In Daniel 8, 11, and 12, is A4E meant? Or is a future anti-christ meant?

[Spiritual Israelite]

The term 69th week does not appear in the text of Daniel 9:25-26.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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.

Douggg, you are not even able to understand elementary things for some reason. You understand that the 62 weeks follow the first 7 weeks, don't you? So, when it says after the 62 weeks the Messiah is cut off, it really means He is cut off after the first 69 weeks. That places His death after the end of the 69th week. This is very simple and a little child can understand what I'm saying here.

So, each week being 7 years....
in verse 25 unto messiah, 7 x 7 x 360 = 2520 days, plus
62 x 7 x 360 = 156,240 days.....total 158, 760 days unto Messiah arrival in Jerusalem.

In John 12:12-15, Jesus arrived in Jerusalem as the messiah. 4 days later, he was crucified, cutoff. And you are arguing about 4 days out of 158,760 days ?

LOL. You are dodging the issue here, Douggg. Have you no shame? Is 4 days later after the first 69 weeks ended part of the 69th week? Of course not. You're wrong about Him being cut off only 4 days after, but that's another topic. The point is that He was to be cut off after the 69 weeks and He was. You can't then say He was cut off during the 69th week at the end. That's not what the text says. That's not after the 69 weeks. You focus on 4 days, but that's completely besides the point. You don't have His death falling within any of the 70 weeks even though it is crucial to the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 which talks about things that would be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, not outside of the 70 weeks.

 

[Earburner]

To reiterate, all of the desolation in the verses that I cited refers to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The desolation of 70 AD was a result of the consummation of 70 AD.

All fulfilled.

So, are you saying that when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD., God stopped pouring out His Holy Spirit??
Of course, we both know better than to even think such foolishness.

So then, what exactly is it that is being said in Dan. 9:27? (I hope that you hear HIS Voice):
It's simply this: the temple building will never be rebuilt again in Jerusalem, and God will not stop pouring out His Holy Spirit upon all who repent towards Him, through faith in Jesus, "even until the consummation",

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, are you saying that when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD., God stopped pouring out His Holy Spirit??
Of course, we both know better than to even think such foolish.

So, why would you ask him that when you know he would not answer yes to that ridiculous question?

So then, what exactly is it that is being said in Dan. 9:27? (I hope that you hear HIS Voice):
It's simply this: the temple building will never be rebuilt again in Jerusalem, and God will not stop pouring out His Holy Spirit upon all who repent towards Him, through faith in Jesus, "even until the consummation",

Daniel 9:26-27 is about the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings. The consummation refers to the consummation of that event. Why do you feel the need to make it about anything else when the prophecy clearly and specifically refers to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary?

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, you are not even able to understand elementary things for some reason. You understand that the 62 weeks follow the first 7 weeks, don't you? So, when it says after the 62 weeks the Messiah is cut off, it really means He is cut off after the first 69 weeks. That places His death after the end of the 69th week. This is very simple and a little child can understand what I'm saying here.


LOL. You are dodging the issue here, Douggg. Have you no shame? Is 4 days later after the first 69 weeks ended part of the 69th week? Of course not. You're wrong about Him being cut off only 4 days after, but that's another topic. The point is that He was to be cut off after the 69 weeks and He was. You can't then say He was cut off during the 69th week at the end. That's not what the text says. That's not after the 69 weeks. You focus on 4 days, but that's completely besides the point. You don't have His death falling within any of the 70 weeks even though it is crucial to the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 which talks about things that would be fulfilled within the 70 weeks, not outside of the 70 weeks.

It is the prince that shall come who will start the 70th week by confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant.

 

[Earburner]

So, why would you ask him that when you know he would not answer yes to that ridiculous question?


Daniel 9:26-27 is about the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings. The consummation refers to the consummation of that event. Why do you feel the need to make it about anything else when the prophecy clearly and specifically refers to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary?

To your question about "anything else":
Acts 2:15-17 and Acts 10:45 answers Dan. 9:27.

By the mind of Christ within me, in post #202, I have said what the Spirit says in the scriptures of Dan. 9:24-27. I cannot add to it, nor can I take anything away. If you choose to do so, then you are welcome to your own interpretation.

Don't get stuck in the rut of "the wisdom of men".

 

[IndianaRob]

It is the prince that shall come who will start the 70th week by confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant.

