Has the 70th week of Daniel begun?

[WilliamL]

7 hours ago, Diaste said:

As the empire expanded, the Romans refrained from imposing their own religious beliefs upon those they conquered; "

False.

"Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance. ... Although Judaea was ruled by the Romans, the governors there had practiced the same kind of religious tolerance as was shown to Jews in Rome. " https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/jews.html

"Caligula was the first emperor to demand to be worshiped, he demanded that citizens everywhere bow to his statue.  ... It was during the reign of Domitian when the imperial cult became a factor in unifying the empire in Asia Minor. The provincial cult allowed the Roman network of social obligations to be extended to virtually the whole population.  If you lived within the empire, then you were a social client of the Emperor and owed him supreme allegiance.  It is not hard to see, therefore, the struggle which Christians in the late first century would have showing allegiance to Rome – if that allegiance required worship of the Emperor, then the Christian must refuse or compromise their faith."  https://readingacts.com/2010/04/02/the-roman-cult-of-emperor-worship/

"In his commentary on the book of Revelation, James Allen gives some fascinating historical background to the situation of the church in Smyrna at that time, a situation which seems to have a lot to say to many Christians around the world in 2020…

"Beyond the nominal adherence to the usual deities of paganism, the city subscribed enthusiastically to the cult of Emperor worship. As early as 196 BC an altar had been erected to Dea Roma. This goddess was the deification of the spirit of Rome. Over a century later an altar was built to Tiberius Caesar. As [F.A.] Tatford points out, “The worship of the Emperor was compulsory. Each year a Roman citizen had to burn a pinch of incense on the alter and to acknowledge publicly that Caesar was supreme Lord”.

"Under Domitian (81-96 AD) in the time of this letter, emperor worship was compulsory for every Roman citizen. The burning of the pinch of incense was rewarded by a certificate which had to be renewed annually. Failure to produce a certificate meant being branded as Christian and this opened the way, if the magistrates so decided, for the death penalty on the ground of treason.

"Admittedly the burning of the incense was more an act of political loyalty than a religious observance, since the citizen was the free to worship whatever other god or gods he chose. Nevertheless no believer loyal to Christ could do this (see Luke 14:26). Many, like Polycarp, perished at the stake or were torn apart by the beasts in the arena because they refused this test of allegiance to Caesar. "   https://youngadults.ccphilly.org/4767-2/

 

[The Light]

11 hours ago, SACREDWARRIOR said:

Let Me start by clarifying, ONE WEEK, that phrase most often refers back to DANIEL where AN ANGEL declares 70 weeks have been determined for YOUR PEOPLE (JEWS), and at the time of the angelic visitation to Daniel He was contemplating an earlier prophecy given through JEREMIAH.

 The angel explains that the weeks are symbolic of YEARS, we know that at the time of Christ ISRAEL was in the MIDST OF THE 69TH WEEK OF YEARS, LEAVING ONE FINAL CYCLE A 7 YEAR PERIOD to yet fulfill the prophecy of Daniel.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, SACREDWARRIOR said:

the argument with those who study scripture involves, when does or did, the 70th week of years (Daniel) begin / begins.

 I hold to what is known as a PARTIAL PRETERIST view, meaning that I believe that the 70th week has been PARTIALLY FULFILLED. but a remainder of it is yet to come to pass...The pause in the 70th week of Daniel occurred, at the death of CHRIST....as stated in Daniels prophecy "MESSIAH WILL BE CUT OFF AND HAVE NOTHING..."

The 70th week cannot begin until there is a covenant with many made that will be later confirmed by the Antichrist. Therefore, the partial preterist view cannot be correct.

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.

 

11 hours ago, SACREDWARRIOR said:

 as part of the OLIVET DISCOURSE (MATTHEW 24, LUKE 21. ETC  ) THREE QUESTIONS ARE BROUGHT TO JESUS.

 as they are walking the disciples brting Jesus' attention to the beautiful temple in all its adornment...and JESUS TELLS THEM "...I TELL YOU THAT ONE STONE SHALL NOT BE LEFT UPON ANOTHER..... referring to a future destruction of the temple they were speaking of...

 Then three questions are posed to JESUS,

1." TELL US WHEN WILL THESE THINGS HAPPEN (THE TEMPLES DESTRUCTION)?

2. "WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR COMING"?

3. WHAT WILL BE TE SIGN OF THE END OF THE AGE?

Jesus then begins, answering their questions....

And that's the rub isn't it, the three questions. 

Those are really just two questions. The first question paraphrased is when shall there not be one stone upon another? The second question is what shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the age. The end of the age will be over at His coming which occurs at the 6th seal. The Gospels all agree.

Matthew 24

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What does Mark 13 say

4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Mark 13 asks when shall there not be one stone upon another, and what sign will there be when there is not one stone upon another.

What does Luke 21 say?

