Marcus O'Reillius

Okay Retrobyter my old friend: I know you feel this way, but how does the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, which you have correctly stated as happening, but incorrectly called it a confirmation - caused to prevail a limited, seven-year covernant? The fact is: it doesn't. As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things." What you have here is the very definition of fulfill. fulfill or fulfil [foo l-fil] verb (used with object) 1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise. 2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands. 3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): .........a book that fulfills a long-felt need. 4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time: ........He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten. 5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively): ........She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work. gabar, as a verb, means to prevail. In the Hiphil stem, it means to cause to prevail, as: he caused the covenant to be prevailed, and that would carry the strength aspect with it, like with twisting an arm, or even the idea of forcing it through with military might. Your Strongs' concordance is no good in providing word definition - it only show how the King James translators translated the word. Any error they made is replicated, and in this word: it has had a lasting influence. We literally have centuries of Preterist interpretation to peel back to get to the real nub of the word. And strangely enough only in this one instance, in the Hiphil stem, do the KJV translators, working by candlelight with limited resources as compared to today, change the meaning of the word gabar to something it is not - and it more properly reflects their limited understanding of the text rather than what the text actually says. So again, in order to make Jesus the actor of the 3ms pronoun "he" inherent in the conjugation of the verb gabar - you have to show specifically HOW He caused a limited-time covenant to be prevailed (by might). And NO ONE has the exact dates for His birth, His Baptism, or His Crucifixion (we don't even know the years those things happened) - it is an assumption of everyone's part that this is period of time is three and a half years. We know from the Gospel text that Jesus' Ministry was in its third year at the end, but no where can scholars point to conclusive dates which align with a Preterist notion that His Ministry was indeed the first half of the one 'seven' based on time alone.

Actually, the Theologial Wordbook of the Old Teatament, edited by R. Laird Harris, GLeason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke deals with the Hebrew/Aramaic words in the Old Testament that have a theological significance. It gives a short definition to most Old Testament words, but goes theologically in depth on the words that are important. The TWOT stands as the premier study for word understanding we have and it is a Ph.D. level reference work. What you have cited here is from the generic Strongs' numbering. It is not the same word as detailed in the TWOT. The cited professor is correct: every instance that siqqus Is used in the OT refers to idols or idol worship. The examples you've cited refer to siqquwts, and that is a separate word which is also expounded upon as one of a few related to the root word - but not the same. Roman Standards are not idols, nor is making an offering idol worship as described by the Bible. Daniel 9:27 describes an idol, and the plural can describe magnitude as well as number.

I am trying to understand your argument because you cannot be specific, nor do you confine yourself to definable terms, substituting fulfilled for confirmed - and that's even allowing you to use an incorrect translation of gabar, which as a verb, means to prevail, or specifically in this case causes a covenant to be prevailed, with many for one week. This covenant, which you say you know, but again that is a product of your mind; was "confirmed" by Jesus by "keeping" the Law - but that is not to confirm it by definition - until the Crucifixion - but that is only for some time over three years, and not necessarily the whole 'seven' specified by Gabriel. Furthermore, you change the Mosaic Covenant, which you say was "1st", which was not the first, nor the second; to the New Covenant, which is the fifth Covenant God made with Man. The New Covenant is in no way a confirmation of the Mosaic Covenant, or we'd all be still doing sacrifice and offering which will cease when the talking image of the anti-Christ is set up within the rebuilt Temple John measures (and Ezekiel recorded in 40-42). Now you change your tune yet again, and say this short, limited-time covenant was "confirmed" by the Apostles when the verb is in the third-person, singular, masculine. And at what point did they STOP confirming this convenant? Again, nothing specific can be given. So the problem I'm having here accepting your take on things is that I am left to swallow a very simple set of declarative statements that neither comport with the language of the passage, nor with history.

