Celt

When looking at what Ecclesiastes 12:5-7 says, and what the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15 about the "spiritual body", and "this mortal" needing to put on "immortality", I don't see the need for our flesh body to be reunited to our soul. I think that idea has come from not understanding the resurrection per Paul in 1 Cor.15, for he did say that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Ecclesiastes 12 teaches that when the "silver cord" is parted, the flesh body goes back to the earth where it came from, and the spirit goes back to God Who gave it. I see that 'spirit' as including a "spiritual body" like the one Paul mentioned. In that, it would mean the resurrection has been going on since flesh death, but not the particular resurrection event prophesied to occur when Christ returns. The border of separation in Heaven per the story of Lazarus and the rich man fits what our Lord Jesus said to the malefactor crucified with Him that believed on Him. It also fits the Eccles.12 scripture, and also when Jesus went up on the mount and the Apostles saw Moses and Elijah speaking with Him (Mark 9). Also this... Mark 12:24-27 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (KJV) As the angels which are in heaven would mean with a spiriutal body, which is what they have also. The phrase, "that they rise" is a description of present tense, like they rise now, and goes along with the rest of the passage that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. The teaching that when we die our flesh goes into the ground waiting resurrection, and we then know nothing, comes from Ecclesiastes 9, and I think something's been missed by those who use that in such a way... Eccl 9:3-6 3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. (KJV) Who specifically are those "dead" which know not anything, and don't have ANY MORE A REWARD, and the MEMORY OF THEM IS FORGOTTEN, and neither have any more a portion FOR EVER in any thing that is done under the sun? I hope none here in Christ would ever think that about theirself, because those in Christ VERY MUCH DO YET HAVE A REWARD COMING, AND WE DEFINITELY ARE NOT FORGOTTEN, neither by our loved ones nor by our Heavenly Father Himself! And, we most certainly do have a portion FOR EVER in things done under the sun, in the future "new heavens and a new earth" time! But the real 'dead', the evil ones, will not even be there! So who is that really meant for? Isa 26:14 14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. (KJV) The word "deceased" in that passage in the Hebrews is 'rapha', and points to the Rephaim, meaning the giants. It's in the sense of those who are destined to perish in the "lake of fire" and will never be resurrected. Ecclesiastes 9 MUST also be read in the sense of these 'dead' that do not rise, for that Chapter is contrasting the evil ones back and forth with God's people. Those are the 'dead' Eccl. is talking about, as memory of them is to perish forever; gone, like they never existed when God's Kingdom does come. Therefore, when reading OT passages with that word "dead", we need to look in a concordance like the Strong's Concordance and make sure which word it is in the Hebrew, for in several KJV passages using that word "dead", it's actually pointing to the Rephaim, the giants and the association with fallen angels. This means God's Word using the word "dead" in some places to mean eternal spiritual death especially. And that's exactly what the "lake of fire" event is about, the "second death", meaning death of the soul. Because of that, there's no way I'm going recognize all those Ecclesiastes 9 verses as being about Christ's saints that have died. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So just who is the 'god' of the dead? The devil, for he is set to perish with them. So when I hear the teaching that our flesh bodies go into the ground at death, and then we know nothing, waiting for the resurrection when both will be put back together, I can't help but cringe a bit, because that's really not what Ecclesiastes 9 is teaching on a deeper level.

Very rude.....you have to keep in mind not all on this board understand exactly what they are reading. I find that very degrading. And I find it very, very rude, to disregard the Bible Lessons our Heavenly Father put down in His Word for us per the Old Testament Books of the prophets, so we would understand those prophecies when they are mentioned again in the New Testament Books, instead of seeking out all kinds of traditionalist type theories that come out with every new book that's displayed in the local Christian bookstore.

I think raleigh is closer 'literally' about the antichrist per The Bible. The word "antichrist" is not a proper name, but that doesn't mean it's not about someone specific that is to come. John used it both ways in 1 John 2, in the singualr, and in the plural. The Greek reveals more, because Greek 'anti' can also mean the idea of 'substitution', like 'instead of' or 'in place of'. The direct literal translation can then be, the 'in place of ' (Greek anti) 'Christ' (Greek Christos). Have there been many through history that have sought to exalt themselves up above God? Yes. Do those types still exist today? Again yes. That's in the sense of "many antichrists". It points to a type of thinking and living of those who deny The Father and His Son Jesus Christ. In that sense also, they are indirectly placing themselves above God by denying Him. They may not admit they're doing that, nor say they are, but that's what they've done. Was there also one in the beginning, that exalted himself above God? Yes, that was the devil. That's exactly what the devil's original rebellion against God was about, per Ezekiel 28. It's very... important that we know and recognize that. Our Heavenly Father wants us to mark that event, and is why He taught about it in detail. The subject of the "son of perdition" or "man of sin" or "that Wicked" in 2 Thess.2 by the apostle Paul is about a false one coming to actually try and put himself in place of God, and to be worshipped as God in the temple, while working with all power and signs and lying wonders (2 Thess.2:8-9). There's two other major Scripture parallels to that attempt at usurping God's Throne with God mocking Satan in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, because Satan has already declared that he will sit in God's place ("sides of the north" of Isa.14, which is symbolic of God's Throne). So for anyone that's actually read and studied what God said about the devil wanting to sit in God's place in those Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 examples, how could that same parallel which Paul gave in 2 Thess.2:3-11 be missed? Also, throughout the Old Testament, we're given example after example of pagan kings that sought to exalt theirselves above God. So how could anyone studied in The Bible miss those examples God gave in His Word too? And since God ultimately is pointing to the devil with such an event, as Satan was the first to rebel against Him in coveting His Throne, then how can anyone leave the devil out of that picture, even more so after our Heavenly Father gave a very detailed picture of that in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-31? There's difficulty with understanding many Bible prophecies, because it's hard to decipher prophecies that are given in a metaphorical context. Even with those types of Messages our Lord is pointing literally to someone, something, some specific event, or even a reoccuring type. Not many are satisfied to dig deeper into God's Word to discover those parts the way The Holy Spirit intended them. Some try to apply 'scientific method' type reasonings to the study of Bible prophecy, when most of the time we only need to study all The Bible first, and then ponder, heeding the details while also remembering to step back and take an overall birds-eye view. Understanding about the 'antichrist' needs both a look at the details of more than one Scripture, and then taking a birds-eye view of the events associated with that Message, from both Old and New Testaments, and then comparisons in history. If there's a Scripture detail given that has never been fulfilled, then God has given the prophecy in blueprint form for a reoccuring type that keeps happenning over and over in stages until all the events are literally fulfilled completely in final. The antichrist prophecy is of that type, and actually did not begin with the "antichrist" phrase by John. This is why John pointed out to those he was speaking to that they had already heard that Message before. So in 1 John 2 through 4, he was actually expounding on an older prophecy that was looked for in the "last time". And what did those early Apostles of Christ have as Holy Writ in their day for that? The Old Testament Books. That means we MUST especially look back to the Old Testament prophecies to get more of a picture of that "antichrist" Message. Some of you are very lacking in that area of Old Testament Book prophecy, which is what will happen by depending upon someone else to do your Bible studying for you. The fact that those who have studied enough of the OT parallels, and have to keep mentioning the Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 Messages in relation to the idea of the "antichrist" shows this. There's more early parallels than just the Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 examples. So those who have done their OT homework in that, when they begin to read Paul's warning in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 forward, it's like The Holy Spirit sounding a loud alarm bell.

