The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9

[ARGOSY]

 

the word "people" means "countrymen". Just because the countrymen are doing a bad act, does not mean that the prince is also co-operating with that same bad act. ie the prince has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, its his countrymen who destroy the temple, not him.

 

 

Here we go again, Huh   ? 

 

So Titus Vespasian (A Literal "Prince".....see Father returning to Rome from Jerusalem and being crowned "Emperor"---- due to problems in Rome post Nero death..... where he and his son "Titus" were preparing to attack Jerusalem) with the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th Roman Legions.

 

Incidentally in the Interim-----when "Titus" Father had to return to ROME..... left the plan of the attack in somewhat shambles----- afforded a 9 month Hiatus in the attack; with those Roman Legions surrounding the city.....

Which then gave the Christians who heeded Christ's Warning (SEE: Luke 20:21 below) time to "Get out of Dodge" and escape to Perea. 

(Luke 21:20) " And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

 

 

So what you're saying is "Titus", the ROMAN "Prince", IN CHARGE of these ROMAN Legions who destroyed the Temple and the City in 70 AD...is not responsible/accountable and has nothing to do with it?     Is that what you're selling here?

 

No matter, who's the Roman "Prince's" People?

 

 

The fact that verse 25 refers to a coming prince, and verse 26 also refers to a coming prince is a strong hint they are the same prince,

 

 

Let's take a look....

 

(Daniel 9:25-26) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

{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."

 

So you're saying the Messiah the Prince (Verse 25) and the "prince" in Verse 26 are the same "prince"?  Which then leads to this....

 

Jesus who is the coming prince. Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted.

 

 

Let's carry this through to it's unequivocal conclusion....

 

So "the people" of the prince that shall come = "Galilean Zealots"      Are these "Galilean Zealots" Jews?  So Daniel/Gabriel is warning Jews that after the Messiah is executed... that the Temple and the Sanctuary would be destroyed....by Jews?  

 

So they destroyed the Temple.... morally, before the Romans arrived, eh?  Please and.......?

 

Aren't Jesus' "countrymen" Jews?

 

So then lets look @ Daniel 9:27....

 

(Daniel 9:27) "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."

 

So according to you, the "he" above is Jesus Christ because the "he" is referring to the Antecedent "the prince"....which "you" have postulated that the "Messiah The Prince" and the "prince of the people that shall come" are One and the same.

 

ERGO.... in the midst of Daniel's 70th Week, Jesus Christ Will RETURN then will confirm a covenant with the many....AND THEN, will Cause...."the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate."

 

The Abomination of Desolation (Stand in The Holy Place, Matt 24:15) is someone other than GOD Stand in the Holy Place, Blaspheme and claim he is GOD.

 

So "you" have Jesus Christ:  returning in the Midst of Daniel's 70th Week: confirming a covenant with the many; and standing in the Holy Place Claiming he is GOD (Abomination of Desolation).

 

Forgive me, but it appears you haven't thought this through.

 

Care to re-consider?

 

 

** Please tell us why the City and The Temple were destroyed in 70 AD....?  Was the reason, as you said, because of the "Galilean Zealots" or another reason?

 

 

 

1) Yes I'm saying Titus does not have a role in the Daniel 9 prophecy. Jesus takes central stage, right until the abomination is set up in the second half of Daniel 9:27.  It was particularly Galilean Jews who morally ruined the city before the Romans arrived and destroyed it.  If you see the countrymen as Romans then you have to have two coming princes which is not grammatically correct.

 

2) Yes I am saying they are the same prince.  This is grammatically obvious, what confuses people is that translators tend to put Capitals with the first prince and no capitals with the second prince, this is translator error not in the original text. These Galileans Zealots were Jews. Jews populated the Galilee region where Jesus was from. Jesus countrymen were in control of Jerusalem during the Jewish rebellion which lead to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. They were particularly morally corrupt.

 

3) You are looking at the more rare translations that only have one character in Daniel 9, most translations mention two characters. In other words Jesus gives strength to God's promise to send a Messiah, then he is the final sacrifice to end all sacrifices, then the antichrist will set up an abomination for the final 3.5 years. Some examples of translations which have two characters and not one are:

Amplified: And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator

 

American Standard: And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

 

Most translations have two characters, yet your view has only one character. I guess you prefer the KJV, I will go with the majority translations in this case. 

