Jump to content
IGNORED

A Future Seven Years?


Last Daze

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  84
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  3,987
  • Content Per Day:  1.13
  • Reputation:   2,517
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/17/2014
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

Or what length of time is there between the the end of the 69th Week and the Beginning of the 70th Week.  The original Prophecy states 7 Sevens, 62 Sevens, and then a One Seven.  Nothing about 69 1/2 Sevens and a future 1/2 Seven.  All Sevens are full and whole.  So immediately after the 69th Week the Messiah was cut off.  Was the end of the 69th Week at His Triumphal Entry or the Crucifixion.  Just some more info to consider.

Thanks Marv.  I've often wondered about splitting up the last seven.  You're right about the prophecy being given in increments of "sevens" and that there's no mention of 1/2 of a seven, with the possible exception of a reference to the midst of the last week.  Consider the following verse:

  • But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.  Ephesians 2:4-6

This verse demonstrates how something can be accomplished, yet not fully realized.  The view of the 70 sevens that I see as having the strongest support is that all of the things mentioned in v24 were accomplished during the ministry of the Messiah, yet not all of them have been fully realized.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,040
  • Content Per Day:  1.41
  • Reputation:   546
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/01/2016
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Last Daze said:

The death of Christ, His shed blood, is what provides atonement for sin. 

And if I never "REPENT" there is no ATONEMENT right ? The Prophet clearly states Israel WILL REPENT before the 70 weeks are up. I really don't even get the point because we should all realize what made Abraham whole, it was not just that Abraham BELIEVED God per se, it was that Abraham BELIEVED God would send a Redeemer for mankind, this he was made whole by the shed blood, before the blood was even shed. The killing of Abraham's son was a TYPE of Messiah being sacrificed, thus when God saw he would not hold back his own son, God knew that Abraham understood, of course God already knew his heart, but he understood that Abraham trusted in Him fully. 

The blood is the Atonement, but Israel REPENTING is what has to happen during the 70th week, not Jesus dying, that was already foreknown by Abraham and the Saints that a promised SEED would be sent. 

3 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Atonement for sin is one of the things that is declared to be accomplished during the 70 weeks.  The death of Christ occurs after the 69th week.  It MUST fall within the 70th week if it is to fulfill the conditions of the prophecy.  What purpose does the time frame serve if the things in verse 24 can be accomplished at any time outside of the 70 weeks?

No ATONEMENT by Israel is one of the things that must happen. Israel SINNED, not Jesus, so Israel must repent, the Judgment is rendered against Israel alone, no one else. Its onlu outside of verse 24 in your/others minds. The 70 weeks ate Judgments against Israel, God put them in the trash bin for 2000 years and would not even recognize them as a peoples/nation, he would only deal with each individual Jew like he does us Gentiles. So there was NO Israel for God to punish until 1948, and that punishment or final week will come to pass just after the Rapture, 2/3 will perish and 1/3 will Repent. Zechariah 13:809 tells us that, then in Zechariah 14:1-2 sees the Jews Conquered and verses 3-4 is Armageddon where Jesus is victorious. 

Malachi 4:5-6 says Elijah will be sent back BEFORE the DOTL to turn Israel back unto God. 

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.

 

All of these MUST HAPPEN before the 70th week Prophecy can come to pass.

Finnish the Transgression 1.) Israel has to STOP SINNING this doesn't mean sin as in man is born unto sin, even during the 1000 years men are sinners, we know this because mankind follows Satan one last time, but it means they will not desire/lust to do EVIL and Wickedness. They have sin nature, but TURN FROM SIN, like modern day Christians, we still have SIN NATURE but we have turned from wickedness unto God.

Make an End of Sins 2.) Just like the above, Israel must stop worshiping false gods, and start recognizing the God of Gods as God.

Make reconciliation for Sins 3.) Of course Israel has to accept the Messiah Jesus to reconcile to God, they have NEVER DONE THIS as a Nation, but they will as we see in scriptures. So this is a MUST before the 70th week cam come to pass.