Actually, which covenant Gabriel means here is anything but clear! Now as to the Mosaic Covenant, one Bible source I can reference here while being on South Beach Miami without my books and computer talks about that covenant: So in making a Covenant, God is very specific as to terms. Likewise, if I allow you for the moment to use the incorrect translation, as the KJV translators did working with limited resources by candlelight, of confirm as the meaning for gabar, even then - that word has specific meaning which cannot and should not be confused with the word you and Serving are using to say Jesus is the actor of the pronoun 'he' implicit in the verb conjugation - by saying He fulfilled the Law. That is not the question! And we who criticize Preterist leanings in no way deny that Jesus fulfilled not only the Law, but Prophecy as well! However! You have not shown how Jesus CONFIRMED the Law when He actually freed us FROM the Law. Because the Law does not give Life: only faith in Christ Jesus can. So once again, I cannot find any Preterist who can be absolutely specific as to terms, places, times, and actions which show the 1:1 fulfillment from Daniel 9:24-27 to the historical record in detail.

Yes, this is true. Daniel was praying for his people who were still alive and in captivity, and he recognized that Jeremiah had been prophetic, at a time when the Jews had not yet recognized him as a prophet. (The Jews still do not recognize Daniel as a prophet.) But, just as the Jews do not recognize Daniel as a prophet because he was outside of Israel, and so, in their opinion, could not speak "to" Israel - so too do Preterists relegate Daniel to a smaller classification of people and so exclude the applicability of portions of his book to us. it is very important that it is a messenger from God who states the phrase "Daniel's people". So, if we are to understand who Daniel's people are, we have to lean our understanding to God's perspective. In that regard, we are wholly ill-equipped since our hearts are far from His. However, the Man in Linen, who, unlike the Angel from Heaven upbraids John from adopting a position of worship to him, the Man in Linen does accept that from Daniel. My pastor agrees with me that this is one of the many interactions Jesus does have with Man, as God did, - which sets the Man in Linen above a messenger being God. And the Man in Linen specifically uses that same phrase and He specifies the definition of that phrase by qualifying it with the following: those "who are in the book." This statement gives credence that the point for the seventy 'sevens' has a wider applicability for us - and because each half of the one 'seven', first split in half in 9:27 by Gabriel, is replicated in the book of Revelation - which was written after A.D. 73 - we might see that we, who also hope to be included in that very book (of life) must, by necessity, go through that time as well - just as Jesus referenced the Abominations Desolation midpoint in the Olivet Discourse - which comes BEFORE He Returns - which we are STILL awaiting! Daniel 9:27 is not a stand-alone verse, and God defined who is people are, so we can use Scripture to interpret Scripture to find how it is applicable; and in this case, a stronger case is made that it applies to us.

Hello Sister, how's things down under? We have a wonderfully corrupt presidential candidate that upholds your gun confiscation as a model of success. How's that working out for you? (Side issue - never mind.) "on wing, abominations, desolation" - that is the (typical) verbless Hebrew word structure Gabriel tells Daniel in 9:27. Now I know the Jews rejected Jesus, and they reject Him still. And I know that they word-cursed themselves, but the words Gabriel uses are much more powerful, and I'm trying to get (and I've never been successful in getting) a Preterist to specify what at Jesus' Crucifixion was the "abominations" and what was the "desolation" and that leads to a complete destruction - when His Crucixion was foretold in 9:26 as the "cutting off" of karat, which also has the double Hebrew word meaning (also so typical) of 'cutting a deal.' So, while Serving has been unable to be specific, could you be more specific?

Very good point. Since the purpose of the seventy 'sevens' all revolve around Christ Jesus, and since the Jews reject Him thoroughly, it's hard to see how any of this WAS accomplished within a Partial Preterist interpretation in, as Serving opines, the punishment of Israel... when one aim of God's Plan was everlasting righteousness. Rather calling the seventy 'sevens' an ultimatum, (that's a new one for me) they are, in accordance with Lev 26:18 they are the punishment for failure, and out of which, God brings completion and holiness. As the seventy 'sevens' do seal up prophecy, one can only question how the 'desolations decreed' leave out the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments, which is yet another internal inconsistency of Partial Preterism.

