70 AD revisited

[CadyandZoe]

No.

he was cut off AFTER the 69th week (in the hebrew, it means immediately after, or the next event following which is in close proximity)

Does this mean that week 70 began at the crucifixion? Or no? You said there was a gap. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Does this mean that week 70 began at the crucifixion? Or no? You said there was a gap. Sorry, I forgot.

the 70th week has not started yet. even today.

 

[CadyandZoe]

the 70th week has not started yet. even today.

I'm still a bit unclear about the timeline. Was Jesus crucified in the Gap period?

Thanks.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm still a bit unclear about the timeline. Was Jesus crucified in the Gap period?

Thanks.

the 69th week ended when Jesus entered jerusalem as messiah, just as was prophesied

he died 7 days later

if the 69th week ended and the 70th did not yet begin. Then it would be between the 69th and 70th week

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't say you did. I said that your view requires three Israels not two.

Which is false.

You are deflecting.

Deflecting.

Translation: You nave nothing to offer.

Yes, Paul mentions Israel twice, referring to

1) the patriarch Israel,
2) the nation bearing his name.

The interpretation you believe adds a third: "spiritual Israel", which Paul never had in mind.

You are just a flat out liar. I'm not adding a third, I'm disagreeing with you on which Israel he was speaking about besides the nation of Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You do not understand anything about Prophecy do you?

I understsand much more than you do. Which isn't hard since you seem to understand nothing about prophecy at all.

The people of Israel, who were living at the time of messiah, would need to know the OT prophecy concerning the messiah to know it was him.

So can you show it to me or not?

Are you unable to read? I showed you the passage from Isaiah 53. Is that not enough?

who is He?

You and I know that it was jesus.

Could Israel know that was the messiah? Again show me the word messiah

I can't take you seriously. Do you believe in a rapture? Show me the word rapture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

the 69th week ended when Jesus entered jerusalem as messiah, just as was prophesied

he died 7 days later

if the 69th week ended and the 70th did not yet begin. Then it would be between the 69th and 70th week

Show me in the prophecy itself where it indicates there would be a gap between the 69th and 70th week. No gaps at all between any of the first 69 weeks, but then suddenly a gap after the 70th week? That is ludicrous.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I understsand much more than you do. Which isn't hard since you seem to understand nothing about prophecy at all.

You sure could have fooled me

Are you unable to read? I showed you the passage from Isaiah 53. Is that not enough?

I did not see the word messiah in there. I saw nothing that would have shown any Jew that that person was the messiah.

I can't take you seriously. Do you believe in a rapture? Show me the word rapture.

The word rapture comes from the Latin word raptura which is translated “caught up”

it is found in 1 Thess 4: 17 (those who are alive will be “Caught up”

now when this happens is up for debate, but the fact that it will happen is not

the fact you do not know this fact just shows me you have not really studied. So I can not take you seriously

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Show me in the prophecy itself where it indicates there would be a gap between the 69th and 70th week. No gaps at all between any of the first 69 weeks, but then suddenly a gap after the 70th week? That is ludicrous.

There are many gaps

either way, Messiah (the king) would COME after 69th week.

he did this when he entered jerusalem as prophesied in Zech 9

Zechariah 9:9
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey

the city was destroyed 40 years later

the city would lie desolate through wars and for a pre-determined time

THEN the prince who is to come shall confirm a covenant for one week

The gap is seen in the passage itself. Whether you see it or not.. that is not for me to determine

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No.

he was cut off AFTER the 69th week (in the hebrew, it means immediately after, or the next event following which is in close proximity)

No, it does not mean that. Stop making things up. It means after, but the word itself does not indicate how long the next thing or event happens after the previous one.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You sure could have fooled me

I did not see the word messiah in there. I saw nothing that would have shown any Jew that that person was the messiah.

Him being called "the Lamb of God" and "the Son of God" and John the Baptist saying that "He was before me" all would have shown them that He was the Messiah. Your ignorance doesn't change that.

The word rapture comes from the Latin word raptura which is translated “caught up”

it is found in 1 Thess 4: 17 (those who are alive will be “Caught up”

LOL. Give me a break. Are you pretending to not get the point? You believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, right? Show me the phrase "pre-tribulation rapture" in scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)? If so, show me the word "trinity" in scripture.

the fact you do not know this fact just shows me you have not really studied. So I can not take you seriously

You're just saying that because I said that about you, but you have given everyone reasons to not take you seriously and I haven't. I back up my views with scripture. You back up your views with nothing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are many gaps

Oh, it wasn't enough for you to believe in one imaginary gap, now there are many? Unbelievable.

either way, Messiah (the king) would COME after 69th week.