[ARGOSY]

 

 

This is an improvement because grammatically when we read of a coming prince in one sentence, and then the coming prince in the next sentence, context is always indicating the same character unless the wording is ultra careful that a new character is introduced.

I think I can prove that ( the wording is careful in introducing a new character) by a simple poetic style of Hebrew parallelism.

Verses 26 and 27 relate to each other according to the structure: Messiah-Antichrist (verse 26), Messiah- antichrist (verse 27). In short: A/B (verse 26); A/B (verse 27).

This is also the poetic arrangement in verse 25

 

 

 "prove" is too strong a word for the case that you have presented.  Where's the AB in verse 25?  And do you imply that we cannot have an AAAB arrangement anywhere in the bible?  ie when a certain character is mentioned a few times according to "poetic arrangement" is it impossible to introduce a new character in the end?  I find that impossible to accept, that the bible would be so restrictive as to restrict the introduction of a new character towards the end of any given chapter.

[ARGOSY]

Hi Argosy,

 

Sorry I missed the earlier posts because I live in a different time zone. With regards to the meaning of 'destroy' in Dan 9:26, revelant supporting examples should use the same object. Thankfully, there is a second object here, i.e. "city". I think you will find that most if not all other occurrences of shacahth with "city" as its object implies a physical destruction, e.g. that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18/19.

 

I understand your logic that when the same word is used in successive verses - in this case "prince" in v 25 and 26 - they should normally refer to the same subject. However, in this case, there is reason to believe that they do not. If the anointed one is cut off after 69 weeks - presumably, you would agree that this refers to Jesus' death - how can he confirm a covenant with many or put an end to sacrifices during the final week? Therefore, Daniel probably meant a different prince. It is after all a fairly common word.

 

It is easy enough to read the second prince as a Roman figure who confirmed a covenant with the Jews but then broke it and ended sacrifices by invading and destroying Jerusalem in AD70. Then, the first half of the final week was fulfilled historically, as you suggest.

 

You make some good points, but

1) The word means "ruin".  If cities are normally ruined with destruction, does not mean that they cannot be ruined morally too. I showed you examples where other objects in the bible are ruined morally. So if you claim that a city cannot be ruined morally just because they were normally ruined physically , I disagree with you. The Hebrew meaning applies to both moral and physical ruining and I already showed you that.

 

ps the Galilean zealots ruined the city in every way except complete destruction. They divided the city into various factions and fought amongst themselves, destroying many buildings in the process.  They even used war machines within the city against the temple area, as they fought against each other, regularly killing priests and visitors. They ruined the religious rituals and stopped the sacrificial system before the Romans even arrived.  " till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves" (Josephus) This happened before the Roman armies even attacked.  They raped and stole from the people. They ruined all political religious and administrative systems in the city. They distributed the bodies of the dead for cannibalism. The extent of their evil completely overshadows the later Roman destruction, which was merely an inevitable consequence of the evil acts of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. After the Jews had rejected Christ they unknowingly rejected all blessing and unity from God and fell into a terrible moral crisis. They could have beaten the Romans if they were united and with morally respectable leaders. They had the means and the population to do so.

 

"Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, as he claimed that he had not won the victory on his own, but had been the vehicle through which their God had manifested his wrath against his people" wikipedia    The Jews actually self destructed, leading to the fall of Jerusalem. It was Jews who started the fire in the courtyard of the temple when the temple was burnt to the ground during the final Roman charge. 

 

"Accordingly, it so came to pass, that all the places that were about the temple were burnt down, and were become an intermediate desert space, ready for fighting on both sides; and that almost all the corn was burnt, which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years."   They were ruining the city and its supplies before the Romans arrived.  Yes the Romans completed the destruction, but the city was literally in ruins when they arrived. 

 

the people (Galileans) of the prince (Jesus of Galilee) that shall come shall ruin the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood (Roman army enters), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (desolations occurred right through the rebellion until the end of the war)

 

You know I'm right...    you may never admit it.

 

2) I believe verse 26 is an obvious parenthesis within the prophecy. It is deliberately not linked into an exact timeframe within the 70 sevens.   69 sevens are mentioned, then the prophecy describes the crucifixion and the destruction at 70AD, then the prophecy returns to describe the 70th seven.

