Understanding the Final One Seven

[Marcus O'Reillius]

One last point, and these are important questions:

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why did the Apostles continue to live in Jerusalem and preach to their fellow Jews?

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why is no mention of this now expired offer to the Jews done in the Gospel accounts, written about two decades later?

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why does Paul still hold out for his fellow Jews to accept the Gospel? - His desire was to preach to them!

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why doesn't Paul say they missed their chance, and why doesn't he lecture us not to miss out as they did?

[Serving]

10 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

Serving

Where is the last 42 Months?   How does what you say compare with Matt 25:15?

In Christ

Montana Marv

Different prophecy all together .. it was only associated with the 70 weeks because of the assumption that the 70 weeks were not fulfilled and no other reason.

Serving.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

29 minutes ago, Serving said:

Different prophecy all together .. it was only associated with the 70 weeks because of the assumption that the 70 weeks were not fulfilled and no other reason.

Mt 24:15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Did Jesus assume this was associated with the seventy 'sevens' of Daniel? 

Because it is He who links this mention of the abomination / desolation back to Daniel.

Jesus begins the detailed parallel portion to the broad overview to the "end," which is when He returns, by starting with the midpoint abomination.

Thus Jesus sets the one 'seven's midpoint as something still yet to be accomplished, because there has been greater tribulation than what followed His Crucifixion.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Serving]

7 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

One last point, and these are important questions:

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why did the Apostles continue to live in Jerusalem and preach to their fellow Jews?

1) Because, like I keep telling you Marcus, the time limit had to do with Israel as a NATION being representatives/priests of Christ, which thing they failed NATIONALLY (hence the Gentiles becoming the NATION of Christ's priests) .. but INDIVIDUALLY there were still those to be saved and WITNESSED to within Israel.

2) After the stoning of Stephen, 3 1/2 years after crucifixion, ALL the disciples fled to Damascus and based themselves there (where they were first called Christians in Antioch) except for the Apostles who hid & worked out of Jerusalem itself for the "mopping up" as it were.

Quote

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why is no mention of this now expired offer to the Jews done in the Gospel accounts, written about two decades later?

It is there if you know where and how to look for it ..

Daniel 9:24(a) "Seventy weeks are determined for thy people" (Israel)

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Daniel 9:24(a) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate"

Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
 

Quote

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why does Paul still hold out for his fellow Jews to accept the Gospel? - His desire was to preach to them!

If Israel as a NATION had not failed the 70 weeks requirements, then Paul would have NO REASON to HOLD OUT for his fellow Jews to accept the gospel now would he !!!! Why?, because TIME would be on his side .. but time was NOT on his side and he knew it, so the Apostles did all they could to reach out to the individuals before the punishment on Jerusalem would come.

Quote

IF the one 'seven' relates only to Israel, and as Serving says, the time expired for Israel - why doesn't Paul say they missed their chance, and why doesn't he lecture us not to miss out as they did?

You're kidding right?

Haven't you read :

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

And throughout the scriptures many other mentions are made, if I were more inspired in this debate with you I'd give even better ones, but it doesn't seem like you are even reading what I write but just arguing the points so I can't be bothered giving so much effort to you now .. nevertheless, here's one little insight from the NT :

Acts 13
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

The answers are there if you know where and how to look.

Cheers.

[Serving]

1 hour ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Mt 24:15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Did Jesus assume this was associated with the seventy 'sevens' of Daniel? 

Because it is He who links this mention of the abomination / desolation back to Daniel.

Jesus begins the detailed parallel portion to the broad overview to the "end," which is when He returns, by starting with the midpoint abomination.

Thus Jesus sets the one 'seven's midpoint as something still yet to be accomplished, because there has been greater tribulation than what followed His Crucifixion.

LOL, the abomination of desolation isn't mentioned in Daniel 9, neither is the false prophet .. Daniel has more chapters & prophecies than just in chapter 9 BTW.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

40 minutes ago, Serving said:

2) After the stoning of Stephen, 3 1/2 years after crucifixion, ALL the disciples fled to Damascus and based themselves there (where they were first called Christians in Antioch) except for the Apostles who hid & worked out of Jerusalem itself for the "mopping up" as it were.

Just so we can check the record, what was the hour, the day, the date, the month, and the year of Stephen's stoning?

It's important because the end is numbered in days, so each day makes a difference to the count given in Daniel 12.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 hour ago, Serving said:

If Israel as a NATION had not failed the 70 weeks requirements, then Paul would have NO REASON to HOLD OUT for his fellow Jews to accept the gospel now would he !!!! Why?, because TIME would be on his side .. but time was NOT on his side and he knew it, so the Apostles did all they could to reach out to the individuals before the punishment on Jerusalem would come.

