Understanding the Final One Seven

[Marcus O'Reillius]

8 hours ago, Serving said:

Remember I said that the act of Jesus keeping the LAW was in and of itself another way of confirming the law/covenant and you disagreed?

Read this :

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Just showing you that it is in fact an accurate thing I said after all.

Cheers.

Well Jesus must have only "confirmed" that for seven years because that's what the prophecy said, so according to this line of thinking, His Ministry must have lasted seven years, which it did not, only going into its third year, or you're saying that Jesus only performed the Law entirely for seven years.  That is not the case either.  No matter how you slice it, "causing to prevail" a covenant for only seven years is NOT something Jesus did.

But this is all nonsense, even if we accept the premise that gabar means to confirm which it doesn't.  Jesus didn't do anything for just seven years.  He kept the Law His whole life, and He is keeping it still.  The New Covenant did not expire after seven years either, but remains in effect until as such time that Jesus returns physically and gathers His Elect.

What this dialogue does show is the absurdity of trying to assign the opening action of Daniel 9:27 to Jesus.   While you have vacillated between the Abramaic and Mosaic covenants, Retrobyter says it is the Davidic covenant Jesus "won" and WilliamL says the covenant is the many agreements Vesparian wrung out of the Jews who were not revolting with the Zealots.  No one can even point to a definitive covenant!  And no one can specify how Jesus or Vesparian (or Titus) did it for only seven years.  

I say this covenant is yet to be prevailed upon by the ruler who will come.  He will cause it to be forced through, and thus will start the last, one 'seven' of Bible prophecy - which culminates God's overall Plan of Salvation, and the end of the rule of man on the earth.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Retrobyter]

9 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

Roy

Jesus Christ Himself cannot split the last One Seven in half, making two separate one half's.  WHY, He already prophesied in Scripture that it would be a ONE - Seven.  NOT Two separated two half sevens.  Read Zech 14:21 - Every pet in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.  This is during the 1000 year reign of Christ. 

So as one can see Christ did not end sacrifices at His Death.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Shalom, Marv.

LOL! Well, I guess I should have been more specific. Yeshua` finished the NEED for sacrifices at His Death from the perspective of appeasing God because of our sin. 

Hebrews 10:1-18
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
KJV

Sacrifices WILL continue, but they are not for our justification ("salvation") or sanctification. Sacrifices were made in the Temple right up to the time of its destruction in 70 A.D., but they had no power with God. If God doesn't ACCEPT a sacrifice as payment for sin, then it has no efficacy.

[Serving]

16 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Well Jesus must have only "confirmed" that for seven years because that's what the prophecy said, so according to this line of thinking, His Ministry must have lasted seven years, which it did not, only going into its third year, or you're saying that Jesus only performed the Law entirely for seven years.  That is not the case either.  No matter how you slice it, "causing to prevail" a covenant for only seven years is NOT something Jesus did.

Obviously, you are not understanding the principle behind Christ needing to first come under the 1st covenant, and "spring boarding" from there for to "enter into" the New covenant, so let me give you some facts you can't deny which might help you begin to grasp Christ's Ministry more perfectly in regards to this subject ..

1) Christ's first had to fulfil all things written about Him from the Old Testament before even being considered eligible as Messiah, even His birth needed to fulfil that which was written of Him :

Matthew 1
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

And His life too 

Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

Matthew 4:14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

2) Christ would likewise need to confirm that which He claimed to represent (God) by the most obvious/visible way possible .. by living it, because one was NEVER considered as representing God in those times if one did not keep His LAW  

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. 

And by confirming all the words of that Law by Him living them, He likewise confirmed His eligibility through all that was written (prophesied) of Him which in doing so likewise confirmed the validity of the authority of the Law & the prophets in return.

3) All those things together confirmed He was indeed validated by God Himself as being authorised to be called PRIEST of God, since it was written He was to be not only a Prophet, but a LAW GIVER (Priest) too. 