 

Why would the bible have such confusing grammar. You would say, "then another prince is to come" to create clarity. The context only introduces a second prince if your bias makes you look for one. That is the honest truth.

 

3) If you introduce some sort of gap leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem , that gap would create a problem. You need a good reason for that gap. A gap at the crucifixion makes perfect sense because Jesus brought a gift of sacrifice, and then the way was made open to the Gentiles. This interrupted the 70 sevens for "Daniel's people" because we moved into the so-called church age, an age for Gentile truth and salvation.  I believe the victory of the gospel ushers in the final Jewish age:  In Rev 12 the church achieves its goal (preach the gospel to all nations and then the end will come). At this victory Israel is nourished , but the church goes into a final 3.5 year period of persecution:

 

11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman that brought forth the man child. 14 And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

 

This final blessing of Israel is also described in Romans 11:

25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

 

Fullness of the Gentiles can be seen as "completeness of the nations".  The same word "Gentiles" means "nations". So to place a gap half way through the final 7, at the point of the crucifixion which ended the special period for "Daniel's people" makes perfect sense. The crucifixion opened the way of salvation to all mankind , interrupting the 70 sevens with Jesus "gift of sacrifice" to the world.  But in the future, once again there will be a special 3.5 year period for Daniel's people, they will be nourished, and will be open to the gospel, for 3.5 years leading up to the second coming.

[ARGOSY]

 

ARGOSY there's no point in arguing with professor ENOCH 2021 he knows it all even though christ was anointed 3 and a half years (Baptisim) before his cruxifiction and its was by His cruxifiction which made the sacrifices cease...just because the Jews carried on with it...God made it obsolete.

Why argue with someone who argues from man's perspective and not God's perspective? ARGOSY your gonna waist your time

 

 

He is rather difficult to have a discussion with.  Patience is required ...lol.       But I'm sure he means well despite his strong wording and opinions. No insult intended Enoch.

 

Thanks for summarising Daniel 9:27 so succintly, yes Jesus was anointed in the river Jordan (coming of the anointed one)

Then Jesus was the final sacrifice  (end of sacrifices)

Jesus ministry was 3.5 years long (half a seven)

Jesus gave strength to God's Messianic promise, by fulfilling God's promise to the Jews to send a Messiah to set them free. 

 

So for those with open eyes its easy to see Jesus in the first half of Daniel 9:27

[ghtan]

That's still "off the Reservation".  The destruction of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary happens in Verse 26 after the Messiah is executed.  Verse 27 (Daniel's 70th Week) then speaks to the confirming of the Covenant and The Abomination of Desolation....no destruction of the City/Temple mentioned here.

 

Titus (Roman) never confirmed "a covenant" and he surely didn't commit the Abomination of Desolation.   

 

The scenario that you acquiesced to goes:  Confirm a Covenant by Titus------->Destruction of the City and Temple --------> Then to Verse 27 (This is Daniel's 70th Week) -----> Confirm a Another Covenant ?? ----->  Then what?

 

Confirm a Covenant by Titus is Erroneous in Verse 26.

 

The "he" in Verse 27 is a "Type"...the Prince (ac) will come from Old ROMAN Empire....most assuredly from the Eastern Leg of that Empire (The Byzantine) which covered....Assyria; He's an Assyrian.

 

I was not suggesting the Roman figure is Titus; I think the identity of the prince is not important as long as he represents Rome. I think we kid ourselves if we think we have enough information about that time to know exactly who did what. But we can see the results. The covenant might just be an understanding that allowed the Jews to practise their own religion, and that was what Rome did. However, by invading and destroying Jerusalem, Rome broke the agreement. Verse 27 does not follow the destruction of the city - there is no "then" - but explains the circumstances behind the destruction. So there is no need to mention the destruction of the temple in vs 27. Your problem would be to prove that the 'he' in verse 27 is someone else in the future. There is no evidence of that in the text.

[ghtan]

Hi argosy,

 

I take it from your long reply that you could not find any occurrence of the word 'destroy' with city or temple as the object where it means ruin rather than physical destruction. The examples you quoted previously do not have city or temple as the object. The weight of evidence is then on physical destruction. To quote you: You know that is right even though you won't admit it. The rest of your reply is a bit confusing but, crucially, I think you did not explain how Jesus can confirm a covenant and abolish the sacrifices in the 70th week when he is already dead by the end of the 69th week. I think someone else posed the same question to you. Unless you can provide an answer, there is a logic gap in your scheme.