When did Paul go from Saul to Paul?

My NASB Study Bible lists Jesus' crucifixion as A.D. 30 and Paul's conversion in A.D. 35.

So didn't Paul, as a full-blown Israeli national - come into believing AFTER the nation was excluded?  A nation is only a collection of like individuals after all.  That is even reflected in the Greek word ethnos which means more than nation, as also a multitude of people, and it usually refers to Gentiles when used in the Bible.

So you want to make this fine distinction between nation and people, but the Bible does not confirm your hair-splitting.

Jesus said,

Mt 21:43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. 

And Paul said:

Rom 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

Christians are now and have been since the time of Jesus, the only ones who CAN inherit the Kingdom of God.  This includes Jews who have come to believe in Jesus as their Messiah; they are Christian too - as both Gentile and Jew are united in Christ Jesus.

Salvation is not a birthright.  After the Jews rejected Jesus, the Jews' obedience meant nothing, the Law cannot give Life.

JESUS becomes the cutting edge separating sheep from goats.  
When the question of Jesus comes: a person only has three choices and he must make one:
1. He is Lord
2. He was a liar.
3. He was a lunatic.
Only those who accept Jesus as Lord can inherit the Kingdom of God.

While the Kingdom of God is out of reach for the Jews who rejected Jesus as He said, Paul is saying that in no way has God rejected the Jews.  
The reason for the Millennium is the reunification of the Jews to Jesus.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

54 minutes ago, Serving said:

LOL, the abomination of desolation isn't mentioned in Daniel 9,

Laugh out loud?  It's not?  I'm sorry, yet it IS mentioned in Daniel 9:27.  As a matter of fact, it punctuates the midpoint of the one 'seven'.

Daniel 9:27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

You should know, but maybe you don't, but "will come one who makes" is added in translation for yet another common verbless Hebrew sting of a preposition and three nouns: "on wing abominations desolation".

[Serving]

On 30/06/2016 at 8:47 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Laugh out loud?  It's not?  I'm sorry, yet it IS mentioned in Daniel 9:27.  As a matter of fact, it punctuates the midpoint of the one 'seven'.

Daniel 9:27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

You should know, but maybe you don't, but "will come one who makes" is added in translation for yet another common verbless Hebrew sting of a preposition and three nouns: "on wing abominations desolation".

Hi Marcus,

Can't you see that even in your translation it is clear that there are two different "personalities" at work :

Daniel 9:27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

Notice "he" first makes a covenant before "he" puts a stop to it Marcus?? 

So do we agree that "he" makes the covenant and then stops it "himself" ??

Next notice the conjunction "and" occurring after "he" that ends that covenant which conjunction links the two statements indicating the unbroken narratives clear intent of introducing another character into the verse by the use of that aforementioned conjunction "and" ??

Whose use is clearly used as an add/plus to the verse that clearly signifies "another" being introduced to the narrative which is further confirmed by the intent "will come" which FOLLOWS said conjunction "and"  .. which .. leaves no doubt as to the meaning of "will come" in relation to not only "he" of the covenant but also to it's relation to the intent of that other "one" who : will come. 

AND furthermore .. that "one" being mentioned is clearly introduced past tense in regards to "he" who initially makes that covenant which matches the below translations SAME conjunction "and" perfectly, whilst keeping in context with the SAME intent : of that "one" who  will come whose coming clearly comes after "he" who stops that covenant. 

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.
 

There are clearly TWO characters in both translations Marcus .. your position is clearly the wrong one in this debate, of that there is even no doubt contextually & grammatically speaking.

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Serving

[Marcus O'Reillius]

 

9 minutes ago, Serving said:

Can't you see that even in your translation it is clear that there are two different "personalities" at work :

Whose use is clearly used as an add/plus to the verse that clearly signifies "another" being introduced to the narrative which is further confirmed?...

AND furthermore .. that "one" being mentioned is clearly introduced past tense in regards to "he" who initially makes that covenant which matches the below translations SAME conjunction...

There are clearly TWO characters in both translations Marcus .. your position is clearly the wrong one in this debate, of that there is even no doubt grammatically speaking.

 

No, actually according to the Hebrew Syntax book, both pronouns refer to same antecedent actor: the prince who will come.

That's six "clear/clearly's" in your post, so as an indicator that something is anything but "clear" as you have stated it, you've gone over the line with a 500% margin of error added onto all other the errors that I've been pointing out.

In my opinion, the Preterist position on Daniel 9 is absolutely weak and unsubstantiated.  I can only speculate that holding onto it must relate to some emotional disdain for the idea that the dreaded one 'seven' is something through which we must also suffer.  

Endure patiently God says in prophecy concerning this time.