusalem between the Jews.

When the ruler comes, his people (Muslims)

My Bible must have left out " Muslims".

The end of the age did not occur in 70 A.D., it will when Christ returns.

Really, what age were the disciples living in? Help me with I Cor. 10:11.

"beast" (Antichrist) and the false prophet are "thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur," Rev. 19:19-20.

So again you read into the text what you wish, or I need to get a new Bible because "anti-christ" is not in Revelation 19. Funny, John mentions anti-christ in his other letters but not in this one.

Titus never confirmed a 7 year covenant with the nations that border Israel.

I agree, Messiah did.

The desolations of 9:26-27 is not associated with Titus in 70 AD, rather it occurs "in that day" (Isa. 17:9; 64:10) when the Antichrist and his people "trample on the holy city for 42 months (Rev. 11:2).

There is that anti-christ again in Revelation. Perhaps I need the LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible. He probably corrects my Bible's obvious mistakes.

The ruler who comes is the king who exalts himself "at the time of the end" (Dn. 11:36-45).

Would that be by any chance the "last days" spoken of in Hebrews 1:1,2?

 

[prophecynut]

I give up

 

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:

And prince in verse 26 refers back to prince in verse 25 who is called Messiah. Are you going to be consistent in your grammer?

After the 69th week the Anoited One will be cut off - Isa. 53:8

Daniel's prophecy is the anticipated Christ's offer of Himself to the nation Israel as her Messiah, the nation's rejection of Him as Messiah, and His crucifixion.

I already told you once that Jesus, during His life on earth, was never called a ruler. He was a servant not a ruler, two totally different people.

Titus was the commander of the Roman army in 70 A.D. and not a ruler when Jerusalem fell, later 79-81 he was emperor.

See why I give up, simple facts you will not acknowledge.

Inside the walls of Jerusalem civil war between the Zealots and the Edomites killed more Jews than did the Romans.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
[QB] The personal pronoun "He" beginning verse 27 refers to the last person spoken of in the previous sentence which in the "ruler" who comes.

Actually the previous sentence only has ONE man (the Messiah) and a GROUP of people (the PEOPLE of the prince) to choose from for the anticedent to "HE" in vs 27 - so the choice is "obvious" it is the Messiah.

That is the easy part.

The challenge for those who reject the clear fact that the major Messianic events ARE IN THIS Messianic timeline is the following.

#1. They chop up a 490 year timeline "into pieces" separated by gaps of undefined time - and freely admit that such abuse could never be done to any prophecy in scripture - but this one -- solely because "they need it" to avoid the Messiah.

#2. At the same time "Everyone admits" that this is the great Messianic timeline of the OT! So those who feel compelled to EXCLUDE the Messiah must STILL claim this as the GREAT MESSIANIC timeline of scripture.

Such a red flags to indicate erroneous doctrine are seldom so obvious and blatant.

The "rule" you seek to invent -- does not exist in real life.

Proof:

Melchizedek king of Salem comes to Abraham and blesses him in Gen 14


Gen 14

19He blessed him and said,
"Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;


20And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand."
He gave him a tenth of all.

Who pays tithe to whom?

According to Heb 7 this is a case of Abraham paying tithe to Melchizedek king of Salem.

According to your "made up rule" this is Melchizedek paying tithe to Abraham and so -- Hebrews must be wrong -- just as you claim I must be wrong in Dan 9 where the choice in Vs 27 is only between the MESSIAH of vs 26 or the PEOPLE of the prince in vs 26 -- and you claim invent a 3rd option claiming that the inticedent is in the preposition and not the main subject of vs 26 -- namely "the prince who is to come"

Your speculative proposal does not hold up.

you said --
It is the people of the ruler who destroys the "city and sanctuary." If this ruler is the Messiah then it would have to be...

Nobody is arguing that the "ruler who is to come" is the Messiah or that the "PEOPLE of the prince who is to come" are the Messiah.

You have a straw man.

When the ruler comes, his people (Muslims) will destroy the city and the sanctuary,

Nope.

The city AND the sanctuary that were to be rebuilt in vs 24-26 (yes the VERY ONEs) are destroyed in 70 ad and NOT by the Muslims!

This is actually so "easy" you have to "work" to miss it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Bob,

I am not even going to read respond to all your posts. This is absolutley absurd. I asked you to make a timeline using the text. But you refuse, apparently. Why? I know why ... becuase when you use the text, you lose.

Hmm. Posting but not actually reading the response to the posts. Why does that not surprise me?

457 BC -- The decree to rebuild Jerusalem consisting of THE decree from all 3 kings listed in Ezra 6.

AD 27 AD -- THE 483rd year -- the Baptism of Christ (there is no 0 year so 457 -1 plus 27 = 483 right on the money!). Jesus is introduced as the Messiah - the Lamb of God and begins His messianic ministry -- with "THE TIME IS FULFILLED"

Christ starts HERE saying (Mark 1) that prophetic "Time has been fulfilled"

AD 31 -- Midst of the 70th week - the Messiah is cut off (and YES - this is AFTER the 69th week in the ONLY WEEK left in the 70 week timeline for this to happen!)

ALL GREAT Messianic events IN THE Great Messianic Timeline of Daniel!

Simple!

Easy!

Obvious!

And no need to chop up THIS ONE timeline into useless segments that have UNDEFINED GAPS of time inserted!!