There's no Biblical proof that the antichrist will come from Rome. That's mere speculation based on belief of a revived Roman empire, while the Book of Daniel does not show the old Roman empire will be revived. Ellen White believed that idea and made it popular with a lot of folks. It was a belief of the early Church because of their persecution by Rome, so they thought the antichrist prophecy was coming true in their days. It didn't. But some still hold onto that belief which is outdated. The closest Biblical blueprint for the antichrist was Antiochus Epiphanes of SYRIA. He fulfilled the Daniel blueprint of the "vile person" in Jerusalem almost to a tee. The prophecy did not complete with him though (165 - 170 B.C.), and, our Lord Jesus gave the warning of the "abomination of desolation" from Daniel much later, after Antiochus had long been dead. Also, per OT scripture, God uses the prophetic titles of "the Assyrian" and "the king of Babylon" for the final antichrist (Isaiah 14). That again gives the most probability that antichrist will come from the area of Syria.

The Ezekiel 38-39 chapters about Gog and Magog are for the end of the tribulation. Specific nations and geographical areas of peoples that we can find today are listed there (and they fit pretty well today, except maybe Togarmah, which used to be the area near Armenia). What those nations are symbolic of as a whole, are God's enemies. Their symbolic leader that comes from the 'north' is also the devil. God used symbolic types in the Old Testament contrasting the old pagan kings like that of Babylon and Assyria to the devil (see Ezekiel 28-31). In contrast to Israel's location, those armies of old Babylon and Assyria came out of the 'north' upon Israel. The borders at the Euphrates represented a border of separation between His Israel and those of the enemy. We're given that contrast also in Rev.9 and 19 with the four angels bound at the river Euphrates being loosed for the last days. All this means that to understand how Gog and Magog is meant in Rev.20, after Christ's thousand years reign on earth, those Old Testament examples need to be understood for their symbolic importance. Once that's done, then it's easy to understand that the Gog and Magog of Rev.20 which Satan stirs up to come against the 'camp of the saints' on earth represents God's enemies that ride with Satan. They may, or may not be, the same geographical areas mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39. We'll have to wait and see. But it's for certain, in Rev.20, that Gog and Magog is a symbol for the enemies of Christ that come upon the holy city and camp of the saints, on earth, where He will be, at the end of the Milennium.