No, He would be CUT OFF after the 69th week. You need to read scripture more carefully.

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.

he did this when he entered jerusalem as prophesied in Zech 9

Zechariah 9:9
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey

Nope. He was introduced as the Messiah by John the Baptist, as I've shown. But, you just conveniently sweep that under the rug.

the city was destroyed 40 years later

the city would lie desolate through wars and for a pre-determined time

THEN the prince who is to come shall confirm a covenant for one week

The gap is seen in the passage itself. Whether you see it or not.. that is not for me to determine

The city being destroyed is not part of the 70 weeks. It's a consequence of what happened during the 70th week (the Jews rejected Christ, so their city and temple were destroyed).

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Him being called "the Lamb of God" and "the Son of God" and John the Baptist saying that "He was before me" all would have shown them that He was the Messiah. Your ignorance doesn't change that.


LOL. Give me a break. Are you pretending to not get the point? You believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, right? Show me the phrase "pre-tribulation rapture" in scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)? If so, show me the word "trinity" in scripture.


You're just saying that because I said that about you, but you have given everyone reasons to not take you seriously and I haven't. I back up my views with scripture. You back up your views with nothing.

Good day sir.

It it obvious to everyone here you have no desire to discuss anything.

You twist and turn what i say like you know me.

I stopped playing kids games along time ago..

when your ready to learn. Come see me, or listen to the many others here who have been tryign to show you also.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Which is false.


Translation: You nave nothing to offer.


You are just a flat out liar. I'm not adding a third, I'm disagreeing with you on which Israel he was speaking about besides the nation of Israel.

You see. You can't get the facts straight. Paul uses the term "Israel" twice in Romans 9:6. You can't get the facts straight, which is why you berate people.

Romans 9
6 For they are not all Israel [1] who are descended from Israel [2] . . .

[1]Israel --- A Nation of people descended from Jacob
[2]Israel --- The Patriarch Jacob

You see? Two mentions of Israel not three.

Your interpretation adds a third.
[3]Israel --- Body of Christ.

Paul doesn't mention a third. Your interpretation does.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Good day sir.

It it obvious to everyone here you have no desire to discuss anything.

That is clearly not true. It is obvious to everyone here that you lack intellectual honesty.

You twist and turn what i say like you know me.

No, I do not. It looks like all you're interested in doing is lying, so it's pointless for us to continue the discussion that I supposedly had no desire taking part in.

I stopped playing kids games along time ago..

Doesn't look like it to me.

when your ready to learn. Come see me, or listen to the many others here who have been tryign to show you also.

There's nothing you can teach me. You have made that clear.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You see. You can't get the facts straight. Paul uses the term "Israel" twice in Romans 9:6. You can't get the facts straight, which is why you berate people.

I have said many times that he uses the term Israel twice in Romans 9:6, which means he was referring to two different Israels. What facts am I not getting straight by saying that? You also have said he is referring to two Israels, so why are you acting as if I'm wrong for saying that?

Romans 9
6 For they are not all Israel [1] who are descended from Israel [2] . . .

[1]Israel --- A Nation of people descended from Jacob
[2]Israel --- The Patriarch Jacob

You see? Two mentions of Israel not three.

Where did I ever say he referred to three Israels there? Not once. So, why are you acting as if I have? You apparently have severe reading comprehension problems.

Your interpretation adds a third.
[3]Israel --- Body of Christ.

No, it does not! My interpretation does not include the patriarch Jacob. Yours does. My interpretation has him referring to two Israels and so does yours. We just don't agree on which other Israel he is referring to besides the nation of Israel.

Paul doesn't mention a third. Your interpretation does.

I have never said that he mentions three Israels. You are a liar.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I have said many times that he uses the term Israel twice in Romans 9:6, which means he was referring to two different Israels.

Of Course. Where did I dispute that? I never said that you claim there are three mentions of the term Israel. Instead, I maintain that the interpretation you affirm logically requires the insertion of a third meaning of the term Israel --- one that is not present.

Interpretation is like standing on a bridge watching the river flow. Logically, the river as seen from the upstream side, must have continuity with the river as seen from the downstream side. The same is true of a given verse of scripture. Any particular verse of scripture will share continuity with the verse that precedes it and the verse that follows it.