Again, in Matthew 23:13-36 is spoken to the Pharisees. It is important to note that Jesus did not shrink from open confrontation with the religious authorities of His day. He excoriates them eight times over and literally pronounces their death sentence sending them to Hell. It is to them that their house is left desolate - and I am not the only who thinks being desolate refers to the impending absence of God because Jesus knows that the presence of God is going to be removed from the Temple. You, however, have drawn an entirely different conclusion based on the similarity of the English translation and place the adjective desolate to A.D. 70. This does not negate an immediate abandonment because those Pharisees, being as old as they were, didn't live to see the Zealots take over their Temple! Thus, their generation only saw their Temple rendered desolate when the Curtain is torn in two, and the Most Holy Place is violated, manifesting the absence of God. From the Expositor's Bible Commentary: Note 38 This verse may allude to both Jeremiah 12:7 and 22:5 (cf. Notes). "Your house" in this context could refer to Jerusalem, since the lament is first addressed to her (Klostermann; McNeile; Trilling [p. 86]), to Israel (Schniewind; Green; cf. Gal 4:25- 26 for a similar use of "Jerusalem"), or to the temple in whose precincts Jesus was preaching (21:23; 24:1) and whose destruction was about to be predicted (24:2; cf. Manson [Sayings, p. 127]; Davies [Setting, p. 298]). There seems to be no need to choose only one of these options; all three are closely allied and rise and fall together. If "desolate" (eremos) is not part of the text (cf. Notes), the verse means "your house is abandoned to the consequences of your misdeeds" (Plummer). More probably eremos is original and makes the implied destruction explicit. Your "house" is left to you (i. e., abandoned), whether by God (as in Jer 12:7) or Jesus (cf. 24:1), who is "Immanuel," "God with us" (1:23; cf. Garland, pp. 202- 3). The verb "left" (aphietai) can mean "abandoned to enemies," not just "abandoned." But since the ideas are related, a choice is unnecessary. You also make an assumption that the physical cessation of lawful sacrifice and offering complicit with the destruction of the sanctuary in A.D. 70 is of course, the final stoppage. It neglects any idea that the Jews resume sacrifice and offering with a rebuilt Temple. - I'll use all caps for you with this disclaimer - NOTHING IN THE JEWISH RESUMPTION OF THE SACRIFICIAL LAW NECESSITATES THAT CHRISTIANS PARTICIPATE, NOR AM I ADVOCATING THAT WE NEED TO RETURN TO A SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP SYSTEM AS IS ESPOUSED IN EZEKIEL (WHICH IS SLATED FOR THE MILLENNIUM). Where is the written prophecy? First of all, your harassment or repeated questioning is a straw man ruse; it's not in the OT. It's in the NT. If you want to puff your chest out and say no reference can be found in the OT, what you have is a non-sequitur. Just because it's not found anywhere else in the OT doesn't mean it's not there. 1. In Revelation 11:1-2, John is sent out to measure the Temple. In this passage, the Temple is under the "foot" of the Gentiles, the world is mentioned, and also, most notably, this Temple is associated with one half (the first half as I can prove) of the one 'seven' which is split in half in Daniel 9:27. It is in this third Temple, whose dimensions are given in Ezekiel chapters 40 to 42 that the Jews resume their sacrificial system within the one 'seven' - only to have it interrupted by the sudden installation of a talking image of the anti-Christ and this idol is most abhorrent - IT SPEAKS! 2. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus puts the abomination, the very abomination in Daniel 9:27, which is linked by its reference in 12:11, in the "Holy Place." That you don't receive this fact that Scripture sets the Holy Place inside the Temple, doesn't change this fact - which Jesus said - and if anyone is keenly aware and sensitive to how the House of the Lord is to be kept - it is the Lord who gave Moses the blueprints for it having him copy the Temple in Heaven! 3. Furthermore, in 2Th 2:4, in speaking about the Day of the Lord and our gathering up to Him, Paul delineates some of the action which precedes it: the departure from the Law and the revealing of the anti-Christ - who - he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 4. In Revelation 13:14-15, Jesus reveals to John the true nature of the abomination so that it receives added emphasis with the plural in the Hebrew language. This idol speaks! NONE of the idols that the prophets rail against ever did that! The abomination of Daniel 9:27 breaches the trip wire of God's Response, and from there on, consequences fall upon the anti-Christ leading ultimately to his eternal destruction, being thrown while still alive in his flesh into the Lake of Fire that is Hell. So asked and answered twice now.