Hi Botz, et al, Sorry if I sounded like I was provoking about the confusion idea, but that is a fact with some who believe Melchisedec was someone other than Christ. I was not intending a scare tactic, but merely pointing to several directions some have gone with it. It's impossible for me to fathom that Melchisedec could be anyone other than Christ, simply because how Paul was teaching about Christ early on in Hebrews concerning the order of Melchisedec, and with the pivot point in Hebrews 7:13-14 which links Christ directly with the "he of whom these things are spoken". If we read Ps.110:4 by itself, then we might well conclude that Christ "obtained" the office of Melchisedec. That would be the idea that Melchisedec himself and his office of priest ended, and thus the priesthood going into abeyance until The Son would come to continue it to the eternity. However, once we come to the parallels which Paul makes in Hebrews 7, that picture changes. Note the phrase in bold, and connect it with the subject of that verse, and the ones previous... Heb 7:3 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. (KJV) If the office of Melchisedec preceded Christ, how then is Melchisedec "made like unto the Son of God"? I don't see Melchisedec simply as some man which God chose on earth to serve as a symbolic example of a future office of His Son. I do see the order of Melchisedec and his office of priest as a symbolic archetype though, but not another priest other than Christ being in that role. That last phrase of Heb.7:3 is about the idea of a perpetual priest, i.e., eternality. That verse is specifically about the person of Melchisedec. So the idea is not just that Melchisedec's geneaology wasn't recorded, nor that that verse is merely an expression to show some man lived on the earth, was born and then died. In the fullest sense it can only be about Christ, for in the later verse of Hebrews 7:17 Paul repeats this idea of being a priest continually when quoting directly from Ps.110:4. It also has to do with the time served for priest duties, as with days, which were not continuous for priests of the Levitical system. Who then can abide a priest without their time of service ending? Christ only. Paul will continue this point specifically about Melchisedec throughout. Paul emphasized this point, because he first quoted about Christ being a priest forever from Ps. 110 starting at Hebrews 5:6, then again at Heb.5:10, and Heb.6:20. Do you think Paul might have been preparing the answer to Melchisedec's identity starting in Hebrews 5, to create a build-up method for this Hebrews 7 chapter? I do. And the Hebrews 7:13-14 verses serve as the Pivot linking directly to Christ. Back at Hebrews 5 Paul declared how those whom he was speaking all this to were dull of hearing, and that he was speaking things "hard to be uttered." Maybe that's why he did the prep work in the previous chapters. The Hebrews 7:13-14 verses are still very difficult to get around... Heb 7:13-14 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (KJV) What does, "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe" mean? Was not Paul speaking of Melchisedec in the previous verses with no tribal ancestry being mentioned? In that phrase, Paul is literally giving what tribe Melchisedec came from by pointing to the subject of the previous verses with, "For he of whom these things are spoken". And the answer to the tribe which Melchisedec came from? From Judah, for that's the tribe our Lord Christ was born from, and is the answer given in v.14. There is an earlier clue in Hebrews 7 about Christ also... Heb 7:6-8 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. (KJV) Why would Paul choose that kind phrase in bold to declare that Melchisedec "liveth"? Even with this phrase, Paul is giving the direct parallel association with Christ Who lives forever, and a priest forever. It also links to the idea of Ps.110 yet again. This phrase was given to contrast the Levitical priests that did not "liveth", meaning they eventually died and their office of priest ended. Even before they died their days of servitude had endings and were not continual. In this, the idea once again is not only about the priesthood of Melchisedec being eternal, but also the entity of Melchisedec too. In other words, even the idea of daily servitude as a priest, 24/7 year round points to our Lord. As for the part about the devil, that is very much relative to this matter. His original rebellion was in wanting to be God, and to sit in God's Place upon His Throne. That idea was also part of his temptation method against Eve, and also his tempting of Christ. It's also the same temptation he has continued down to our day, with those who think they can be their own god. In Hebrews 7:2 & 3, with the titles of "King of Righteousness" and "King of Salem" (King of Peace), someone confused could easily be led to think those titles might belong to someone other than Christ, since Christ has the Titles of Prince of Peace (Isa.9), and The LORD our Righteousness (Jer.33). Can there be more than one 'King of Righteousness', for that Title in the fullest sense can only belong to God? In Christ Jesus, Dave

The 19th century Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger stated there was no verb 'to be' in the Hebrew of the texts like how our verb 'to be' works in English (see The Companion Bible). He treated the tense as 'became'. Barnes stated that the word 'haayah' has 3 possible meanings, "Be, as an event, start into being, begin to be, come to pass." (see PC Study Bible, Barne's notes on Genesis 1). He further explained that according to how the word eretz occurs in the passage in conjunction with the verb determines what tense is intended in the Hebrew. In Barne's case, it was "become" or 'come to pass', in the sense that some catastrophe happened to change the land from the absolute creation declared in Gen.1:1. All this is no huge deal, since The LORD GOD does not expect us to understand a thing just based on one word taken out of His Holy Writ. Both Bullinger and Barnes believed the Gap idea of Genesis 1, and they didn't simply rely on one idea like 'come to pass' in the Hebrew of Gen.1:2.

Hi Botz, et al, (I'm going to cover several angles here about this matter, because I don't have time to keep updated with the posts.) There again, there's no idea written about Melchisedec and his priesthood to cause us to think another one like The Son of God existed. Melchisedec's priesthood had no beginning, and it's not recorded in Genesis that it had an end. Hebrews 7:3 confirms emphatically that it had no end, burying any doubt that it's not eternal and everlasting. The phrase, "but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually", is about the order of Melchisedec in the sense of an archetype of Christ being forever High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. In other words, it's about Christ, because, how can there be another priesthood besides Christ's that is ETERNAL? If the order of Melchisedec is about a flesh worldy priesthood of some unknown man that appeared to Abraham, then how could Christ ever be eternally a Priest after one that is perishable? Hebrews 7 is clearly against that line of reasoning since a perishable priesthood like the Levitical priesthood cannot be compared to the eternal priesthood of Melchisedec. When our Heavenly Father says that His Son is Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, He is saying that Christ was in the role of Melchisedec before He came to die on the cross, the order of Melchisedec at the time of Abraham's day being an archetype for His role to come by The New Testament. The very next chapter of Hebrews 8 goes into the idea of archetypes more. So really, Hebrews 8 follows closely along with the archetype example of Hebrews 7. And if the order of Melchisedec is truly eternal like Hebrews 7 declares, then how can we think of it in limited carnal terms as if it had a beginning and an end with someone other than Christ? Also, how can we think that Psalms 110:4 means Christ inherited the priesthood that belonged to someone else? Psalms 110:4 reads in the sense that Christ is Priest eternally after the order of Melchisedec, no beginning and no end, meaning He as Priest never had a start nor an end. Therefore, for the idea that Melchisedec could have been someone other than Christ, i.e., a flesh born man in Abraham's day, it MUST be proven beyond a doubt, Biblically, that he existed eternally as priest. Someone saying another like The Eternal Christ existed would be saying what? Because of what Hebrews 7 declares about Christ in comparison to Melchisedec, especially verses 13-14, the thought that Melchisedec could be someone other than Christ brings up so many illogical questions that go against so much Scripture, that I have to ask what one's purpose would be for going into such confusion? But... ...why not try to cover that angle too? Let us temporarily assume that Melchisedec was a different entity than Christ. Where did the man Melchisedec come from then, and when did his priesthood begin, and end? Since Hebrews 7 says it had no beginning nor end, then a lot more proof than just speculation must be given for this idea to have any meaning. If we say Melchisedec was just some person that existed in Abraham's day, and it wasn't Christ, then we must assume Melchisedec was born and died, for God's Word tells us all born in the flesh are assigned once to die. Since that's so, then how could Melchisedec's priesthood continue? Did the order of Melchisedec die out with him, like how Paul says the Levitical priests did? That would have to mean Melchisedec's priesthood ended with his death, since it's nowhere written that any other continued in the order of Melchisedec (excepting Christ of course). No matter which direction one goes with the line of thinking that Melchisedec was some entity other than Christ, once all the speculation is Biblcally weighed, it still points back to Christ. I'm aware that some think Christ never existed until He was born through Mary's womb; others have ideas like the man Jesus only became Christ when some so-called "Christ Spirit" came into Him, etc., etc. Is that really where some want to go with this? Well, let's cover that point too then just in case... Some among the mystical initiatic societies (yes, they exist) have been taught, and are being taught, that the idea of The Christ is really something in operation like The Holy Spirit, and that we each can be our very 'own' Christ by receiving "Christ Consciousness" (their terminology, not mine). Those initiated in that type of false doctrine would easily accept the idea that Melchisedec was some flesh born man actually "made like unto the Son of God", i.e., being imbued with the "Christ Consciousness", maybe at birth? The big problem with their doctrine is that it does not recognize Christ as The Only Begotten Son of God, The Savior. It's instead saying there can be many Begotten Sons of God. They don't care that their doctrine declares such, because the mystical societies want to think themselves as gods on the path to perfection without need of Christ's Blood shed on the cross. And who was it that first had that kind of idea of wanting to be God in the beginning? The devil, as he rebelled in wanting to be God (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28). That is the ONLY end to the trail of speculation that Melchisedec could be someone other than Christ. In Christ Jesus, Dave