Let's take a look at Romans 9:7, which is downstream of verse 9:6.

"nor are they all children(1) because they are Abraham’s(2) descendants(3)"

Here the apostle speaks about children, a Patriarch, and descendants.

(1)children
(2)Abraham
(3)descendants.

Could you look at verse 6 to see if we see the same pattern?

For they are not all Israel(1), who are descended(3) from Israel(2).

Here we see the same three elements as in verse 7.

(1)sons
(2)Jacob
(3)descendants

Verse 7 means to say that among all of Abraham's descendants, not every descendant will be considered a "child" with respect to God's promise concerning Abraham's children. Verse 6 means to say that among all of Jacob's descendants, not every descendant will be considered a "son" with respect to God's promise to Jacob.

As we would expect, these two ideas logically follow from Paul's earlier claim that the "adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Romans 9:4

The interpretation you affirm inserts a completely foreign concept into the text: "spiritual Israel."

 

[Freedm]

Think just a little ----we have never seen these days of great tribulation yet.

• “For there will be greater anguish than at any time since the world began. And it will never be so great again. In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God’s chosen ones” (Matthew 24:21-22).

It was in fact the time of greatest anguish. Look at how Josephus describes this time.

The Famine

Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did any where appear, a war was commenced presently, and the dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life. Nor would men believe that those who were dying had no food, but the robbers would search them when they were expiring, lest any one should have concealed food in their bosoms, and counterfeited dying; nay, these robbers gaped for want, and ran about stumbling and staggering along like mad dogs, and reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men; they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into the very same houses two or three times in one and the same day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it obliged them to chew every thing, while they gathered such things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and endured to eat them; nor did they at length abstain from girdles and shoes; and the very leather which belonged to their shields they pulled off and gnawed: the very wisps of old hay became food to some; and some gathered up fibres, and sold a very small weight of them for four Attic [drachmae]. (Wars 6.3.3)

Eating Babies

She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, "O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves. This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us. Yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets, and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews." As soon as she had said this, she slew her son, and then roasted him, and eat the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them, and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight, when she said to them, "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! (6.3.4)

Dead Bodies Without Burial

And now the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there. … But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. (Wars 4.5.1 & 2)

Pestilences

And do not you disturb yourselves at the quaking of inanimate creatures, nor do you imagine that this earthquake is a sign of another calamity; for such affections of the elements are according to the course of nature, nor does it import any thing further to men, than what mischief it does immediately of itself. Perhaps there may come some short sign beforehand in the case of pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes; but these calamities themselves have their force limited by themselves [without foreboding any other calamity]. (Wars 1.19.4)

Now when they were slaying him, he made this imprecation upon them, that they might undergo both famine and pestilence in this war, and besides all that, they might come to the mutual slaughter of one another; all which imprecations God confirmed against these impious men, and was what came most justly upon them, when not long afterward they tasted of their own madness in their mutual seditions one against another. (Wars 4.6.1)

 

[Timtofly]

The prince is not in 25 and 26, Jesus did not confirm a 7 year covenant with anyone.

He purchased a new covenant for eternity with his blood.

again, the 7 years is precise/

the future prince of Rome confirms a covenant with many for 7 years.

in the middle of the week.. he breaks that covenant by placing an idol in the most holy place. Which cause sacrifice and burnt offering to cease

the end happens 3.5 years later as prophecies in many places. Including by Jesus himself in Matt 24

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."

This does not say that any one makes a covenant for 7 years.

This verse does not say after 3.5 years someone breaks a covenant.

"and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

You don't even know how Matthew 24:15-34 directly contradicts your interpretation. According to the Olivet Discourse, you "have to have" the AoD first and then 3.5 years later the GT. That is the only way to get your 7 years to work.

At the end of the final harvest the Atonement Covenant is strengthened or confirmed to see who will remain under the Covenant or if the 7th Trumpet is the final judgment. This is an extension of the Covenant, not a breaking of any Covenant. This is the week of the days of the 7th Trumpet.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. You are a dispensationalist whether you acknowledge it or not. And there are others on this forum like Eternally Grateful that are dispensationalists. You must not even know what a dispensationalist is.

How can I have a belief system I know very little about, except every one keeps accusing people of embracing it?

You must be a full Preterist, if I am a dispensationalists.

LOL. Why would you even attempt to represent my view when you admittedly "don't even know it"? LOL. You are a comedian.

I understand your view better than dispensationalism.

I don't represent your view. I don't misrepresent your view either. I point out it is wrong.