Actually, to echo Ezra, Noah was 'taken' (into) the ark. Lot was physically removed from Sodom by angelic aid. Both were rescued from His Wrath with God's assistance. "Taken" in the NT is paralambano, and that is also the word which is translated when we "receive" Christ as in our inheritance. In 1Th 3:13, Jesus comes with the hagios, or holy (set in the plural in the inflected Greek) which is translated as Saints. In 1Th 4:16-17, Paul teaches that the Dead in Christ are raised first, and then we meet them in the air. Thus, the previous mention in 3:13 represents an "observer-true" position of one of the Elect who is still alive and remains (after the Great Tribulation) seeing Jesus come with those resurrected from Paradise, a place of rest. The wheat and tares parable of Mt 13 has the first explanation that the wheat removed to the barn of Heaven before the tares are burned in the field of this world. This aptly describes the action which happens on the Day of the Lord: Rescue-then-Wrath with fire from the first Trumpet following. (I am Pre-Wrath.) The following explanation of the parable has a slight switch: the tares are eliminated from the KINGDOM by being thrown into the fire (of Hell). The distinction here is that the removal is from the Kingdom - which encompasses both Heaven and earth. This is done after the Millennium at the second Resurrection. Likewise, the parable of the fish in the net being separated into good and bad reflects the test of being "in the book" in Revelation 20:13-15. So you do want to be "taken" if you are lucky enough to make it through the Great Tribulation so as to be alive and remain when the Day of the Lord comes at an unknown time. If you are left behind - the only hope you have for eternal life is to have not taken the 'mark of the beast,' nor worshiped his image and to die as a Martyr for your testimony of Jesus. That should be pretty easy to do with the crowd you'll be left with because they will all hate God, especially after the devastation brought by the first Trumpet, which should mess things up for a year or so for them.

In the history of Christianity, the first eschatological position that was taken is called "Historical Pre-Millennialism" and it did contain a Rapture. Until the 1800's underscores the influence of the Roman Catholic Church with its Ammillennial view put forth by Augustine and that was still accepted by reformers such as John Calvin centuries later. While Luther began the Protestant Reformation, even the Lutheran Church, a Protestant denomination, remains Ammillennial in its eschatological view. Between the Protestant Reformation and the Industrial Revolution, Protestantism was often under real attack in Europe. This is also a time when new thinking slowly begins to evolve from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment of the 1700's. It is my opinion that there is a spiritual awakening that happened coincidental to the Industrial Revolution, which I personally think is an outgrowth of the opening of the first Seal. So no mention of it doesn't mean it isn't there. It was the official position of the RCC and like Sunday worship, it remained as a foundational stone of the church.