[ARGOSY]

Hi argosy,

 

I take it from your long reply that you could not find any occurrence of the word 'destroy' with city or temple as the object where it means ruin rather than physical destruction. The examples you quoted previously do not have city or temple as the object. The weight of evidence is then on physical destruction. To quote you: You know that is right even though you won't admit it. The rest of your reply is a bit confusing but, crucially, I think you did not explain how Jesus can confirm a covenant and abolish the sacrifices in the 70th week when he is already dead by the end of the 69th week. I think someone else posed the same question to you. Unless you can provide an answer, there is a logic gap in your scheme.

 

 

You are fixated on the word being used specifically for temples and cities. Do you know how silly that logic is? The word means "ruin".  The zealots ruined the city and the temple physically, morally, economically. Priests were murdered, the populace were persecuted and robbed. Buildings were destroyed. There was murder and cannibalism.  The zealots ruined the city, then the Romans completely destroyed it.

 

 The people (Galilean Jews)of the ruler (Jesus of Galilee) who will come will ruin the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood (Roman invasion) : War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

[ARGOSY]

 

Daniel 9 : 26

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood:War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Now my question is who or what comes to its end like a flood? Jesus, the sanctuary or the antichrist? 

 

The city and sanctuary. The zealots ruin the city, and the Romans end it.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

==================================================================================================================

 

Yes I'm saying Titus does not have a role in the Daniel 9 prophecy.

 

 

Key Phrase.  When are you going to get to the Supporting?

 

Except for here...

 

(Daniel 9:26) "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."

 

Who was the Commander "prince" IN CHARGE of the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.....The Messiah The Prince or Titus Vespasian of the ROMANS?  

 

 

It was particularly Galilean Jews who morally ruined the city before the Romans arrived and destroyed it.

 

 

In Dreamland, maybe

 

 

If you see the countrymen as Romans then you have to have two coming princes which is not grammatically correct.

 

 

It's not grammatically correct, eh?  Go ahead.....?

 

 

Yes I am saying they are the same prince.

 

 

Then, as I said, you are reduced to this Colossal Trainwreck:

 

Let's carry this through to it's unequivocal conclusion....

 

So "the people" of the prince that shall come = "Galilean Zealots"      Are these "Galilean Zealots" Jews?  So Daniel/Gabriel is warning Jews that after the Messiah is executed... that the Temple and the Sanctuary would be destroyed....by Jews?  

So they destroyed the Temple.... morally, before the Romans arrived, eh?  Please and.......?

Aren't Jesus' "countrymen" Jews?

So then lets look @ Daniel 9:27....

(Daniel 9:27) "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."

So according to you, the "he" above is Jesus Christ because the "he" is referring to the Antecedent "the prince"....which "you" have postulated that the "Messiah The Prince" and the "prince of the people that shall come" are One and the same.

ERGO.... in the midst of Daniel's 70th Week, Jesus Christ Will RETURN then will confirm a covenant with the many....AND THEN, will Cause...."the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate."

The Abomination of Desolation (Stand in The Holy Place, Matt 24:15) is someone other than GOD Stand in the Holy Place, Blaspheme and claim he is GOD.

So "you" have Jesus Christ:  returning in the Midst of Daniel's 70th Week: confirming a covenant with the many; and standing in the Holy Place Claiming he is GOD (Abomination of Desolation).

 

 

 

what confuses people is that translators tend to put Capitals with the first prince and no capitals with the second prince, this is translator error not in the original text.

 

 

I knew something to this effect was coming to protect the Trainwreck.  Translator error, eh?  More like Head Space and Timing of the Operator Error to me.

 

Support ?  Post the Original Text and we'll evaluate.

 

Moreover, who cares what's "Capitalized" or not.... it doesn't affect the Integrity of the Passages One Iota.  By the mere construction of Verse 26 then 27....the "he" and the context of the passage, is the compelling factor in the matter and differentiates the "Princes" all by itself. 

 

 

You are looking at the more rare translations that only have one character in Daniel 9, most translations mention two characters.

