Search results

So are you saying we should be able to determine that from verses 24-27 alone? If so, I'm not seeing how unless it involves putting the 2nd half of the week on hold, then fulfilling it later. But apparently you don't see it that way yourself.

Per my view, Christ is still involved during the 42 month reign of the beast since it is Him that puts an end to it's reign. Where I then connect that with Daniel 8:25 and this---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. Where I take the Prince...

Does that mean it also includes some Amils interpreting it in that manner as well? Of course though, they wouldn't be taking the millennium to be future still. But that is beside the point. TBH, this is the first I have ever heard of anyone viewing it in this manner. Therefore, I'm not exactly...

I'll start with the following for now. ------------------------- 3) Why was He crucified in the "midst of the week"? There was still another 3.5 years of the final week, didn't God "set aside" the final week of the prophecy for Jesus to fulfill His requirements? After all, didn't God...

My position is that the final half of the 70th week is reserved for the 42 month reign of the beast. Where it attempts to undo everything Christ accomplished up through the first half of the 70th week, by directing worship to it and away from Christ. At least it makes sense out of this...

It would be pretty silly of me, don't you think, if I interpret Matthew 24:15-21 to not be involving 70 AD, and that it is connected with Daniel 9:26, then take verse 26 to mean 70 AD? That is absurd, that is contradictory if one were to do that. It would mean a person doing that is confused and...

If I were to say to a JW, for example, that Christ is undeniably God, this means it is not true? This means it is not undeniable simply because this JW refuses to believe it?

In verse 24 this--- upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression It really makes sense, doesn't it, to first finish the transgression concerning it, then attack this same city and destroy it some 40 years later. Which then makes it untrue that the transgression concerning it was finished...

I’m using ‘gap’ in the prophetic sense---a gap in fulfillment, not a break in the text itself. The passage moves from the events surrounding Jerusalem’s fall to the still future coming of the Son of Man, which suggests a long interval between those fulfillments. So maybe I'm using the wrong term...

It doesn't matter what someone thinks it is related to. It is still undeniably meaning something that takes place within the 70th week, not outside of it. What is the context of verse 27? Can't you even figure that out? The context is clearly the 70th week, not outside of the 70th week instead...

That's basically my position as well. After all, one of their questions was about the end of the world. What possesesed them to ask that based on what Jesus said in verse 2? Isn't it possible that on the surface, Matthew 24:2 is literally meaning in a literal sense, but that it also has...

That would be true if the only sense that verse 16 can be understood in is the literal sense. Except I'm not convinced of that.

Are you then saying that the last half of verse 27 was fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross? Because if you are not, that obviously implies a gap. A gap is a gap regardless of the length of time involved. Clearly, verse 27, every single word of it is pertaining to the...

But look where I place the gap. I place it after this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease Since it is absurd, and borders on blasphemy to apply the next part to what Christ accomplished on the cross---and for the overspreading of abominations he...

Some argue, that because the temple was still the holy place when Christ spoke His words pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that this proves the 2nd temple is meant. Except these interpreters don't fully comprehend how prophecy works. What counts is this. When the prophecy is fulfilled, is the temple...

You are making a straw man argument. For example, Matthew 24:30. @claninja clearly does not take that verse in the literal sense, nor does he take verse 29 in the literal sense. As to me, I do take verse 30 in the literal sense, but I don't take verse 29 in the literal sense. All of us take some...

No it's not my position. That first question obviously pertained to what Christ said in Matthew 24:2. My view is that Luke 21, not Matthew 24 nor Mark 13, answered this. The way I look at it, as long as it got answered, that is what counts. Luke's account focused on that particular answer...

I'm not necessarily arguing that the disciples misunderstood or that Christ corrected them. After all, it's possible that they had better insight and discernment about some of these things than we tend to give them credit for at times. After all, one of their questions was in regard to the end...

The evidence shows it has to be meant in a figurative sense because, Daniel 12, for example, undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving 70 AD. Nor is it meaning in a literal sense in the future involving a rebuilt temple in that region. I tend to think the point is this. It is in...

Which brings up this point. If the temple is still the holy place, that seems to imply their beef with them defaming the temple would be legit.