Everlasting Righteousness 4.) The 70th week must usher in everlasting Righteousness, that comes of course by way of Jesus'[ Second Coming.

Seal up the Vision and Prophecy 5.) In other words ALL PROPHECY MUST BE FULFILLED before the 70th week Prophecy can be finished !! 

Anoint the most Holy 6.) Jesus will become the Kings of Kings, what did Israel do to all of their Kings ? Anoint them with OIL !!

None of these things have happened yet. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, Uriah said:

So this makes my point. Upon whom was it poured out upon? Nero? Some other Roman? Jerusalem? Israel? ...The desolator? (alternate translation) It sounds like the AC, which it IS yet future. Its not a preteristic passage either. They cannot identify who "that determined" punishment was poured out upon no matter how they try. In V 26 it refers to Jesus and 70 A.D, thus proving that Gabriel is moving through a timeline.

 

And that just doesn't seem supported in whole by the passage.

" 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."

In v 26 we see messiah 'cut off'; the term is 'karath' which is to 'cut off' or 'cut down'. The idea is that he is no more as the term is used as 'perish' or 'kill'. Messiah cannot be the the prince of the people who will come. That's a different individual, as he's alive and leading a people. The Messiah is dead and another guy is coming. Was this Titus and his legions coming to destroy the city? They did. It's in the histories. But there's too much here to think it's 70 AD. The same prince  is associated with the end, "and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." Is this just the end of the rebellion? I think not because of this, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:" 

The one who confirms the covenant must be the 'prince of the people who shall come'. This same prince must also cause the sacrifice to cease and desecrate the Temple. Titus did not do this and in fact his legions acted in opposition to his orders and burned the Temple. Titus had no moment in which to stop the Temple liturgy nor commit abominations and certainly never confirmed an existing covenant for 84 weeks.

In reality only this refers to Jesus, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off," and this is obviously a new character, "and the people of the prince that shall come". Messiah is gone and a prince is coming. Also the 'prince of the people' must endure to the 'consummation'. The idea behind 'consummation' is annihilation, complete destruction, completion. That cannot refer to Titus nor the Roman empire as the Romans continued for centuries after this and with the Temple gone there could be no, "overspreading abominations making desolate, even until the consummation" by the prince who confirmed the covenant.

So this prophecy is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, Uriah said:

This happened in 70 A.D. People certainly saw the city surrounded with armies, however Jesus also said that the AoD would be seen "in the Holy Place"-this did NOT happen. THAT is for the future. The file I posted helps it to be seen clearer. I don't think there will be a third temple before Jesus returns.

If the A of D is to stand in the Holy Place, how is that going to happen if there is no Temple? If that did not happen in 70 AD then it's for the future and another Temple will stand.

21 hours ago, Uriah said:

The Jews who have overseen the preparations have quoted Zechariah saying the BRANCH -the Messiah- will build it!

Uh huh...to go along with that did you know the Jews are expecting an earthly king to be their protector? Read here, Who is the Messiah? to see what the Jews think about the Messiah as a people. I have heard it from their own lips they are waiting for an earthly king to redeem the nation.

21 hours ago, Uriah said:

They are NOT going to build a temple for an anti-Christ do desecrate. They would NEVER allow anyone but the high priest to enter the Holy Place. Oh, and then God will destroy His temple for the "Ezekiel" Temple? Or have two Temples. Not.

Well no, not knowingly. But they may believe the Messiah is the heir of David and they can worship God through OT ritual. I think you know there are groups in Israel that want a Temple again. In fact I have heard they have all the materials, exterior and interior as well as all the vessels and have been breeding red heifers in America and in Israel. They want a Temple, they are ready and it's coming. If it's not then how does this occur? " Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, Uriah said:

Nobody is saying Jesus was making a 7 yr. covenant. What it means is that for the last 7 (yr. period) Jesus is confirming the covenant, yet He is cut off in the midst of it.