Are you always in the habit of shouting at people in all caps? I asked you when wars ended and never got an answer and you're bugging me for the prophecy about the destruction of city and the sanctuary? Really brother... The only reason for Gabriel mentioning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is to point to the origin for the ruler who will come: the King of the North - the anti-Christ. Now "this generation" as is used in Mt 24:34 IS in relation to all the specific and unique events Jesus puts in order - which begin with the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. None of those things happened in the First Jewish Revolt, nor did they happen in the Second Jewish Revolt. And war continues... - the end is not yet. The reference Jesus made to the ruling rabbis of His day as "this generation" is at the end of a long harangue in which He calls them all sorts of names, and lists their failings in exacting detail. Of course their house will be left desolate! Jesus knows the presence of God is going to vacate the premises as evidenced by torn curtain! That most certainly did pertain to them; it was fulfilled in just a few days! But those old men weren't around four decades later, so how could that personal message pertain to them?

No I didn't. I took the passage from Matthew within context. All these things refers to the five seminal, specific and unique events which begin with the midpoint abomination.

I disagree in blanket protest. Nothing much to do here; you will continue to evade specificity saying this fulfills that even if it falls far short of the language used. We will always be at odds. Daniel 9:27 was not fulfilled in the first century - far from it. Holy Place is defined in the Bible as in the Temple. That is what Paul said in 2Th 2:4 as well. Exodus 26:33 You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of holies. I'm pretty sure Jesus knew exactly what He was saying...

Matthew 23 is not in the context of Matthew 24. Luke 19 is not after the question was posed, but before it with the Triumphal entry, which is when I think the Messiah comes, and that marks the end of the sixty-two 'sevens'. Luke 21 is his compilation of testimony concerning the Olivet Discourse. It differs somewhat from Matthews in some minor details, which adds nuance, but overall, it is not as complete, and I prefer to use Matthew's as his Gospel, written to the Jews, centers around Jesus' five major discourses, this being the fifth and last. Like Matthew, though, it does not say leave Jerusalem, but for those in Judea in the south to flee when they see the encircling happening. Now why is that? Because when the King of the North comes and encircles Jerusalem, he does so from the north, and so Judea, lying to the south, is momentarily spared. But they have no time to wait; they must flee immediately or risk being caught in this dragnet. Read Matthew 24: Jesus did NOT answer their first question.

No. I stated that Jesus' statement was in the context of the detailed parallel portion of His answer to the Disciples as to when He would come again. "This" generation is tied to "all these things" and those things are the events He listed as happening with the abomination of desolation being in the Holy Place!

Ostensibly, because Gabriel laid that out as one of the two foci for the reason for the time period itself. To say I am indulging in circular reasoning runs square into your assertion that everything was fulfilled in the first century. What if I am wrong? Do I base my life on my eschatology? No. Do we base our salvation upon our eschatology? No. What if you are wrong? Will you still be in denial when Gentiles build the Temple as a quid-pro-quo to Israel's concessions to the terrorists in seeking peace? As far as blood sacrifice - Neither you nor I have any power to stop the Sanhedrin, who have reconstituted themselves, from performing them. They are actively seeking to rebuild the Temple, and they are actively equipping themselves to fulfill all the requirements of the sacrificial law system. I believe they have even acquired a red heiffer and have its ashes now. They are also actively seeking to find the Ark of the Covenant, and I have reason to believe that it has been found, but as it is such a lightening rod for Jewish worship - that it is being withheld until the time is right to whip up Jewish fervor for whatever concessions they might have to make in order to get the right to build upon the Temple Mount. This is a specious argument I hear from Amillennialists all the time; that just by looking forward to a third Temple, that somehow Pre-Millennialists insist that we perform the sacrificial law! Nothing of the sort! This is a straw man argument! Hey William - It is not I who taught that the abomination / desolation would be in the "Holy Place!" Jesus did! Paul did! And the Father had Jesus reveal to John the nature of the abomination: the talking image of a beast of a man! What I teach is patient endurance. And because I believe, based on my sequence-of-events analysis of end-time linear narratives that we will all experience the (shortened) Great Tribulation - and that you don't have to "make it" through that period to "make it" into Heaven - I am more than prepared for it. I am willing to lead those through the Great Tribulation by preparation or by faith - that if caught, they will not think they are always saved and so can worship the beast and try to save their own life. I have told my family not to ever take the mark of the beast thinking that it doesn't matter because they have Jesus in their heart, and he'll understand because they are starving. Better to die than to succumb. But before that, I am already preparing for my family to weather the storm.