View attachment 68036

I’ve never heard that before. Are you saying the antichrist is confirming the old covenant?

 

[Douggg]

I’ve never heard that before. Are you saying the antichrist is confirming the old covenant?

Yes, the person who becomes the Antichrist will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant by the method Moses required in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The Jews will think that the person is their long awaited messiah.

In the middle of the 7 years, the person will reveal that he is a false messiah, when he goes into the temple (to be built), sits, claiming to have achieved God-hood, as described in 2Thessalonians2:4.

The Jews will reject his claim and his continuing as their King of Israel. Ending his stage (Stage3) of being the Antichrist.

 

[Davidpt]

I see the 42 months, 1260 days and time, times and half a time as being symbolic representations of the New Testament time period, which I have told you before.

IOW, per your view the thousand years and the 42 month reign of the beast = the same era of time, the past 2000 years in this case. As if that can make sense that a thousand years vs 42 months, thus a long era of time pertaining to the former, a short era of time pertaining to the latter, that these are referring to the same era of time, a long era of time, 2000 years and counting, in this case. Except logic says that 42 months can't represent the same amount of time that a thousand years can represent. That's just common sense.

It would be like someone in a math class claiming that the number 42 and the number 1000 can equal the same amount. Yet, no one, and I'm assuming including you, would ever propose such nonsense.

42 months = 1260 days. 1000 years = 360,000 days, that assuming literal days are meant. No way in any universe can 1260 days mean the same thing as 360,000 days, even if in both cases the literal amount specified is not meant.

Assuming Amil is the correct view, it would obviously have to mean that the 42 months represent satan's little season. Except that doesn't appear to be your view. There is nothing logical about a thousand years and 42 months equaling the same amount of time, the same era of time. Even Preterists, though I disagree with them as well, would never suggest that a thousand years and 42 months mean the same era of time and involve the same amount of time.

You have told me in the past that I only think I'm being logical about things when I really am not. As if you might have room to talk if you are proposing utter nonsense that a thousand years and 42 months are meaning the same thing, are involving the same era of time, the past 2000 years in this case, that assuming the thousand years precede the 2nd coming. Even if it does, common sense says that the 42 months would follow the thousand years in that case, not parallel them instead. If your view is supposed to be correct why isn't there at least some logic to it? There is no logic to any view that insists a thousand years and 42 months mean the same thing, are involving the same era and amount of time.

Keeping in mind you did say this--- I see the 42 months, 1260 days and time, times and half a time as being symbolic representations of the New Testament time period. If you are not meaning the past 2000 years by that, then what are you meaning by that? The last thing thing I need is you once again accusing me of misrepresenting your view. Also keeping in mind, per your view the past 2000 years equal the thousand years. LOL, you can't have the thousand years and this 42 months in question both meaning the past 2000 years if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Meaning anyone with a brain taking you seriously.

 

[covenantee]

To your question about "anything else":
Acts 2:15-17 and Acts 10:45 answers Dan. 9:27.

By the mind of Christ within me, in post #203, I have said what the Spirit says in the scriptures of Dan. 9:24-27. I cannot add to it, nor can I take anything away. If you choose to do so, then you are welcome to your own interpretation.

Don't get stuck in the rut of "the wisdom of men".

Yes, the Acts passages confirm the outpouring of the Spirit.

And Daniel 9:27 confirms the New Covenant.

I concur with both.

But the consummation in Daniel 9:27 is of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

It is the prince that shall come who will start the 70th week by confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant.

Messiah the Prince came 2,000 years ago and confirmed the New Covenant in His Blood at Calvary in the midst of the 70th week. Daniel 9:24-27; Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25

You seem to have missed Him.

 

[Davidpt]

Yes, the Acts passages confirm the outpouring of the Spirit.

And Daniel 9:27 confirms the New Covenant.

I concur with both.