And yet the direct antecedent of 'he' is the 'prince of the people' which is not Jesus. 

And the covenant of Jesus is everlasting. It's confirmed forever. Is it truncated? It seems that confirming a forever covenant for a very short period weakens the promise of eternity. Not sure that's in the character of our Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Hi Diaste

Going in reverse order on your posts:

The antecedent doesn't matter if you read as alternating parallels of sorts. I wrote about this before, it is like things we see elsewhere. It is like following the author toggling between characters/events while moving through the future timeline. So, no truncation in Jesus' covenant. I simply see it as having made int he 70th week.

What Paul wrote is..."AS GOD SITTETH in the temple of God"... so it again is about how one reads it. It is saying he makes himself appear sitting in the temple as God does. No Temple needed. See below:(I know some can't stand this pic- like my wife- but something along these lines is what I foresee)

Jerusalem_wall_001_copy.png

On the wing (border) of the Temple, in the holy place, sitting like God sits in the Temple of God, an image that speaks! 4 prophecies fulfilled in one blasphemous event.  Also, the Jews may want a Messiah, but nobody can tell me they will allow a Gentile (or cameras to see it) into the Holy Place, or even take one as Messiah.

Lastly, it is Jesus who confirms the covenant for one (last) week and is cut off in it. And the destruction of the Temple in Daniel ( places the destruction outside of the 70 weeks.

 

Edited by Uriah
change "year "to week-second sentence,oops
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/17/2019 at 5:34 PM, Uriah said:

The antecedent doesn't matter if you read as alternating parallels of sorts. I wrote about this before, it is like things we see elsewhere. It is like following the author toggling between characters/events while moving through the future timeline. So, no truncation in Jesus' covenant. I simply see it as having made int he 70th week.

That's a thing? 

In every case I know of the pronoun always refers to the immediately preceding noun. It would be unclear if there were two nouns.

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him."

If you are saying 'Messiah' is a valid noun for the pronoun 'he' then it's unclear as 'he' refers to both the prince and Messiah. 

If Messiah is cut off then the prince must be the one referred to as 'he'.

Are you saying the last week is completed?

On 11/17/2019 at 5:34 PM, Uriah said:

Also, the Jews may want a Messiah, but nobody can tell me they will allow a Gentile (or cameras to see it) into the Holy Place, or even take one as Messiah.

But this exactly what the Jewish people did over their history. Even in the Exodus, after seeing the power of God many times, they begged to back to Egypt, deriding Moses the entire time. 

The Jewish view of Messiah:

"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach"

So no matter what the Jews are looking to a mortal as the messiah. Maybe the criteria of lineage is going to be all important, maybe not so much if the other characteristics are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/21/2019 at 4:41 AM, Diaste said:
Quote

In every case I know of the pronoun always refers to the immediately preceding noun. It would be unclear if there were two nouns.

I don't think that holds up in every case. Proverbs comes to mind, where you will need to refer back a way and use the context to make the determination.

"Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him."

Quote

If you are saying 'Messiah' is a valid noun for the pronoun 'he' then it's unclear as 'he' refers to both the prince and Messiah. 

As I see it, we are reading things where there is a toggling (alternating) focus on a timeline that is like railroad tracks. The on one side are events/characters that oppose the other while moving forward into the future. 

Quote

If Messiah is cut off then the prince must be the one referred to as 'he'.

See above.

Quote

Are you saying the last week is completed?

Yes! And you will see why below.

But this exactly what the Jewish people did over their history. Even in the Exodus, after seeing the power of God many times, they begged to back to Egypt, deriding Moses the entire time. 

Quote

 

The Jewish view of Messiah:

"The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach" But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.

 

Yes, the Jewish error continues but my faith is not in an error on their part. We believe Jesus IS the Messiah.

