Search results

mark 1 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Jesus announced two realities whose time was fulfilled: The kingdom...

Scripture shows why it was given. To reveal the New Covenant/Testament fulfilled within the 70th week, and to confirm and affirm Daniel as its messenger.

I believe that I addressed that in post 166.

I can't follow what you're asking for. Just start with one question, and I'll attempt to answer it.

Certainly. But they all began at Calvary, and have been reality ever since. I've updated post 166 to address your points.

I need to determine your thinking in order to address your points. So if reconciliation is not sufficient in the OT, then it is sufficient in the NT. And Daniel being a prophet, his reference to reconciliation in Daniel 9:24 would be to NT reconciliation, not OT reconciliation. And that...

I didn't disagree with you. I asked, If OT reconciliation was sufficient, why was NT reconciliation necessary?

If OT reconciliation was sufficient, why was NT reconciliation necessary?

Bro, you recently did an excellent exegesis on Messiah's fulfillment of all of Daniel 9:24. Could you repost that for us? Thanks.

Daniel 9 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. Is...

What time do you think Jesus and Mark were saying was fulfilled?

Jesus and Mark claimed it. Mark 1 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. There is only one time that Jesus and...

I have the unanimous scholarship of virtually every recognized historical orthodox Christian exegete affirming me. There are at least five of them. One or two could be wrong. Five are not wrong. That's good enough for me.

I agree; you've said that Antiochus was not Roman. And you've said that Antiochus was the little horn. But the little horn was Roman. It came up from among ten Roman kingdoms. Daniel 7:7,8

Luke and Matthew are about Daniel 9:27. The armies to which they refer are Roman. Antiochus was not a Roman. The 70 weeks started in 457 BC.

Luke 21:20 identifies the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 9:27 as the Roman armies, not Antiochus. There is 3-way corroboration across these verses. All three refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. No Maccabean Jew would have interpreted Daniel 9:27 correctly...

The error arises in attempting to identify the Medes and Persians as separate empires. In historical reality, they united under Cyrus about 549 BC as the single empire of Medo-Persia. It was this united single empire, identified in Daniel 2:39 as "another kingdom inferior to thee", that...

OK. We've expressed our respective views. Thanks.

I want a Calvin or a Henry who agrees with you.

You still haven't cited any recognized historical orthodox support for your view. I've cited two, there are more, and there is full unanimity recognizing Rome as the fourth empire.