But the consummation in Daniel 9:27 is of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

It's real simple. There is a gap in the 70 weeks no matter how you look at it since verse 27, every word of it, is pertaining to the 70th week. Except the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is in the middle of the 70th week following the fulfillment of this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Which then means Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--followed by a gap, and once the gap has elasped, the prince that shall come(verse 26) fulfills the remainder of the 70th week per this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Why would anyone take issue with any of that? Clearly, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--was not fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross. Therefore, logic says that a gap has to be between this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--and this--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[covenantee]

It's real simple. There is a gap in the 70 weeks no matter how you look at it since verse 27, every word of it, is pertaining to the 70th week. Except the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is in the middle of the 70th week following the fulfillment of this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Which then means Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--followed by a gap, and once the gap has elasped, the prince that shall come(verse 26) fulfills the remainder of the 70th week per this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Why would anyone take issue with any of that? Clearly, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--was not fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross. Therefore, logic says that a gap has to be between this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--and this--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

There is no gap in the 70 weeks, which ended 3.5 years after Calvary. There is a gap following the 70th week of about 36 years leading up to 70 AD. It is not part of the 70 weeks.

 

[Earburner]

IOW, per your view the thousand years and the 42 month reign of the beast = the same era of time, the past 2000 years in this case. As if that can make sense that a thousand years vs 42 months, thus a long era of time pertaining to the former, a short era of time pertaining to the latter, that these are referring to the same era of time, a long era of time, 2000 years and counting, in this case. Except logic says that 42 months can't represent the same amount of time that a thousand years can represent. That's just common sense.

It would be like someone in a math class claiming that the number 42 and the number 1000 can equal the same amount. Yet, no one, and I'm assuming including you, would ever propose such nonsense.

42 months = 1260 days. 1000 years = 360,000 days, that assuming literal days are meant. No way in any universe can 1260 days mean the same thing as 360,000 days, even if in both cases the literal amount specified is not meant.

Assuming Amil is the correct view, it would obviously have to mean that the 42 months represent satan's little season. Except that doesn't appear to be your view. There is nothing logical about a thousand years and 42 months equaling the same amount of time, the same era of time. Even Preterists, though I disagree with them as well, would never suggest that a thousand years and 42 months mean the same era of time and involve the same amount of time.

You have told me in the past that I only think I'm being logical about things when I really am not. As if you might have room to talk if you are proposing utter nonsense that a thousand years and 42 months are meaning the same thing, are involving the same era of time, the past 2000 years in this case, that assuming the thousand years precede the 2nd coming. Even if it does, common sense says that the 42 months would follow the thousand years in that case, not parallel them instead. If your view is supposed to be correct why isn't there at least some logic to it? There is no logic to any view that insists a thousand years and 42 months mean the same thing, are involving the same era and amount of time.

Keeping in mind you did say this--- I see the 42 months, 1260 days and time, times and half a time as being symbolic representations of the New Testament time period. If you are not meaning the past 2000 years by that, then what are you meaning by that? The last thing thing I need is you once again accusing me of misrepresenting your view. Also keeping in mind, per your view the past 2000 years equal the thousand years. LOL, you can't have the thousand years and this 42 months in question both meaning the past 2000 years if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Meaning anyone with a brain taking you seriously.

Of course....there is a correct Amil view of the 1260 days, the 42 mos. and/or the 3.5 years, but unfortunately the "truth" that can be presented about it, "is stranger than the fiction" being spouted here.

 

[Earburner]

It's real simple. There is a gap in the 70 weeks no matter how you look at it since verse 27, every word of it, is pertaining to the 70th week. Except the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is in the middle of the 70th week following the fulfillment of this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Which then means Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--followed by a gap, and once the gap has elasped, the prince that shall come(verse 26) fulfills the remainder of the 70th week per this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Why would anyone take issue with any of that? Clearly, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--was not fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross. Therefore, logic says that a gap has to be between this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--and this--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

You might find a few of my posts in parallel to your thinking about the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy.

 

[Davidpt]

There is no gap in the 70 weeks, which ended 3.5 years after Calvary. There is a gap following the 70th week of about 36 years leading up to 70 AD. It is not part of the 70 weeks.

IOW, you want us to believe, that since only 70 weeks are involved in total, that even though verse 25 pertains to the first 69 weeks and nothing outside of this 69 weeks, that the same isn't also true of verse 27? That in the same manner it is only pertaining to the 70th week and nothing outside of the 70th week. Except you want us to believe instead that verse 27 only records the first half of the 70th week then is silent in regards to the remainder of it. I guess we are just supposed to speculate about what causes the 70th week to end in verse 27 though we didn't have to speculate about what causes the end of the 69 weeks recorded in verse 25. IOW, you are not being consistent here. You are cherry picking in verse 27.

I have said the following in the past. As to verse 27, in light of verse 26 it should be interpreted like such.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.