Quote

So no matter what the Jews are looking to a mortal as the messiah. Maybe the criteria of lineage is going to be all important, maybe not so much if the other characteristics are there.

For the Jews to accept a Messiah, the lineage MUST be verified. There is NOBODY but Jesus whose lineage qualifies. All necessary ancestral records needed are lost. They will NOT accept a Gentile. And to think a high priest may be the A.C is preposterous. So I am seeing an old narrative of an A.C. who starts out beloved then flips. This is nowhere is scripture. Instead he is only shown as a dictator and mocker and blasphemer.

What DOES matter is the truth. And we have the smoking gun...Galatians 3:17- And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

We can certainly discuss manuscripts/versions etc.. or even treaty vs covenant . But the verse above comes from a chapter laced with "Abraham", with whom God made the covenant pertaining to us and Jesus and His Messiah-ship. 

Rom. 4:17- (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Gen. 17:4&5- As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Dan 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...

Matt. 26:28- For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

I posted previously that Jesus fulfilled ALL six requirements from Dan.9, and don't accept the Jewish error that He did not. Also the context of Dan. 9 27 is connected directly by context to v. 4. Context is crucial to understanding and any Jewish reader would immediately know what covenant was in focus here. It wasn't a 3rd or 4th definition needed to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  30
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  108
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   512
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2021
  • Status:  Offline

And as ye have heard that the antecedent shall come, even now are there many antecedents, by which we know it is the last time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/22/2019 at 8:13 AM, Uriah said:

What DOES matter is the truth. And we have the smoking gun...Galatians 3:17- And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

We can certainly discuss manuscripts/versions etc.. or even treaty vs covenant . But the verse above comes from a chapter laced with "Abraham", with whom God made the covenant pertaining to us and Jesus and His Messiah-ship. 

Rom. 4:17- (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Gen. 17:4&5- As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Dan 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...

Matt. 26:28- For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 

I posted previously that Jesus fulfilled ALL six requirements from Dan.9, and don't accept the Jewish error that He did not. Also the context of Dan. 9 27 is connected directly by context to v. 4. Context is crucial to understanding and any Jewish reader would immediately know what covenant was in focus here. It wasn't a 3rd or 4th definition needed to get it.

Yes, you and I understand the above and it is truth: Jesus is the one and only Messiah and is the Savior of all mankind. The covenant with Abraham is confirmed by God in Christ; it is has always been and always will be.

But the Jewish people do not believe their Messiah is one of divinity. They are looking for a political leader, mortal, powerful and able to provide protection. I have heard this from their own lips. More notable I just listened to Ben Shapiro say the exact same thing not a week ago. 

It's not correct, of course, but it is what they look toward. It's not born again people of Israeli descent that are looking for an earthly messiah, it's Judaism. This is why Daniel 9:26-27 fits with the beast confirming a covenant. 

It also would not follow that one mention of a covenant would have to equate with every other mention of a covenant or even any other covenant. There are good agreements and bad ones. Righteous and evil agreements. Agreements for salvation and pacts of death. 

"Therefore, listen to this message from the LORD, you scoffing rulers in Jerusalem. You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” - Isaiah 28

But the Lord says,

"Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “Look! I am placing a foundation stone in Jerusalem, a firm and tested stone. It is a precious cornerstone that is safe to build on. Whoever believes need never be shaken." - Isaiah 28

This is the contrast between two opposing covenants. One which the Jews made and the one in Jesus established by the Most High God. 

I'm not saying the above is a reference to Daniel 9, which is a reference to the end time A of D, just pointing out the Jews will make a pact, a covenant, with death. Or they have done so. So it's not a stretch to say Daniel 9:27 is referring to an evil ruler. Here is how the NLT puts it:

“After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”

Which in my mind is a normal way to read the text. And I believe that along with the warning of Jesus in Matt 24 to look to Daniel for the truth of the A of D associated with the end of the age is weighty evidence that a covenant will be made between Judaism and the beast.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...