It seems to me before anyone could go further in trying to establish the identity of Melchisedec, they are required to properly understand the meaning described for the office in Hebrews 7:3... Heb 7:3 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. (KJV) Let's not give unstudied folks the wrong impression by saying that verse just means Melchisedec's geneology was simply not recorded and that's all. The description is about an eternal matter, the order of the priesthood of Melchisedec, and relates directly to scripture like Psalms 110:4 about our Lord Jesus Christ. Simply, Melchisedec "abideth a priest continually" means eternality, and is pointing to the person Melchisedec also. It means Melchisedec was eternal also, along with his office. That instantly strikes down any idea of Melchisedec being some person in Abraham's day that was flesh born and then died. The identity of Melchisedec is CLEARLY GIVEN in the Hebews 7:13-14 verses... Heb 7:13-14 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. (KJV) The subject up to those 13-14 verses is about Melchisedec and the priesthood of Melchisedec. But here, the cat is let out of the bag, with the declaration that it is our Lord Jesus Christ that all those previous verses were speaking about. I'm surprised that some have forgotten a basic rule of grammar of how the subject of that 'he' in the 13th verse is pointing up to the previous scriptures. I believe the apostle Paul was dictating Hebrews 7 to Luke, for it shows one of the ways Paul taught, kind of like Paul Harvey, giving you the story build-up first, and then giving the personality who the story is about in the last part. That's how Hebrews 7 is written. And it's written that way to make the lesson easier for us to understand. The Hebrews 7:13-14 verses are not up for debate. They are a DIRECT pointer to our Lord Jesus as being the one who the previous verse descriptions of Melchisedec are about. To assign Melchisedec as someone other than our Lord Jesus is to intentionally remove the meaning of those Hebrews 7:13-14 verses, and thus creating confusion.

Exactly. The scale of deception the final antichrist will do goes beyond the working of past kings like what Nebuchadnezzar did. The coming antichrist must be all to all belief systems in order to pull off the great deception which The Bible declares, like in Rev.13:11 forward. Orthodox Judaism would not accept anyone except one that came in the way of Messiah. Nor would most Christians accept anyone other than one coming in the way of Jesus Christ. Same goes for other religions with their particular religious messiah types. Even to mystics they must see antichrist as a previous incarnation of one of their revered adept masters. Whatever major crisis happens to wound the one-world government plan by globalists, the antichrist will come to heal it, and have power to heal it. All nations must believe the antichrist can heal the crisis, so what level of power would he require? Certainly not the power the office of President has, nor even the power of the pope. It must be a power beyond all the powers on earth. Our Lord also said in Matt.24 that we'd hear of wars and rumours of wars, but don't worry for those things must be, but the end is not yet. That means the sign of the end will finish with a type of world peace. In Rev.13:4 we are asked who is able to make war with the beast, which means all the nation's powers will have succumbed to the antichrist, which is how he will establish a false peace like the world has never seen before. Whether physically or spiritually, using peace is how the "little horn" of Daniel is to destroy many. Craft also is to prosper in his hand, which is another sign of that world peace antichrist will weild. In Rev.11 with God's two witnesses, it's their testimony and working like how God worked through Elijah which will upset that world peace antichrist will bring. The apostle Paul also said in 1 Thess.5:3, "For when they shall say, 'Peace and safety'; then sudden destruction cometh upon them." When the majority of the world start saying that, it means someone will have come to heal the various crisis of globalism, and the world will feel safe. What kind of 'man' could do that?