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Luke 21 says, when shall there not be one stone upon another and what sign will there be when there is not one stone upon another

11 hours ago, SACREDWARRIOR said:

 

 what I indicated, is the destruction of the temple brought about by TITUS is not part of the 70 weeks, per se' it is rather a direct answer to the disciples question.

 the 70 weeks are discussed after Jesus answers with the "..NOT ONE STONE COMMENT.."

 

Removing the time of one stone not being upon another from the 70 weeks is totally illogical. Here is the parameter............When shall there not be one stone upon another and what sign will there be when this event occurs.

 

[The Light]

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

No. It is a foundation wall of the Temple Mount, but was neither part of nor connected to the Temple complex of structures.

I would think it would be of the buildings of the Temple as I am unaware of any sign that has occurred when there will not be one stone upon another.

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

I've already provided some example of discrepancies. Matthew 24:3 records Jesus's disciples as asking, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your Parousia, and of the end of the age?” Whereas Luke 21:7 records the disciples as asking, "So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

The questions occur in the same time frame. 

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The second question of Matthew 24 is categorically different from the second question of Luke 21.

In the accounts of Jesus entering into Jerusalem on the donkey, Mark says

Mark 11:11 Jesus went into Jerusalem and into the temple. So when He had looked around at all things, as the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany with the twelve. 12 Now the next day, ... 15 Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers...

Whereas Matthew says, and Luke similarly, that

Matt. 21:10 ...when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? 11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. 12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers...

Mark here is correct about the dates. Jesus did not cast out the moneychangers on the same day he rode on the colt, because that day was a Sabbath, when there was no buying and selling allowed. Matthew and Luke erroneously ran the events of two different days together.

Mark 11

11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves

Thanks for taking the time to find this example. However, the real difference is that Luke and Matthew just skipped the day that they left Jerusalem and went to Bethany. Jesus reached for the figs on the tree and found none. Then they reentered Jerusalem.

When you read all accounts it is easy to see what has happened.

[WilliamL]

39 minutes ago, The Light said:

the real difference is that Luke and Matthew just skipped the day that they left Jerusalem and went to Bethany. Jesus reached for the figs on the tree and found none. Then they reentered Jerusalem.

Nonsense. Mark clearly says the cleansing of the Temple took place on the day of the fig tree cursing. Matthew and Luke say the cleansing of the Temple took place on the day before the fig tree cursing.

[The Light]

6 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Nonsense. Mark clearly says the cleansing of the Temple took place on the day of the fig tree cursing. Matthew and Luke say the cleansing of the Temple took place on the day before the fig tree cursing.

And yet when you read all three, it's easy to figure out what is happening. No mystery here.

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, WilliamL said:

False.

"Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance. ... Although Judaea was ruled by the Romans, the governors there had practiced the same kind of religious tolerance as was shown to Jews in Rome. " https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/jews.html

"Caligula was the first emperor to demand to be worshiped, he demanded that citizens everywhere bow to his statue.  ... It was during the reign of Domitian when the imperial cult became a factor in unifying the empire in Asia Minor. The provincial cult allowed the Roman network of social obligations to be extended to virtually the whole population.  If you lived within the empire, then you were a social client of the Emperor and owed him supreme allegiance.  It is not hard to see, therefore, the struggle which Christians in the late first century would have showing allegiance to Rome – if that allegiance required worship of the Emperor, then the Christian must refuse or compromise their faith."  https://readingacts.com/2010/04/02/the-roman-cult-of-emperor-worship/

"In his commentary on the book of Revelation, James Allen gives some fascinating historical background to the situation of the church in Smyrna at that time, a situation which seems to have a lot to say to many Christians around the world in 2020…

"Beyond the nominal adherence to the usual deities of paganism, the city subscribed enthusiastically to the cult of Emperor worship. As early as 196 BC an altar had been erected to Dea Roma. This goddess was the deification of the spirit of Rome. Over a century later an altar was built to Tiberius Caesar. As [F.A.] Tatford points out, “The worship of the Emperor was compulsory. Each year a Roman citizen had to burn a pinch of incense on the alter and to acknowledge publicly that Caesar was supreme Lord”.

"Under Domitian (81-96 AD) in the time of this letter, emperor worship was compulsory for every Roman citizen. The burning of the pinch of incense was rewarded by a certificate which had to be renewed annually. Failure to produce a certificate meant being branded as Christian and this opened the way, if the magistrates so decided, for the death penalty on the ground of treason.

"Admittedly the burning of the incense was more an act of political loyalty than a religious observance, since the citizen was the free to worship whatever other god or gods he chose. Nevertheless no believer loyal to Christ could do this (see Luke 14:26). Many, like Polycarp, perished at the stake or were torn apart by the beasts in the arena because they refused this test of allegiance to Caesar. "   https://youngadults.ccphilly.org/4767-2/

 

True. But Rome did not ban the worship of other deities. Two things can be true at the same time. In this case even though emperor worship was a reality, that did not ban the worship of other deities. And here you prove this by your citation:

"Admittedly the burning of the incense was more an act of political loyalty than a religious observance, since the citizen was the free to worship whatever other god or gods he chose."

