Daniel 9:26, 27 explained through New Test verses? YES? or no

[Eternally Gratefull]

1 hour ago, abcdef said:

Pre-trib, everything is future.

Pure preterism, everything is past.

Both leave out the 70 AD- the present, time period.

Both of these theories have major flaws that distort the timeline.

------

For example, ask any pre-trib where we are in the statue of Dan. 2? They may say, "Just before the toes", or "We are in the time of the toes".

But then ask, "Who is the iron nation right now?" Or, "Who was the iron nation 500 years ago?' 

The iron is continual from 63 BC, so the answer should be obvious, it is Rome.

But pre-trib cannot answer because it destroys the "gap" that must be inserted to make the pre-trib theory work.

Specifically, the identity of the Antichrist as Rome is ignored.

 

have you studied pre-trib? Evetrything you said here about pre-trib is false..

 

I was pre-trib all my life. I still lean pre-trib but am open..  The iron nation is the people of the prince who is to come, or rome

 

pre-trib believes in the GAP. because the 69th week ended when christ entered. and the 70th week has up to this point not begun yet, it will start with the covenant

 

Not sure where you get your info about pre-trib here. Which camp are you?

[DeighAnn]

30 minutes ago, abcdef said:

History shows that the vision is true. 

Except it hasn't ended yet.  Not until all the KINGDOMS of the world are become HIS.  There is one thing NO ONE can get around,  and that is THE ANGELS.  

We can say whatever and whenever,  but one thing we KNOW FOR SURE,  is they PRODUCE GIANTS.  No giants,  no angels, -   SO IT CAN'T BE IN THE PAST.  

Like the days of Noe, or the 'strange flesh' in Sodom.  God makes sure we can stay on the right path by things 'wisdom of man' can't EVER produce or give 'an explanation' for.  

[Eternally Gratefull]

21 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

That wouldn't be possible as they were scattered unto the ends of the earth.  

If you look, they are under the care of the gentiles.. Remember, even in the prophecy you just posted. God gathers them from the nations and punished the nations who treated them badly. Also. Jerusalem is under gentile dominion, and the temple is still not rebuilt. so it is still desolate.

[Eternally Gratefull]

17 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Maybe I am not 'getting' this whole Rome thing.  Rome hasn't ruled the world or Jerusalem or 'the people' for 1500 years or so.  So what does it have to do with anything more than Babylon, or Greece or Medo Persia?  

rome suffered a mortal womb, remember in Rev it says the leader suffered a mortal womb but is resurrected.. The roman empire will be restored. We see this in rev 13 and 17)

 

also. As for the 4 previous empires. I believe revelations said the final form has parts of them all.

 

I do like Johns words in rev 17 when he speaks of the 7 kings,,,

7 kings, 5 have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, media-persia, Greece. One is (rome) and one is yet to come (Rome 2 or iron and clay)

 

 

 

[Eternally Gratefull]

15 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

I forgot, did an earthquake take place in 70AD?  

rev 6 is all future. I am suprised he tries to take it back to 70 AD. thats not correct.

[DeighAnn]

4 minutes ago, Eternally Gratefull said:

pre-trib believes in the GAP. because the 69th week ended when christ entered. and the 70th week has up to this point not begun yet, it will start with the covenant

 

Not sure where you get your info about pre-trib here. Which camp are you?

I AM NOT PRE TRIB, I don't think.  I am not pre trib AS IN Jesus comes for 'the church' and takes it to heaven before His actual 2nd Advent.  I don't believe He could come and His Brightness not destroy evil.   So I have never 'studied' pre trib because there isn't anything to study because there isn't anything written about it that anyone can point to.  

I believe Christ was cut off AFTER the 69th yet before the 70th.  I say that because it doesn't say and IN THE 70TH WEEK but is specific in AFTER the 69th.  

I believe the 70th week is future and is 'the hour' of the prince of the power of the air when he and his angels are cast out of heaven and Woe to the earth....as in the days of Noe...

[DeighAnn]

10 minutes ago, Eternally Gratefull said:

If you look, they are under the care of the gentiles.. Remember, even in the prophecy you just posted. God gathers them from the nations and punished the nations who treated them badly. Also. Jerusalem is under gentile dominion, and the temple is still not rebuilt. so it is still desolate.

Aren't we 'living stones'?  Is the present day church 'desolate'?  (please, don't answer that)

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

2 Corinthians 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Don't  you think  'THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD' mentioned here would become 'desolate' when

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:4 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.

2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Is there something written there will be a temple of STONE?  What about if there were to be a 'tent' erected?  What do you see being required?  And is it because 

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Isn't the place holy Jerusalem?  

[Eternally Gratefull]

26 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Aren't we 'living stones'?  Is the present day church 'desolate'?  (please, don't answer that)

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

2 Corinthians 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Don't  you think  'THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD' mentioned here would become 'desolate' when

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:4 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.

2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Is there something written there will be a temple of STONE?  What about if there were to be a 'tent' erected?  What do you see being required?  And is it because 

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Isn't the place holy Jerusalem?  

The holy place in context is the holy of holies or inner sanctuary where the high priest goes once a year on the day of atonement.

 

It is there where the abomination of desolation takes place rendering the holy place unclean or "desolate"

[Charlie744]

56 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

I AM NOT PRE TRIB, I don't think.  I am not pre trib AS IN Jesus comes for 'the church' and takes it to heaven before His actual 2nd Advent.  I don't believe He could come and His Brightness not destroy evil.   So I have never 'studied' pre trib because there isn't anything to study because there isn't anything written about it that anyone can point to.  