Exactly. The scale of deception the final antichrist will do goes beyond the working of past kings like what Nebuchadnezzar did. The coming antichrist must be all to all belief systems in order to pull off the great deception which The Bible declares, like in Rev.13:11 forward. Orthodox Judaism would not accept anyone except one that came in the way of Messiah. Nor would most Christians accept anyone other than one coming in the way of Jesus Christ. Same goes for other religions with their particular religious messiah types. Even to mystics they must see antichrist as a previous incarnation of one of their revered adept masters. Whatever major crisis happens to wound the one-world government plan by globalists, the antichrist will come to heal it, and have power to heal it. All nations must believe the antichrist can heal the crisis, so what level of power would he require? Certainly not the power the office of President has, nor even the power of the pope. It must be a power beyond all the powers on earth. Our Lord also said in Matt.24 that we'd hear of wars and rumours of wars, but don't worry for those things must be, but the end is not yet. That means the sign of the end will finish with a type of world peace. In Rev.13:4 we are asked who is able to make war with the beast, which means all the nation's powers will have succumbed to the antichrist, which is how he will establish a false peace like the world has never seen before. Whether physically or spiritually, using peace is how the "little horn" of Daniel is to destroy many. Craft also is to prosper in his hand, which is another sign of that world peace antichrist will weild. In Rev.11 with God's two witnesses, it's their testimony and working like how God worked through Elijah which will upset that world peace antichrist will bring. The apostle Paul also said in 1 Thess.5:3, "For when they shall say, 'Peace and safety'; then sudden destruction cometh upon them." When the majority of the world start saying that, it means someone will have come to heal the various crisis of globalism, and the world will feel safe. What kind of 'man' could do that?

Concerning Obama, he's simply another puppet masked by "the establishment". One should note the establishment ties several of his cabinet members have from previous administrations. Lot of globalist thinkers there. That doesn't make Obama the "little horn" of Daniel nor the "another beast" of Revelation 13. He's only a very small part in the overall globalist machine to prepare for the real antichrist that is to come. Just because the Bush administration keeps insisting that the nation of Israel hold off retaliation everytime radical Islam fires a missle at them is not a sign that any western leader is Satan or the antichrist. It's ironical that Islam would even label America as the "great Satan" since our western leaders keep telling Israel to hold off retaliation. The globalists are still on their peace plan between radical Islam and the nation of Israel existing together with a Palestine state. Instead, they are willing to expend whatever resources we have to make their peace plan for the middleast happen. That's the plan anyone that gets into the whitehouse will also work.

I Jn 2:18 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (KJV) I think John's message was simple. The "ye have heard that antichrist shall come" is one phrase, and "even now are there many antichrists" is another phrase. One is singular, and the other is plural. Before an object can be plural, it must first have a singular tense (i.e., before there can be many cookies, there must first be 'a cookie'.) What is especially important, is that John was only reminding them of something they had already heard before. So where did they hear that before? I believe our Lord's warning which points to who that antichrist that would come was to be... John 12:30-31 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (KJV) Jesus said that prior to His crucifixion, and per Hebrews 2:14 the main reason for His crucifixion was so as to defeat the devil and the power of death. I believe the devil was then cast out of this world at Christ's crucifixion, but still able to work on the earth through his evil agents. John 14:28-30 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for My Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me. (KJV) Then later, our Lord also said the prince of this world cometh, meaning the devil is coming. And He said that in conjunction with His ascending to The Father and thereafter. It points to the identity of the one John was warning about in 1 John 2:18 that they heard must come. Where they first heard antichrist must come was directly from our Lord Jesus, the difference being, Jesus defined it would be the prince of this world for those who were listening. So that strikes out man's play on numerology about the pope, his office or that of any other man today, and moves that antichrist role to the supernatural, just like Rev.13 warns about the "another beast" that is work miracles in the sight of men on earth. The idea of "many antichrists" is about the devil's workers. Anyone who has studied their Old Testament should have noted the devil's working against the 'Woman' from which Seed Christ would be born through, and how there have many antichrists setup to try and prevent Christ's birth, even down to the time of Herod. Those workers are the "many antichrists", but not the main antichrist that is to come which both our Lord Jesus and His Apostle John warned about.

I think Paul's message in Hebrews 7 is very simple that he's speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ as Melchisedec of Gen.14. Continuing in Hebrews 7 eventually points that out more. Heb 7:1-28 1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. I see no way Biblically around those descriptions being about any other than The Son of God. As someone said, the idea of being without mother or father, without descent (geneaological), neither beginning of days, nor end of life, can only be about The Godhead. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. Paul continues with the contrast between mortal men and God. The law was not given yet when Abraham tithed to Melchisedec, nor were the sons of Levi even born yet! Yet this Melchisedec received tithes before the law was given. This parallels the Promise Abraham was given by Faith, even before the law was given (see Gal.3). 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. It is witnessed that Who liveth? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul is clearly pointing to our Lord Jesus as Melchisedec. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Paul marks that this happened before Levi was even born. 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? Here Paul is actually contrasting the Old and New Covenants. If perfection was by the law under the Old Covenant system, what further need was there that another priest should come according to the order of Melchisedec? Moreover, why wouldn't that another priest order be according to the order of Aaron per the Old Covenant? The idea is, that the order Melchisedec represented, even to Abraham in Gen.14, even 430 years before the law was given, the Promise of the New Covenant that would eventually come through Christ's Blood shed on the cross. Thus the order of Melchisedec represented the New Covenant that was to come, that now is, and also continues forevermore in Christ Jesus, an everlasting order one could say. It shows Christ as high priest before the Old Covenant and before the New Covenant that was to come. 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. The priesthood according to the Old Covenant is what changed, but not the order of Melchisedec, which continued. Who does Paul mean with, "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar"? The answer is in verse 14, "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." The "these things" being spoken in this Hebrews 7 chapter is about Melchisedec. And here Paul draws the direct link of our Lord Jesus from the tribe of Juda to the priesthood of Melchisedec that is everlasting, not the priesthood of the Old Covenant that is past. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Paul contrasts again the order of Melchisedec as being one that is everlasting, and not like that given of the Old Covenant. 17 For He testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him That said unto Him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Thus the order of the priesthood of Melchisedec was never ended like the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant was. That shows it existed before the Old Covenant, and thereafter, continuous and unchanged. The difference being, the time when Christ would be born of woman in the flesh to die on the cross. These contrasts Paul makes shows he was talking about our Lord Jesus as Melchisedec in Gen.14. Melchisedec offering Abraham "bread and wine" is symbolic of the New Covenant that would come, which is about the Promise by Faith which Abraham was first given, even before the law was given.