You were the one who said Jesus was cut off in the midst of the week. Now in the midst of the week is the 'on wing, abominations, desolation. So which was Jesus? It is not quite obviously from the Israeli's doing; that may be your perspective though, but it does not comport with the language Gabriel uses. No, that is not within the definition of "confirm" - even if we let that be the definition of gabar when used as a verb: and it's not. Keeping some vague covenant which you cannot name fits under the second definition of fulfill. So, not so easy, in fact, you cannot answer how Jesus established more firmly any of the OT covenants. No, it's not obvious at all because you can't point to any specific act which buttressed a specific covenant that God made with Man. "the Israelite's" is not a theologically recognized covenant. I dare you to define its inception, its terms, and name chapter and verse where it stands written in Scripture. So far, you haven't been able to lend credence to any of your assertions. You just stand by them. I used to that with Preterist notions about Daniel 9:27. It's not that hard; pick a specific covenant that God made, that Jesus made better and tell me how. Absent that: you haven't any structure for your beliefs. I start with this in explaining the message Gabriel gives when I do the exegesis of it. It is not for "Israel" but Daniel's people. Daniel's people is defined by the Man in Linen in the last narrative in his book as being those who will inherit heaven. That includes us; Daniel is one of us: the Elect. Daniel 12:1b "...time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued." God said it; He set the definition for Daniel's people. Gabriel just conveyed that same message - which is unchanging when he said: "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people..." - everyone written in the book. Scripture interprets Scripture. Daniel will be called up with the Dead in Christ to receive his allotted portion (inheritance) at the end of the age - Daniel 12:13.

Jesus gives us this salient and keystone linear narrative which details the "end" in the Olivet Discourse: Perilous Times 15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or ' There He is, ' do not believe him. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. The Glorious Return 29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with A great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. NASB This gives five specific and unique events: The Abomination The (shortened) Great Tribulation The sun/moon/star event The Sign of the Son of Man The gathering of the Elect. Now in summary to this final discourse, the fifth of five in the book of Matthew, Jesus says this: 34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. I put it to you - that "THIS" generation is linked in His statement to "all these things" - which is the list that He just prophesied in the detailed answer to the Disciple's question of when He would return! (Jesus never answers the first part - when the Temple would be destroyed.) What we do know from prophecy is that the end will come like a flood. Quickly, the abominable talking idol will be set up in the Temple. And then, at the apex of the rise of the anti-Christ, who has been oppressing Christians for the whole of the first half of the one 'seven' - suddenly becomes an active killer, martyring hundreds of millions of innocent believers in his quest for idolatry. God's response will not be long - as believers have bemoaned - and even the fifth Seal martyrs complain! God the Father shortens the Great Tribulation and Jesus arrives on the "unknown" Day of the Lord. Jesus did not talk about the First Jewish Revolt in the Olivet Discourse - He did not talk about how the Temple would be torn down. He gave us the keystone passage which aligns Daniel 9:27 to the sixth Seal of Revelation. Then He later reveals the true nature of the abomination of Daniel 9:27 as the talking image of Revelation 13:14-15. Daniel 9:27 does not happen in a vacuum. It is the seminal event of man which elicits a personal response from God. The fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27 happens from the fifth Seal until the seventh Trumpet sounds in Revelation chapters 6-11 (exclusive of the sidebar account). The fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27 happens in the sidebar account of the two halves of the one 'seven' in Revelation 11:1-13. The fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27 happens in the detailed parallel account of the one 'seven' in Revelation chapters 13-16 (inclusive).