The exception would be the followers of Christ since they could not worship a supreme emperor over the Godhood of Jesus. 

Fact is, Rome was always pantheistic, and you just proved that.

[SACREDWARRIOR]

13 hours ago, The Light said:

Agreed.

The 70th week cannot begin until there is a covenant with many made that will be later confirmed by the Antichrist. Therefore, the partial preterist view cannot be correct.

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.

 

And that's the rub isn't it, the three questions. 

Those are really just two questions. The first question paraphrased is when shall there not be one stone upon another? The second question is what shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the age. The end of the age will be over at His coming which occurs at the 6th seal. The Gospels all agree.

Matthew 24

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What does Mark 13 say

4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Mark 13 asks when shall there not be one stone upon another, and what sign will there be when there is not one stone upon another.

What does Luke 21 say?

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Luke 21 says, when shall there not be one stone upon another and what sign will there be when there is not one stone upon another

Removing the time of one stone not being upon another from the 70 weeks is totally illogical. Here is the parameter............When shall there not be one stone upon another and what sign will there be when this event occurs.

 

THIS IS MY LAST REPLY...

 

7 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.

 

the "HE" in the verse above refers back to the last proper pronoun as per GREEK GRAMMAR RULES and the first previous pronoun IS MESSIAH...

 the "HE" is JESUS not a/c..

 THE BATTLE RAGES TIL THE LION SOON ROARS!!!

Clarence

[The Light]

2 hours ago, SACREDWARRIOR said:

7 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.

the "HE" in the verse above refers back to the last proper pronoun as per GREEK GRAMMAR RULES and the first previous pronoun IS MESSIAH...

 the "HE" is JESUS not a/c..

 

Daniel 9 was NOT written in GREEK, so Greek grammar rules DO NOT APPLY. Daniel 9 was written in HEBREW.

The rules that do apply are God's rules. God does not make a 7 year covenant. God's covenants are eternal. If you were correct, you would be able to show what 7 year covenant Jesus made, but since Gods covenants are eternal, you will in no way be able to produce such a covenant.

Each man must choose. Will he choose truth or will he choose doctrine. Most it seems value doctrine over truth. You have been shown undeniably what the truth is. Time for you to choose.

[abcdef]

16 hours ago, The Light said:

Agreed.

The 70th week cannot begin until there is a covenant with many made that will be later confirmed by the Antichrist. Therefore, the partial preterist view cannot be correct.

It is not a new covenant, it is a covenant that already has existed being confirmed.

Gal3:17, clearly says that Jesus was the one who confirmed the covenant.

 

16 hours ago, The Light said:

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.

The 70th week began when Jesus began His ministry.

3 1/2 years later He was cut off, but that was not the end end of the covenant.

The new covenant began as promised, on the day of Pentecost, continuing the covenant as the new covenant kingdom of Israel.

3 1/2 years later the majority of Israel had rejected the Pentecost kingdom and the 7 years ended when the gentiles entered the kingdom. 

This ended the 70 weeks.

------

If you say that the 70 weeks didn't end at that time, then it would be more than 70 weeks. That would make the 70 weeks prophecy false.

----

The result of the rejection of the Pentecost kingdom by the majority of Israel caused Jerusalem and the temple to be desolated by Roman armies, as history shows.

[The Light]

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

It is not a new covenant, it is a covenant that already has existed being confirmed.

Gal3:17, clearly says that Jesus was the one who confirmed the covenant.

I see nothing about a covenant confirmed for one week. What am I missing?

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.

Can you explain how the 430 years fits in? 

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

The 70th week began when Jesus began His ministry.

3 1/2 years later He was cut off, but that was not the end end of the covenant.

The new covenant began as promised, on the day of Pentecost, continuing the covenant as the new covenant kingdom of Israel.

3 1/2 years later the majority of Israel had rejected the Pentecost kingdom and the 7 years ended when the gentiles entered the kingdom. 

The 7oth week did not begin in the 1st century.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

This ended the 70 weeks.

------

If you say that the 70 weeks didn't end at that time, then it would be more than 70 weeks. That would make the 70 weeks prophecy false.

How can the 70th week be complete when those of the 12 tribes have not been regrafted. The 144,000 from the 12 tribes are the first fruits of those that will be regrafted into the olive tree. That cannot happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in........pretrib rapture.

Rom 11

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

----

The result of the rejection of the Pentecost kingdom by the majority of Israel caused Jerusalem and the temple to be desolated by Roman armies, as history shows.

And yet when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, part of Israel will have their blindness removed.