Rev 13:11-18 11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (KJV) That Scripture is not conjecture nor mass hysteria. It is a revelation from The Lord Jesus Christ. It also parallels His warning in Matthew 24 about a false one that is to come to Jerusalem working great signs and wonders that is to place the "abomination of desolation" in the "holy place". Christ even declared those great signs and wonders (miracles) would be so strong that it might even deceive His very elect, if it were possible for them to be deceived. The Greek words for those "great signs" and "wonders" are the same words used for miracles in many KJV scripture, including Rev.13:13-14 about the working of the "another beast", the "dragon". The Scripture is pointing to a SUPERNATURAL working of miracles, and not just playing religion by some man dressed in religious garb carrying a wand. No Roman army did that miracle working in 70 A.D. Jerusalem, nor has anyone ever done supernatural wonders (miracles) in Jerusalem, except... our Lord Jesus and His disciples. The apostle Paul gave that same warning in 2 Thess.2 about a particular false one who will come to set himself up in the Temple of God (pointing to Jerusalem), to be worshipped in place of God. Thus it doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to figure out our Lord is not talking about just any man, but a false one that will actually have supernatural power to work great wonders and miracles on this earth, in the sight of men, all in order to deceive as many as will into bowing to him in place of God. This shows the ultimate Biblical meaning of the word "antichrist" is not only about those who refuse The Father and The Son, but concerning a particular entity in the antichrist role with supernatural power to work on the earth that would make many believe he is God. Everyone knows the pope is not God, and that he has not worked miracles and great signs that would deceive the majority into thinking he is God. The events of the 6th seal, 6th trumpet, and 6th vial parallel that false working of a particular antichrist that is to come in our near future to Jerusalem. By the time the 7th seal, 7th trumpet, and 7th vial occurs, our Lord Jesus Christ will have returned to defeat that false one. Thus the command to count the number of that beast is really about noting that 6,6,6 timing when he will do his deceptive false work on this earth.

There are the "many antichrists", and then 'the' antichrist. The identity of 'the' antichrist is defined by God's Word, and not by man. Descriptions in the Book of Daniel are not the only ones given; Revelation gives more, especially in Rev.13 about the second beast named the "another beast", pointing to the 'dragon' who will work great wonders and miracles in the sight of men on earth. The word 'antichrist' per the Greek can mean the 'instead of' or 'in place of' Christ, and not just one who is opposed to Christ. One who comes and sets himself up as God, to be worshipped as God, is the Biblical meaning (even what Paul gave in 2 Thess.2 about the "son of perdition"). That moves the personality of the antichrist to religious worship, and not just politics. Nor is there any such requirement per God's Word, that the antichrist be some element from old Rome. The blueprint of the little horn in Daniel points to the blueprint of Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian who took Jerusalem in 165 B.C. and fulfilled most of the prophecy but not all of it.

Revelation also gives another solid timeline marker pointing to Christ's coming at the end of the tribulation. Many forget to note the three woes that are given with the last three trumpets sounding, the 5th, 6th, and 7th trumpets (starting at end of Rev.8 through Rev.11:15). On the last or third woe per Rev.11 is our Lord's coming to end the events of the first and second woes. There is no doubt, not even a little, that Scripture evidence of the three woes with the last three trumpets was written so we wouldn't get the timing of Christ's coming mixed up. It makes it easy to then note those who follow what the Scripture says, compared to those who won't.

The "trump" of 1 Thess.4 and the "last trump" of 1 Cor.15 is the same trumpet. In the Greek they are both the same word, and in 1 Cor.15:52 the word "trumpet" is used in the same phrase with "trump". We know it's the same trumpet in both of those Scriptures, because the main subject in both examples is about the resurrection at Christ's coming. The idea of a rapture of the saints is about those still alive on earth being joined with Christ and the saints He brings with Him that were asleep. Per Revelation 5 and 20, Christ's saints are to rule with Him ON THE EARTH. That begins immediately at Christ's coming to start His thousand years reign here on earth. That signals only a one-time coming of our Lord Jesus, and gathering of His saints to Him. And because Paul said it would be the "last trump", meaning the fartherest one out, the tribulation must occur before that last trump (the 7th trumpet of Revelation).

I think those who well understand from Scripture that we must go through the "great tribulation" prior to our Lord's coming have a duty to warn as many that will listen. When Christ's Apostles preached The Gospel, they also warned of perilous times that were to come, giving a warning about the last days. And our Heavenly Father said He tells us of new things before they happen (Isaiah 42:9). One of His major warnings given in both the Old and New Testament Books is that of a particular false one coming to play God, wanting to be worshipped as God. When that false one does come, who are the pre-trib folks going to think he is? We're told in Rev.13 that false one is going to work great wonders and miracles in the sight of men (meaning directly here on earth). Those who won't listen to God's Word, well, we can't be concerned with them. Per Isaiah, those that erred will be taught and learn doctrine (God's Truth), pointing to the Milennium. So I have to have hope that Christ will claim those of His that become apostate to the coming false messiah because they listened to man instead of God in His Word. Apostle Paul even mentioned that God has blinded some, so they will fall away in ignorance only to wake up when Christ comes. That says to me that He has blinded some for His own purpose (Rom.11 "spirit of slumber").