Deuteronomy 18
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

5) And the Law He was bringing was expected

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Which was in fact the fulfilment of this Law :

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 

And seeing it is the fulfilment of that 1st Law, which Law was NOT destroyed but was fulfilled, and this thing "new", seen here : "that I will make a new covenant", in conjunction with this : "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." together signifies this :   

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

And a reformation means a reforming of an institution or a practice which is EXACTLY what the New Covenant accomplishes.

And seeing one must first confirm the Old (as shown above) before being eligible to confirm the New (as shown below),

Mark 16

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Then by obvious necessity that same one must confirm BOTH covenants which Jesus most certainly DID.

And seeing it becomes obvious that Messiah by necessity must confirm BOTH covenants, which are really ONE covenant fulfilled/reformed, then this below DIVISION likewise should now become obvious in that same light :

Daniel 9:27(a) 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,

The division of the week signifying the TWO covenants (which is really the SAME covenant REFORMED) being equally represented and CONFIRMED by Christ EXCLUSIVELY to the NATION of Israel, and done so in that FINAL ONE WEEK time ALLOTMENT Israel was allotted amongst her 70 weeks total .. which thing brings this statement to light too :

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

WHAT TIME????

Everybody needs to think on this .. because :

There was only ONE TIME ALLOTMENT Israel was UNDER in Christ's day .. and that was the 70 weeks !!!!!!!!!!!! 

Christ was indicating that HE was FULFILLING that FINAL WEEK itself .. and seeing He WAS FULFILLING that week, then there is NO FUTURE WEEK outstanding, the 70 weeks ARE fulfilled !!!

Quote

But this is all nonsense, even if we accept the premise that gabar means to confirm which it doesn't.  

Your railing on about "gabar" was doing my head in so I looked it up and found in in ONE SEARCH that YOU ARE WRONG because YES IT DOES also mean "confirm" .. so you were even wrong on that too !!!! 

גָּבַר gâbar, gaw-bar'; a primitive root; to be strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently:—exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more (strength), strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.

 

Quote

Jesus didn't do anything for just seven years.  He kept the Law His whole life, and He is keeping it still.  

Look, I already explained this too you didn't I ??

I wasn't talking about Jesus'WHOLE LIFE dude, I was speaking about HIS earthly MINISTRY !!! BIG difference don't you think !!!!

Quote

The New Covenant did not expire after seven years either, but remains in effect until as such time that Jesus returns physically and gathers His Elect.

Marcus !!!!

The TIME LIMIT was for the NATION of ISRAEL to ACCEPT Messiah's NEW COVENANT WITHIN !!!! FOR ISRAEL the NATION .. NATION .. NATIONALLY speaking okay !!!!

So SIMPLE it boggles my mind that you can not grasp such a basic concept ????

And BTW, AFTER that TIME LIMIT EXPIRED FOR NATIONAL ISRAEL to accept MESSIAH within that TIME FRAME, then .. then .. then THAT NEW COVENANT was to GO out to the GENTILES .. which .. it DID !!!!!

Quote

What this dialogue does show is the absurdity of trying to assign the opening action of Daniel 9:27 to Jesus.  

NO it doesn't .. how can you make such a judgement when I've needed to correct you on every "main point" scripture I've supplied to you thus far YOU have consistently misunderstood completely ?? I most certainly understood them, and yet, you say my perspective is "absurd" even after your basic errors ???? 

Hmmm .. I'd think twice before casting stones considering the above Marcus, I mean, HONESTLY !!!!

This doesn't look absurd to me :   

1) "finish the transgression" .. Where Israel failed, God succeeded .. Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

2) "and to make an end to sins" ..  Where Israel failed, God succeeded.. 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

3) "" and to make reconciliation for iniquity".. Where Israel failed, God succeeded .. Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

4) "and to bring in everlasting righteousness".. Where Israel failed, God succeeded .. Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5) "and to seal up the vision and the prophecy" .. Where Israel failed, God succeeded .. Isaiah 8:
13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

6) "and to anoint the most holy" .. Where Israel failed, God succeeded .. Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Quote

While you have vacillated between the Abramaic and Mosaic covenants, Retrobyter says it is the Davidic covenant Jesus "won" and WilliamL says the covenant is the many agreements Vesparian wrung out of the Jews who were not revolting with the Zealots.