No need to "Exchage the MEssiah for the antichrist" IN the timeline!!

What's not to like?

Bob said -- When Dan 9 says "FROM the decree --- UNTIL Messiah the Prince -- there will be 483 years" it does not mean 484 years.

It is actually pretty easy, obvious and simple.

Pastory Larry said --

Here is a prime example of your problems. You say this is "easy, obviousl, and simple." You say this is the baptism (apparently). But the text does not say that.

The text says "UNTIL THE MESSIAH" in the verse that talks about the 483 years. Period.

But in your system THE MESSIAH actually comes and begins his ministry YEARS BEFORE That 483 year mark! You bury the EVENT of the appearing of the Messiah IN your 483 year timeline so that that timeline does not MENTION the event AT ALL!

Then you take the one Messianic event you WILL allow Daniel 9 to speak directly to AND EXCLUDE it from the entire 490 year set!!

How blatantly problematic!

You have to admit that even in your OWN version the 483 years DOES CONTAIN the baptism of christ -- you just have to stronly DENY that this great messianic prophecy actually MENTIONS when the Messiah will appear and actually pertains to Christ announcing "THE TIME IS FULFILLED" in Mark 1 at the START of His ministry following His baptism!

How problematic JUST so you can exchange messianic events for anti-christ events!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

IF I am wrong - then I missed the ONE chance to abuse and slicing and dicing ONE prophecy - and missed the chance to exchange Messianic prediction for predictions about the Antichrist in THE GREAT timeline that EVERYONE admits is the GREAT messianic timeline!

If you are wrong - you have wrongly exchanged Messianic EVENTS for those of the antichrist EVEN while admitting that THIS is the great MESSIANIC timeline in scripture!

AND you have sliced and diced a timeline in scripture EVEN while ADMITTING that this can NOT be done with ANY other timelines in scripture!

You model almost demands you to say "this is wrong" as you state it!

What an obvious and blatant red flag!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Would that be the same prince of verse 25?

No, it is the prince of v. 26, the prince who is to come.

Where is anti-christ referenced anywhere in the passage?

In vv. 26-27 as the prince who is to come (not who is already there meaning the Messiah) who will make a covenant of peace with teh Jews to allow them to continue their worship, and hten break that covenant after 3 1/2 years.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As was pointed out, Christ's death did not end the sacrifices for Daniel's people. They continued.

He brought an end to sacrifices as atonement for sin. However there are those (Gill, Matthew Henry) who say the prince is Titus who did in fact bring an end to sacrifices when he destroyed the Temple. I could accept either view, but lean toward an unbroken 70 weeks. </font>[/QUOTE]So you have in fact some who believe the prince of hte covenant is not the Messiah. That is obvious. It is a very unnatural reading to make it the Messiah. Secondly, and more importantly, Jesus did end the sacrifices for sins, but if you remember theology and history, the Jews don't accept that. They will go on worshipping in their own way until the NC comes. Again, this is the result of the simple reading of hte text as well as understanding the broader teachings of Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,

Just a quick read shows that you still haven't read the passage carefully, you still haven't constructed a time line based on the passage, you still have not identified the baptism in the passage, and you plainly ignore the mention of the "prince who is to come" who makes the covenant. In fact, you say something that makes it hard to believe you thought about it. You said the passage talks about one person (Messiah) and one group (people of the prince). Did you not see your last word? Prince is a person. That makes it very obvious that you are not reading carefully and thinking carefully. There are quite clearly two people mentioned.

Your last post tells an absolute whopper alleging that I admit that this "chopping" cannot be done with any other timeline. First, I deny any chopping is going on. The timeline is in tact. It deals with the Jewish people. Second, I already pointed out that timelines do have gaps, such as virtually every other prophecy in Daniel. We see this same thing even in genealogies which almost certainly have time gaps in them.

The bottom line is that you continue to make mistakes that are easily solvable if you will just take a moment and construct an order of events based on the text. But so far, you refuse to do that (unless you have hidden it somewhere). If you did the order of events using the text alone, you would very quickly see how mistaken you are. But you won't do it.

 

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


The bottom line is that you continue to make mistakes that are easily solvable

But you won't do it.

For Grasshopper and Bob their corrupt interpretations are not easily solvable. They must continue supporting the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine regardless of the obvious. To admit error would discredit their organization. It's highly unlikely they will admit defeat and fade away like so many other posters have. They must continue in their confusion to make it look like they possess sound reasoning to their own deception.

 

[Grasshopper]

For Grasshopper and Bob their corrupt interpretations are not easily solvable. They must continue supporting the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine regardless of the obvious.

You have less knowledge of me than you do prophecy.

 

[prophecynut]

Excuse me, I looked at your profile and you are a Southern Baptist, sorry

 

[BobRyan]

Prophecynut thinks everyone who dissagrees with his posts is an SDA.

I think that is where the "nut" part comes in.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

Well Larry, you seem to think that there has been 2000 plus years so far, since the 69th week!!!

That sounds as if it's floating somewhere waiting to happen!!

Tam

Indeed. Their model is to stop the 490 year Messianic timeline just BEFORE it gets to A MESSIANIC EVENT so that they only event IN the Messianic timeline - is "antichrist events"!

How obvious could it ever be that you have a problem when you have to admit that the greatest Messianic timeline in all of scripture is not allowed to have even ONE single messianic event mentioned in it!!

How sad.

How obviously wrong.

In Christ,

Bob