5. When did war cease at the end of the seven year period? You didn't really answer the question. Because war continues even after the First Jewish Revolt, which didn't even rise to the level of war because it was so small. Secondly, the rebellion was not prophesied to last the one 'seven'; His covenant with many lasts one 'seven'. If you want to say that various agreements satisfy a covenant with many - those various and sundry covenants not to obliterate other cities and towns remained in effect after Rome quenched all outward rebellious acts for the next few decades - until the Second Jewish Revolt, when all would be attacked. So in the case of the First Jewish Revolt, even what you would like to point to fulfilling it, doesn't actually fulfill it when we examine what happened. It only fulfills it if I take your conclusion for it as the only authority for saying it was fulfilled. So the various covenants Vesparian made, and war went on, even after the non-event at Masada. _______________________________ When you contrast the steady-state of war which has existed since then, the Great War (WWI) and WWII which killed more people than any other conflict in the annals of human history - and then add on WWIII which is foretold to kill a third of the then-existing state of man in the end-time desolations God has decreed with the Sixth Trumpet / Second Woe - and then have North, South and East gathered at Armageddon for the final battle - only to have the victor, the anti-Christ face Christ Jesus and the 144,000 who never leave His Side - culminate in the Millennium Peace of Christ's Sabbath thousand years - THEN we will have realized that war continues to the end of the seventy 'sevens' which culminates with God's desolations being poured out on the premier evil ruler to ever rise up - actually conquering the whole world - only to lose it to God - who is the only One who is strong enough to beat him.

4. What was the aftermath of the complete destruction from the desolations God wrought? That is hardly a complete destruction. Furthermore, the Sanhedrin have reconstituted themselves and they are actively seeking the rebuilding of a Temple on the Temple Mount. They came into existence over a decade ago. They have been quite active in their quest to rebuild the (third) Temple, and they have acquired much of what they need. They even are sought for guidance in military matters. (This fact has ramifications for who it is that gives the final okay for making fire rain down from the sky as foretold in Revelation 13:13.) http://www.heisnear.com/Sanhedrin.html So if the power of the priests were the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27, how is it that they are again a force in Israel? No, the idea of complete destruction is not fulfilled by the loss of authority by the Levite priests - and they aren't even completely destroyed.

3. What desolations by God were poured out on him? None were called for in the prophecy? I disagree. 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 its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, 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." NASB In this very short linear narrative, outlining God's plan for Daniel's "people" (which includes us in one definition) and Jerusalem - the complete destruction, which is decreed - which goes back to what Gabriel just said - are the result of desolations which are poured out upon the desolator. By itself, the act of pouring out is lost upon the reader. However, with the Revelation of Christ Jesus to John, we can see how the one 'seven' ends - with the Bowl Judgments being poured out upon the King of the North. John the Zealot hardly rises to the level of arch-villain. - Furthermore, the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun who causes the sacrifice and offering to cease - by syntax - is the same 3rd person masculine singular pronoun who causes to prevail a covenant with many. The two actions are linked to the same person in the Hebrew's use of the pronoun implicit in the verb conjugation. - These actions will be both accomplished by the anti-Christ: the King of the North; the little horn which rises within the fourth terrible beast to become a beast of a man who is then worshiped and provides the role model for the talking image of him - which constitutes the WORST IDOL of all time! And that is why siqqusim is plural. Of all the silent idols which are abominations - this one speaks! No God-derived desolations, which are planned by God, which results in a complete destruction, which is decreed by God - were not meted out upon this hapless rebel. He met an ignoble end; that is all. - However, when the man who will rule the whole world goes down before the Lord and His army - it will be at the end of the most calamitous set of desolations to ever hit the earth since the flood. - When we contrast this typical city-state siege to the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments which await the ruler who will come - the past hardly measures up to what God has planned which WILL utterly destroy the earth - reducing mankind to a mere fraction of its present populace.