No I have not .. stop putting words into my mouth okay.

I made it clear over and over that I spoke of Moses' covenant ALL ALONG, so STOP playing these games and twisting my words okay

Quote

 No one can even point to a definitive covenant!  And no one can specify how Jesus or Vesparian (or Titus) did it for only seven years.  

What do you think I have been doing !!!!

Just because YOU can not grasp the obviousness in the scriptures and explanations I've provided (since I had to correct you on them) doesn't mean that I did not deliver .. it is YOU who did not understand not me.

Quote

I say this covenant is yet to be prevailed upon by the ruler who will come.  He will cause it to be forced through, and thus will start the last, one 'seven' of Bible prophecy - which culminates God's overall Plan of Salvation, and the end of the rule of man on the earth.

And I say you are wrong, the 70 weeks are already fulfilled and you are adding to scripture things which ought not be added.

[Montana Marv]

Serving

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

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Marcus O'Reillius]

3 hours ago, Serving said:

Obviously, you are not understanding the principle behind Christ needing to first come under the 1st covenant, and "spring boarding" from there for to "enter into" the New covenant,

Rather presumptuous of you to know what I understand and what I do not understand.  Last I checked, only God knows a person's heart and mind...  Even the prophets say that a person's heart is deceitful, and who can understand it?  
Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
10 "I, the Lord, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds.

So before you correct me, look anew at what you're trying to tell me.  You're telling me Jesus fulfilled all that was required of Him, and that fulfillment confirmed the covenant made by from the Mosaic or Abramaic covenant (I don't think you've still specified which one...).

Now let me state again: FULFILLMENT DOES NOT CONFIRM.  Two totally different words, meaning two totally different things.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Another point.  

Even if we were to accept that gabar means to confirm (and it doesn't) - If Jesus "confirmed" an OT covenant by fulfilling it (a dichotomy of terms, I know, but stay with me) - THEN that covenant is stronger, having been buttressed, shored up, given additional emphasis, so as to be even more forefront and important!

At some point, your eschatological arguments impinge on basic Christian theology, and to accept your premise based on your say-so, I have to throw out the very basis for understanding the New Covenant as new.  It's not a strengthened old covenant...

You can say Jesus confirmed a covenant by fulfilling it all day long and for days on end, and go on page after page in endless repetition - but it will never prove what you seek because you cannot confirm by fulfilling.  

[Marcus O'Reillius]

4 hours ago, Serving said:

Your railing on about "gabar" was doing my head in so I looked it up and found in in ONE SEARCH that YOU ARE WRONG because YES IT DOES also mean "confirm" .. so you were even wrong on that too !!!! 

גָּבַר gâbar, gaw-bar'; a primitive root; to be strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently:—exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more (strength), strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.

I am not wrong, because I rely on better scholars who are not wrong.

You simply cannot check to see what a word means in a translation by looking at a concordance.

ALL A CONCORDANCE WILL DO IS TELL YOU HOW A WORD IS TRANSLATED.  A CONCORDANCE IS NOT A DICTIONARY.

This is the very nature of a circular argument.  The Stongs' Concordance will only validate what you're reading in the King James as meaning what it is translated as, and it will not tell you anything else.

gabar as a verb means to prevail.  In this instance, the KJV translators renders this root word, which has a definite definition in the Hebrew, as "confirm."  This mixes in a very old definition of that English word with the meaning of gabar as an adjective.  It is a stretch to say the least, and in part reflects the KJV translators' understanding of what they thought was going on - rather than give the best word-for-word translation possible.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT gabar MEANS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A WORD STUDY BOOK.  I use the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.  It is a Ph.D. level seminary reference book.  I asked a Ph.D. level minister and professor at a nearby Bible College what books I should use to understand the original languages, and this is one of the ones he uses and recommended to me.