 

 

Sir there is only ONE "translation" of GOD'S WORD....the Authorized King James Version.  Post the original for the Textus Receptus and get to proving your case!

 

 

Most translations have two characters, yet your view has only one character. I guess you prefer the KJV, I will go with the majority translations in this case.

 

 

Even though they're Demonstrably Corrupt?  By the mere fact that there are over 400 "translations" should set off Alarm Bells      And......Consensus/Majority doesn't = TRUTH 

 

Take a study here: 

 

(Genesis 3:1) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

(Genesis 3:4) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

GOD tipped satan's hand and revealed his 2 main tactics:  1. Create Doubt, 2. Change The WORD of GOD.

One way to "Create Doubt" is many inconsistent versions.  BUT, There is One TRUE VINE.

 

The majority of ALL "new" translations are brought to you by: Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort). The demonstrable corrupt Manuscripts they used (all originated in Alexandria, Home of the Gnostics):

* Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England.  A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament.

* Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can in St Catherine's Monastery @ the Traditional Mt Sinai.  Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

* Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century.  Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament.

*** There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!!!!

 

All modern translations have their Primary Source documents buried in those 3 codices including the NIV. Others... If you are reading these Bibles, I would suggest to STOP what you are doing this second and conduct an IN-DEPTH study of Westcott and Hort and "your" Bible's source documents (Just a sample)......

(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).

 

The Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20), Most Modern Translations there will be a marginal notation that these verses were added later and question the authenticity. They are not found in the 3 codices.

 

In 150 AD, several centuries before these codices: 

Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary.  ahhh, Houston we have a problem!

2nd Century AD, Hypolatus also comments on these verses.

 

That means, between 150 AD and when these codices were "made" (~ 350 AD) there were some shenanigans going on.

Let's here it from their own mouths...

In a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Westcott wrote,

"No one now I suppose hold that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".

Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 69

 

Hort April 3 1860,

"But the book which has engaged me the most is Darwin.  What may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with.  My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable".

F.J Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1, p. 146

 

Hort,

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it.  But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; Anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father".

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and letters of F. J. A. Hort, p. 428

Hort said,

"I am now inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants".

F.J.A Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1, p. 78

 

Westcott wrote,

"Christians are themselves in a true sense 'Christs'.

B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 73

 

Hort, Letter to F.D. Maurice

"Finally St. Paul's mysterious words 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'- I have labored so utterly to apprehend in any measure what this idea is, that I hope you will deepen and widen the hints you have already given.  I am quite conscious that I have given but a few distinct objections to the common belief, (redemption through the blood of the Lamb) in what I have written, but so indeed it must be; language cannot accurately define the twinge of shrinking horror which mixes with my thought when I hear the popular notion asserted".

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F. J. A. Vol 1, p. 122

 

Hort wrote to Westcott,

" I have been persuaded for many years the Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common and their causes and results".

F. J. A. Life of Hort, Vol 2, p. 50

 

Hort speaking to 1 Peter 1:4 'reserved in heaven':

"It is hardly necessary to say that this whole local language is figurative folly".

F.J.A, The First Epistle to Peter, p. 39

Westcott wrote,

"How certainly I should have been claimed a heretic".

B.F. Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 233

You said it!!  If you need more, (for the life of me I don't know why)... 

 

Try here:

 

Ghostly Guild

Hermes Club

The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour

F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1

F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2

B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott

B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John

B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews

 

If you want to be quick, just investigate their relationship with Helena Blavatsky (Mother of Theosophy------Satan Worshiping).

 

 

And finally, the the question you dodged (I even Starred it so you wouldn't accidentally on purpose miss it, but alas)...

 

** Please tell us why the City and The Temple were destroyed in 70 AD....?  Was the reason, as you said, because of the "Galilean Zealots" or another reason?

 

The reason is spoken of Indirectly in Dan 9:25.

[seandavids]

I've never been able to understand how the angel came to enlighten Daniel for greater understanding of the meaning of the vision and the vision was completely and fully about what the antichrist (false annointed messiah) would do when he came

 

and somehow theologians have decided Daniel 9:24-27 is a picture of both Jesus and the antichrist

 

 

at the very least, since there is no separation in the passage its either fully about Jesus or fully about the antichrist one or the other! spitting the ownership of verses is bad hermeneutics