Our Heavenly Father through His prophets already told us how things are going to wind up. And He is Who we should listen to, in His Word, to know what He expects of us for the times ahead. It's useless putting trust in man, including a political two-party system monopoly, etc. So called Republican conservatives having been growing more to the Left in past decades, revealing that both the Left and Right are essentially on the same path. And that path is towards a "one world government". I don't know what the powers that be show new conservatives that get into office that makes grow towards that ultimate goal of one world government, but none of them have been able to buck it. Even with the potential of Palin getting into office, her re-education towards global internationalism has already begun by the "establishment" just in case. Obama is already on the plan. When there exists independents that are running, and the Leftist news media won't give them equal air time, simply because they go against the "establishment" protocols towards a globalist one world government, the majority of true Americans should immediately sense something is wrong with being served just two like Obama and McCain. When we hear voters who know better than to vote for Obama say we should vote for McCain instead of an independent, that voting for an independent will only allow Obama to win, that should too immediately bring up an alarm. The German philosopher Hegel devised the dialectic of controlling both sides of a conflict to produce a third condition, which is the ultimate aim. Neither Obama nor McCain are against the internationalist agenda for a one world government. A vote for either ensures the same erosions upon our U.S. Constitution, national sovereignty and a free nation as both parties have supported in the past. In the past couple of decades there have been independents running for President that have held more to founding principles of our nation and its Constitution, were anti-U.N., against the joining of nations concept like the E.U., against limiting American freedom and its Christian heritage, anti-abortion, anti-Wall Street monopolies, anti-Federal Reservists, i.e., truly conservative values that go back to our nation's founders. But what have many who claim to be conservatives voted for? They continue to vote for one of the two major party monopolies which is controlled by internationalists and their globalist think-tanks. Now that there are, and have been independents running for President that declare they will get our nation out of the U.N., away from globalist agendas, and back to the founder's principles, the majority won't pay them much attention because they're not supported by the "establishment", don't get much media air time, and so many think they are simply small-time politicians. It reminds of a prophecy in Isaiah which fits very well... Isa 3:4-6 4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. 5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. 6 When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, "Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:" (KJV) "Hey, you got on nice clothes, you rule over us." What's better, to select someone who dresses in expensive clothing and is a good orator, or to choose someone that has work clothes on that doesn't have time for idle chit-chat? That's what today's politicians remind me of, those who dress nice, do the walk and talk, but nothing but emptiness comes out of their mouths. That's exactly what the two-party political system reveals, since those speaking seldom even write their own speeches. Why don't they just allow the speech writer to come up to the podium and speak while the candidate stands next him silent? It would be more realistic and authentic. It doesn't matter, because the "establishment" men that are selected to serve the President mostly come from "establishment" backgrounds anyway, ensuring the "establishment" line is followed regardless of who gets elected.

If they believe the earth and our solar system exists in some mysterious time-space void, or bubble, then what would that do to their belief if life in other solar systems?

The "outer darkness" our Lord Jesus mentioned also is a place. It's simply a place of separation away from Christ and His servants after His coming. Another way our Lord pointed to it was in Matt.25 about the "goats" on His left-hand. Here also is another pointer to it... Rev 22:14-15 14 Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (KJV) "For without" where? We must pick up the subject our Lord mentioned in that 14th verse, "the gates of the city". The wicked are without, outside the Holy City, in a place of separation. There's going to be a literal seperation between Christ servants and the wicked during Christ's Milennium reign on earth. Matt 8:11-12 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (KJV) The Matthew 8 example is about that event of Rev.22:14-15. In Ezekiel 44 is another example of that separation, actually two different levels of separation away from Christ. The Levites that went astray when Israel went astray will not be allowed to come near Christ to serve Him at His table then. But they will perform priestly duties in the court and around the House. Only the Zadok (the Just) will be allowed to come near Christ and serve Him directly. The Zadok priests will also be allowed to visit the spiritually 'dead', meaning one of their relatives that went astray who will be in the outer darkness. Since we know the abode of the wicked called 'hell' won't be cast into the "lake of fire" until the end of Christ's future thousand years reign, then where will it be during that thousand years, literally? I believe that outer darkness will be 'hell', a place of separation away from God's people existing through the Milennium.

There's an example of what I'm talking about. The meaning of the word science involves a lot of knowledge and experience that has nothing to do with scientists. We need not assume nor believe that scientists are the only ones who can know or prove something. Like someone said, scientists aren't infallible either.