The Zealots were less than honorable, and by the end after the siege reduced them to stealing so as not to starve, were hardly a fighting force. This small skirmish hardly rises to even a battle; it pits Roman soldiers against religious zealots. The whole of the First (yes, first, this didn't even end Jewish rebellion, they did it again 60 years later) Jewish Revolt didn't even rise to the level of a war so as to punctuate and interrupt the Pax Romana - the Roman Peace. To call the ensuing bloodbath, because it was so one-sided, "the most savage combat" and then say this satisfied the "desolating abominations" of siqqusim mesomen - hardly measures up to a blip in the horrendous acts man commits upon man in war. This was not a horrendous battle which left devastation across miles and hundreds of thousands dead. This was a rather unspectacular siege in the history of siege warfare. Finally, Roman ensigns, the standards they bore before their formations, are not idols. They are symbols, but not actual representations of gods - of which Rome had many. At no time did Titus or his troops erect any symbol upon which they directed worship and veneration in the Temple. Sure they paraded; they were victorious! Sure they trampled upon the Temple Mount; that was a measure of their disrespect for their enemy: the Jews. Yes, they tore the Temple down: because that was the focus for the zealots' rebellion. Later on, the Romans will sweep in again, and this time obliterate the whole nation, dispersing the Jews so they no longer are a nation, and renaming their land Palestine - because Romans love to insult their vanquished enemies. The whole point of the First Jewish Revolt, having the city and the sanctuary destroyed; is to point to the future ruler who will come. Meanwhile, war goes on.

Gabriel split the one 'seven' in half at the abomination(s). This is later revealed in Revelation to be what scholars call "prophetic years" of 12 months of 30 days each. This half-time period is spoken of five times in the book of Revelation between chapters 11 and 13. To those days, in Daniel 12, the Man in Linen adds two time periods bring the total number of days the Remnant Jews will have to survive in order to 'make it' to the Millennium: 1290 and 1335. This allows for the travel mentioned in Zechariah 8:23, and the subsequent Sukkot encampment at the newly cleft Mount Zion in Isaiah 4:5. So it doesn't have to be explicitly numbered in Daniel 9 for it to be there: the idol abomination is in the middle of the one 'seven'.

Idols are always abominable to the Lord (Dt 7:25). Worship can be considered abominable. (Exodus 8:26). Defiling oneself and not keeping the Commandments are abominable - first and foremost is not worshiping the True God (Lev 18:20-30). Abominable is any rejection of true worship of the Living God of Israel (Dt chapter 13). Sin is abominable to the Lord (Dt 24:4). Now those are some of the things which are abominable to the Lord - Strongs' 8441 - to'eba - abominable. In Daniel 9:27, the word is siqqus - abomination - Strongs' 8251 - detestable thing, idol. Here is what the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says of this word. .....This noun is always used in connection with idolatrous practices, either referring to the idols themselves as being abhorrent and detestable in God's sight, or to something associated with the idolatrous abomination (Jer 16:18; Exk 5:11; 7:20; II Chr 15:8, etc). Not only are the idols an abomination, but they that worship them "become detestable like that which they love" (Hos 9:10), for they identify themselves with the idols. .....Antiochus Epiphanes, as prophesied in Dan 11:31, and who is typical of Antichrist, set up an altar to, and image of, Zeus in the temple. This is called the "abomination that causes desolation," a desecration of the altar which destroys its true purpose. Just so will Antichrist establish an abomination in the sanctuary, a demonic counterfeit worship (Dan 9:27, 12:11). So the text does describe an idol. The erection of this talking image of the man who was wounded by a weapon of war (a gunshot will suffice to fulfill the prophecy as a rifle is the modern sword) and suffered a mortal wound but did not die - in the temple building, in the Holy Place - will cease the offering and sacrifice that goes on with the Temple. Revelation, the Olivet Discourse and 2nd Th 2 are all just as concerned about this seminal apex of the anti-Christ's rise to assuming the godhead as it were, over the whole world. And again, the plural in the Hebrew can also denote how great, or alternatively, how terrible something is.