I believe Christ was cut off AFTER the 69th yet before the 70th.  I say that because it doesn't say and IN THE 70TH WEEK but is specific in AFTER the 69th.  

I believe the 70th week is future and is 'the hour' of the prince of the power of the air when he and his angels are cast out of heaven and Woe to the earth....as in the days of Noe...

 

DeighAnn, I hope you do not mind if I chime in here and mention a few things that you might find interesting.  Below you will recognize the verses found in 9:25 - 26. As you are well aware, these two verses along with verse 27 must be the most complicated and enigmatic verses in the  entire Scriptures - they not only are difficult, confusing but also (in my opinion) misinterpreted by more Christians than not... I would hazard a guess that perhaps 90% of Christians do not believe this speaks of the Messiah (Jesus)  at His first coming but it speaks of end time events AND the "he" in 9:27 is NOT "He" but a "he" or the future coming of some mythical anti-Christ boogeyman. And I do believe that of these 90 %'s, there is no changing their minds since this exact interpretation was CREATED by the Jesuits in the late 1500's as a counter-reformation measure to "get the bullseye of the papacy being the "little horn"(which he is), off of their back. Throughout the centuries and after teaching this interpretation to each successive Catholic generation, this now seems like "gospel" to them. This is the only thing these generations have been taught for almost 500 years. And, unfortunately, most of the Christian denominations (non-Catholic) have accepted this as well over the past same years.

Ok, enough history.... what about your comment regarding the 70 weeks of Daniel and the Messiah.  Here is what you said in your last post:

"I believe Christ was cut off AFTER the 69th yet before the 70th.  I say that because it doesn't say and IN THE 70TH WEEK but is specific in AFTER the 69th." 

 

25“Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The [h]street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.

26“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall [j]be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 I been reading many posts recently that are similar to yours where they contend … essentially, the 70th week of Daniel is still in the future, and  / or the Messiah will be "cut off" AFTER THE 69TH WEEK. If I understand their theory, the ONLY way this can work is if the Messiah is indeed "cut off" after the 69th week but He would have to be "cut off" in the future of the last week of Daniel - still yet to come. Meaning, if He WAS "cut off" AFTER the 69th week (which He was), AND, it DOES apply to the Messiah, then what WEEK would He have been crucified in?  Their is ONLY one way this theory can meet BOTH conditions: If the "he" in 9:27 is the Messiah, then HE had to be "cut off" AFTER THE 69TH WEEK OR INTO THE 70TH WEEK. If "he" in 9:27 is NOT the Messiah, then all of these verses MUST speak about someone else and it MUST be thrown into the far future as an "end time" event (and this is exactly what the RCC has taught for almost 500 years).

Now, above is the two verses that address this "he" or "HE" depending on one's interpretation. For me, there can only be one interpretation and which is why God had Daniel write these verses in such a way:

In red above, there are TWO specific verses that are written to ensure we do not misinterpret who the "HE" is (God has given us TWO conditions to be met which can only be satisfied by His coming (Messiah):

Condition or Constraint #1: in verse 25 Daniel tells us:

Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

So we do not want to skip over this even though all of us must have read this a 1000 times - the Messiah will arrive AFTER 7 and 62 weeks (ARRIVE AFTER THE 69th week).

 

Condition or Constraint #2: in verse 26 Daniel tells us:

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off,

 

Okay, we know that in condition #1 the Messiah will arrive - this is after the last day of the 69th week. 

Condition #2 tells us He will be "cut off" AFTER THE 62 WEEKS. Because the first 7 weeks of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy came first (before the start of  the 62 week section), it was obviously completed and done. Meaning AT THE END OF THE 62 WEEK section (or saying the same thing - at the end of the 69th week) the Messiah will be "cut off".

God is telling us in two separate and distinct ways (verses) WHEN THE MESSIAH WILL ARRIVE (verse 25 -end of the 69th week which of course is the beginning of the 70th week), AND He is also telling us WHEN HE WILL BE CRUCIFIED (verse 26 - after the end of the 62nd weeks of years. Again, this also means the first 7 weeks have also been done away or completed).

God is giving us His arrival and His death to ensure we understand the "he" is "He", and these and the other verses in chapter 9 can only be speaking of the coming / death of the Messiah.  Since He arrived and died in the same time frame (AFTER THE 69TH WEEK) OR MEANING IN THE 70TH WEEK, THERE IS NO FUTURE MEANING TO THESE VERSES. THEY BOTH ARE SETTLED / OCCURRED AFTER THE 69TH WEEK OR THE LAST WEEK  OF DANIEL.

Charlie

Edited June 21, 2022 by Charlie744
LEFT OUT LAST SENTENCE

[DeighAnn]

17 minutes ago, Eternally Gratefull said:

rome suffered a mortal womb, remember in Rev it says the leader suffered a mortal womb but is resurrected.. The roman empire will be restored. We see this in rev 13 and 17)

This I have no idea how that came to be.  I can tell you, in the many times I have read those chapters, never once did 'Rome' come to my mind.  I just went and read them again and STILL, no Rome. 

What 'mortal' wound did Rome suffer that was healed followed by an image being set up that had to be worshipped and what 'mark' did everyone  take to buy and sell?