Now, as I care about the Bible and your study into our mutual interest, here is what a real scholar wrote on gabar:

Quote

 

310נכד   (gābar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. (ASV and RSV similar.)

Derivatives
310a (geber) man.
310b (gibbôr) mighty man.
310c (g^e bûrâ) might.
310d (g^e bîrâ) lady, queen (masc. lord, Gen 27:29, 37).
310e (g^e beret) lady, queen.

This root and its derivatives occur 328 times in the OT, of which the verb account for but 26.  The cognate is well attested in the semitic languages, appearing in Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Moabite.  At present, it is only known in a proper noun in Ugaritic.  In general the same meaning is shared throughout.  In Arabic, the basic meaning of the root is “to rise, raise, restore,” with the idea of being strong, or prevailing over coming only in the only in the derived stems.  That the Hebrew may share a similar range of meaning is seen in the Hithpael where the idea is not so much to make oneself prevail over God, as it is to raise oneself up in arrogance and stand in his face (Job 15:25; 36:9; Isa 42:13).  The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior.

In the first analysis, might and mighty men were causes for celebration in the OT.  During much of the biblical period Israel was in a heroic age.  Thus the feats and exploits of her champions we causes for delight and storytelling.  Such an exploit was that of David’s three mighty men as they broke through the Philistine lines to bring him water from Bethlehem (I Chr 11:15-19).  I Samuel 1 is a lament for the fallen heroes, Saul and Jonathan, extolling their valiant deeds.  Similarly II Sam 23 records the glories of various mighty men.  I and II Chronicles contain many references to the mighty men of Israel, commonly employing the phrase gibbôr hayil “mighty men of valor” to describe them.  Although Chr generally uses the term to express “warrior” or “soldier,” there are indications that originally this was a technical term for men of a certain social class, “nobles” who had the privilege of bearing arms for the king (cf. Ruth 2:1; I Sam 9:1; II Kgs 15:20, etc. where “warrior” is too narrow a translation.

It is not surprising that in such a society God was often depicted as a warrior.  God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be.  Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess ―wisdom, might, counsel and understanding― are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14).  Isaiah (9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89: 13-14 [H 14-15]).

God’s might draws the limits to man’s might, for man’s prowess is to be gloried in just so long as it does not overstep itself.  When man sees his might as all he needs for successful living, he is deluded (Ps 33:16; 90:10; Eccl 9:11).  When he, in the arrogance of his strength, pits himself against the Warrior-God, he will be destroyed (Ps 52; Jer 9:22; 46:5; etc.).  Rather might must be tempered with wisdom (I Sam 2:9; Prov 16:32; 21:22) and the greatest wisdom of all is to trust God.  Thus it is said that he is geber (a male at the height of his powers) who trust God (Ps 40:4 [H 5]).  The man possessed of might who yet distrusts his own powers and instead trusts those of God is most truly entitled to the appellation “man” (Job 38:3; jer 17:7; Mic 3:8).  This is the “new man” of Paul, for he will have discovered that although transgressions have prevailed over him (Ps 65:3 [H 4]), the Lord’s mercy will prevail over them (Ps 103:11) and that the Lord is indeed “might to save” (Ps 80:3).

geber.  Man.  As distinct from such more general words for man as ’ādām, ’ish, ’enosh, etc., this word specifically relates to a male at the height of his powers.  As such it depicts humanity as its most competent and capable level.  Sixty-six occurrences.

gibbor.  Mighty, strong, valiant, mighty man.   (RSV often translates “warrior.”) The heroes of champions among the armed forces.  Occurs 16 times.