IOW, this---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--fits with this in verse 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 this---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---fits with this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


One might ask, well verse 27 says he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, so how does he do that per this proposed interpretation? Simple. The first half of the 70th week is meaning 3.5 years leading to the cross. The remainder is meaning the 42 month reign of the beast leading up to his return in the end of this age. This 42 months involve many in the church falling away. Except not everyone in the church falls away, and this is because He is still confirming the covenant with those that don't fall away during the 42 months, the fact they don't fall away.

IOW, we have to be willing to discern things spiritually at times rather than interpreting everything in a literal sense.

 

[Earburner]

Yes, the Acts passages confirm the outpouring of the Spirit.

And Daniel 9:27 confirms the New Covenant.

I concur with both.

But the consummation in Daniel 9:27 is of Jerusalem in 70 AD.You are 2/3 of the way there now.

Thanks for agreeing to 2/3 of what I had written in post #202
So also, I have shown that I do not disagree with the temple being made desolate and then destroyed in 70AD. But, you do show that you believe that the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit ended at the same time of the consummation in 70AD.
Do you not see the error of your thinking of when the consummation truly takes place?
Please re-read my post #202 to refresh your memory of what is really being said in Dan. 9:27.

 

[Davidpt]

You might find a few of my posts in parallel to your thinking about the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy.

Do you recall any of the post numbers so that I can maybe take a look?

 

[covenantee]

Thanks for agreeing to 2/3 of what I had written in post #202
So also, I have shown that I do not disagree with the temple being made desolate and then destroyed in 70AD. But, you do show that you believe that the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit ended at the same time of the consummation in 70AD.
Do you not see the error of your thinking of when the consummation truly takes place?
Please re-read my post #202 to refresh your memory of what is really being said in Dan. 9:27.

Sorry, I'm unable to replicate your conclusion.

Where do I "believe that the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit ended at the same time of the consummation in 70AD"?

Recall that I previously also affirmed a final fiery consummation.

 

[covenantee]

IOW, you want us to believe, that since only 70 weeks are involved in total, that even though verse 25 pertains to the first 69 weeks and nothing outside of this 69 weeks, that the same isn't also true of verse 27?

Sorry, I'm unable to understand your argument.

What are you disagreeing with about verse 27?

Are you claiming that verse 27 is not permitted to refer to events outside of the 70 weeks?

 

[Davidpt]

Sorry, I'm unable to understand your argument.

What are you disagreeing with about verse 27?

Are you claiming that verse 27 is not permitted to refer to events outside of the 70 weeks?

Take verse 25, for instance. Nothing in this verse is meaning outside of the 69 weeks and that it has a beginning point and an ending point. No one would argue that what is recorded in verse 25, that any of it is meaning outside of the 69 weeks. The same should be true for verse 27. None of it is meaning outside of the 70th week. Therefore, it demands that there is a gap in the 70th week because verse 27 also has to have an ending point recorded just like verse 25 has an ending point recorded.


By making some of verse 27 to be meaning outside of the 70th week, now there is nothing recorded in verse 27 that tells us how the 70th week ends. I don't find that to be acceptable, that nothing in verse 27 reveals how the 70th week ends. That equals cherry picking and is mainly caused by doctrinal bias'. Anyone not coming to the text with doctrinal bias' are going to conclude that this in verse 27 reveals the manner in which the 70th week ends---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That's how the 70 weeks end. Therefore, the 70 weeks cannot be fulfilled without there being a gap somewhere within them. The way you and others try and get around this is like such---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--this is not meaning during the 70th week, this is meaning after the 70 weeks were finished in it's entirety earlier on. If that is true, prove it per verse 25 by showing that some of it too is meaning after the first 69 weeks are fulfilled. That way you are treating both verse 25 and 27 in the same manner. IOW, if verse 27 can involve events outside of the 70th week, then so should verse 25 be able to involve events outside of the 69 weeks.


Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.


No one argues that anything recorded in this verse are involving events outside of this 69 weeks.

While OTOH, some are arguing per verse 27, that, though the context is the 70th week, not all of verse 27 is pertaining to the 70th week. Only up to this part is it pertaining to the 70th week---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Except the middle of the week is not the end of the week, it is the middle of it. So where is the remainder of the week recorded in verse 27? Obviously, here---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Except some are arguing that that part is not even pertaining to the 70th week, since they know full well, to argue that means they have to then admit to a gap in the 70 weeks, something they are arguing against not for.