Academia has hi-jacked the word 'science' and tried to place it into a locked vault joined with materialistic empiricism. The true meaning of the word 'science' is that it applies to a much wider category of learning, knowledge, and experience than they care to admit. Per The American Heritage Dictionary: Science - 1. The observation, identification, description, experimenatal investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. Natural phenomena is understood to be natural events one might experience often in the physical world. We must not forget that evidence also exists for natural phenomena we don't see everyday, like Wooly Mammoth found buried in ice near the Arctic still with plant vegetation in their mouths and undigested in their stomach, suggesting they were caught grazing when a sudden freeze occurred. Plant and animal fossil remains have been found at the Arctic also revealing it was once like the climate of Florida. We've never seen that, nor has it been recorded as happenning in man's history. Yet the evidence exists. If one of us had lived back when the Israelites trekked through the wilderness, and saw manna come down from heaven, that would be an observable event to us. After 40 years of seeing that, would it have become a natural observable event to us? Possibly. Science today still does not have concrete explanations for all natural phenoma; it's still in the act of discovering, growing, learning, as it always will be. 2. Such activity restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Flight would be one such activity restricted to a certain class of natural phenomena. If someone living in 500 B.C. saw a jet airplane flying across the sky it would be a miraculous event to them. Man's discovery and application of the laws of flight is not that old today. So why do some have such a difficult time realizing that the science of flight always pre-existed within the natural phenomena of birds in flight? And how long have birds been flying? If the laws of flight existed before the word 'science', then what would it be called back then? 3. Such activity applied to any class of phenomena. Per God's law in Leviticus 15, one with a spot was to wash their flesh with "running water". It was much later that man discovered using running water in medicinal practice cut down on the transfer of disease, and also helped alleviate disease. Wasn't that science always pre-existing in the activity of washing with running water? Yes. 4. Any methodological activity, discipline, or study. When primordial hunters experimented with different materials to construct weapons such as the spear or bow and arrow, that was the application of methodological activity, discipline, or study. When we study our Bible we are even applying discipline and methodological activity, which involves the use of science. Thus science is not just the so-called 'Scientific Method' given by Sir Francis Bacon. 5. Any activity that appears to require study and method. 6. Knowledge; especially, knowledge gained through experience. [Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from sciens, present participle of scire, to know]. The ultimate definition of the word science is the one that comes from the old French and hence Latin sciens, "to know". The word science ultimately means 'to know'. And a believer on The Almighty God can 'know' Faith and have experience of that Faith. So the debate is not really about "Faith vs. Science", since science cannot be separated from the existence of this natural world, whether one believes this world was created or not. The real debate is about 'Actuality vs. Reality'. Does what one realizes to be true actually exist, that's what the real debate is about between those of Faith vs. those who rely on science only. Even Faith comes by a methodology, the one which the apostle Paul explained in Romans 10:17, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by The Word of God. And per Acts 28:26-28, the Biblical act of hearing involves one's heart and mind being opened to understanding in The Word of God.

Firstly, I'm post-trib, and I do see that last "one week" per the Daniel prophecy still yet to come. Much of what you're saying sounds like SDA teaching on the 70 weeks of Daniel. Dan 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (KJV) That "one week" represents 7 years per the prophecy guideline. When did our Lord Jesus ever make a covenant set to last only "one week" (7 years)? It was 70 A.D. when the Romans came to end the sacrifice and oblation. That's 70 years AFTER Christ died on the cross, for anyone who is counting. The only Covenant Christ made at His first coming was The New Covenant by His Blood shed upon the cross. And per the apostle Paul in Romans, just because some refused to believe could not make that New Covenant of no effect. In otherwords, it was not broken, and never ended, but will continue forever, for many others did not refuse the New Covenant. Clearly Daniel 9:27 has nothing to do with that New Covenant which Christ made. But it has everything to do with the "prince" and the "people of the prince" mentioned in the previous Daniel 9:26 verse. The subject of that prince and people of the prince must be carried over into verse 27. Dan 9:26-27 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (KJV) Messiah was cut off after "threescore and two weeks" (62 weeks). Add that to the previous 7 weeks that led up to Messiah's first coming, and it totals to sixty-nine weeks. For that last "one week" to be a part of Christ's first coming, even if only a 3.5 year period, the prophecy would have to say Messiah would be cut off after 62 and 1/2 weeks. The prophecy says 62 weeks. Further, at the beginning of the seventy weeks prophecy per Dan.9:24, the finish of the whole points to events for Jerusalem and Israel that are not yet completed today: Dan 9:24 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (KJV) An end of sins has not yet come for Israel and Jerusalem today, because the majority of Jews in Jerusalem today still have refused Christ Jesus as Messiah. Jerusalem's and unbelieving Israel's iniquity has yet to be reconciled. Because of events like Rev.11 are yet to occur in Jerusalem, that speaks volumes of what's in store for Jerusalem in the coming tribulation. Also, "everlasting righteousness" being brought in for Jerusalem and Israel is about a whole lot... of future prophecy when after Messiah has returned to reign upon this earth. That's also when "the most Holy", referring to the holy of holies in the Temple will be anointed or cleansed. If one reads a bit farther in the Book of Daniel, we notice a "vile person" is to appear in Jerusalem and make a "league". That's the "covenant" of Dan.9:27 (Hebrew word 'beriyth' which can mean a pact, treaty, league, ordinance, agreement, or alliance). Dan 11:21-23 21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. 23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. (KJV) It's that "vile person", along with that "small people" that pollute the sanctuary, remove the daily sacrifice and place the abomination that maketh desolate (the "abomination of desolation" that Messiah warned of in Matthew 24 and Mark 13). Dan 11:31-39 31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. 33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. 34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. 35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. That's the same "little horn" given earlier in Daniel 7 that is to persecute God's people for a time, times, and an a half (3.5 years, or 1260 days - see Dan.7:25; 12:7; Rev.12:6; 12:14; 13:5-7). Dan.11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. (KJV) In 165-170 B.C., one named Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled that "vile person" prophecy ALMOST to a tee. The problem with that is, Messiah mentioned the "abomination of desolation" being set in the holy place during His Ministry long after Antiochus was dead. And nor did the Romans fulfill the actual placing of the abomination of desolation within the holy place (Temple) when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It means to look for the prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" to be fulilled in our future, in final by the antichrist. Jerusalem has been sieged and taken by the enemy many times since 70 A.D. But the final one will be by the antichrist, which will be the angel that ascends up out of the bottomless pit that will kill God's two witnesses there during the tribulation (Rev.11).