g^ebûrá.  Might.  Refers especially to royal power.  As such it is commonly ascribed to God.  Sixty-three occurrences.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; © 1980, Moody Press, p 148/9, author: John N. Oswalt, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

 

Now at no time does John N. Oswalt, Ph.D. say gabar means to confirm.  There is a specific Hebrew word that does mean to confirm: Gabriel did not use it as recorded by Daniel.  Too bad Professor Oswalt didn't tackle Daniel 9:27 head-on, but the sense I get with this particular instance, is that nobody want to touch it as it has become the third rail of Bible translation to go against what the King James version translators have wrought.  Even the NASB pays homage, only going so far that gabar is to make stronger, but again, that misses the real mark.

Here is something from a hundred years ago.  Notice that only in two instances with the Hiphil stem does the word meaning change, and even these authors give an alternate translation with Ps 12:4 (which is not 12:5 as annotated) which comports to the original word meaning over what the King James translators did.  

The modern KJV uses "prevail" in Psalm 12:4, and not "confirm" - which makes Daniel 9:27 the ONLY TIME they change the word meaning for this important verb.

Quote

 

נכד vb. be strong, mighty
―1. be strong, mighty, abs. mighty in power Jb21⁷
2. prevail:―abs. e.g. enemies Ex 17^11.11 with לע prevail over, subj. enemies 2S11²³, blessings Gn 49²⁶ (J), mercy of God Ps103¹¹ 117².  Piel stem: Perfect Zc 10⁶; sf. Zc 1012; Imperfect Ec 1010 make strong, strengthen.  Hiphil stem: Perfect confirm a covenant Dn 9²⁷; Imperfect we will confirm a covenant with our tongue (or, to our tongue will we give strength) Ps 12⁵.  Hitpael stem: Imperfect Jb 15²⁵ Is 42¹³; Jb 36⁹:―of Yahweh, shew himself a mighty one against לע Is 4213; of wicked, behave proudly toward (אל) Jb 15²⁵; of erring righteous (abs.) 36⁹.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs Reprinted from the 1906 Edition
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Ninth printing ― September 2005.

 

I hope that helps you, but you really need to look at gabar with more discernment than accepting what was, in my opinion, mistranslated so long ago.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

4 hours ago, Serving said:

Then by obvious necessity that same one must confirm BOTH covenants which Jesus most certainly DID.

And you say I accuse you of changing your mind on which covenant Jesus confirmed...

berit (covenant) is singular in Daniel 9:27.  If you want to say Jesus confirmed two covenants, you are going against the original word meaning in your exegesis.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

4 hours ago, Serving said:

Look, I already explained this too you didn't I ?? I wasn't talking about Jesus'WHOLE LIFE dude, I was speaking about HIS earthly MINISTRY !!! BIG difference don't you think !!!!

To put this in context, this is in response to this statement of mine:  Jesus didn't do anything for just seven years.  He kept the Law His whole life, and He is keeping it still.  

Which goes back to another point of mine:  

Quote

Well Jesus must have only "confirmed" that for seven years because that's what the prophecy said, so according to this line of thinking, His Ministry must have lasted seven years, which it did not, only going into its third year, or you're saying that Jesus only performed the Law entirely for seven years.  

Again: your rationale, which is so simple for you, is too simple for me because the language in Daniel 9:27 links the covenant to seven years.  I look at your simple rationale and compare it to the text and I find that it does not match.  Jesus did not minister for seven years.  Again, your take on assigning Jesus to Daniel 9:27, even with all your repeated insistence that is does - does not match the language Gabriel uses.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Final point for the day, because I really need to be going... (and I don't have to time to list every internal inconsistency in your post on my one day off this week)

Montana Marv asked you: 

Quote

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

And I have to ask the same question.  Where is the other half of the one 'seven' IF you want to say Jesus' First Advent lasted exactly three and a half years?

- (The NT doesn't say that; it is another Preterist presumption to say Jesus' First Advent is the first half of the one 'seven'.)