70 AD revisited

[covenantee]

what does paul have to do with this?

I referred to saints, and you associated that with Roman Catholics.

Paul referred to saints, and he also wrote Romans.

So you believe that Paul was a Roman Catholic.

 

[covenantee]

how can that be when it has not even started yet?

How can that be when 70 immediately follows 69?

Unless you're using the Darby/Scofield numbering system.

how about we stick to the word of God??

How about you acknowledge history which confirms the Word of God?

 

[covenantee]

You follow roman catholicism and the anti-semetism they espoused.

You believe that Paul was a Roman Catholic, so he must have espoused anti-semitism as well.

 

[covenantee]

And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

This happened almost 40 year after messiah was cut off

True.

The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

What is "it", and what is the war?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I referred to saints, and you associated that with Roman Catholics.

Paul referred to saints, and he also wrote Romans.

So you believe that Paul was a Roman Catholic.

No, You reffered to the early church. You did not mention the new testament.. or else I would have assumed paul. WHenn most people mention the early church as examples. they usually refer to the early church AFTER the NT writers

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How can that be when 70 immediately follows 69?

Yes.

But that is not what Daniel 9 SHows. It shows a gap..

If the things have not occured yet. then we can not just explain them away as having happened.

Unless you're using the Darby/Scofield numbering system.

Like your using the catholic anti semetic system?

Come on, your not going to get anywhere with this line of reasoning. Talk about my words. nto words someone else said

How about you acknowledge history which confirms the Word of God?

I have, And it does not fit your system. (YOUR INTERPRETATION)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You believe that Paul was a Roman Catholic, so he must have espoused anti-semitism as well.

Now your playing games.

I expect this from CHildren. or those who can not back their belief system with the word.

which one do you fall under?

 

[covenantee]

Now your playing games.

I expect this from CHildren. or those who can not back their belief system with the word.

which one do you fall under?

I'm playing your game. Aren't you enjoying your game any longer?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

True.

What is "it", and what is the war?

the desolation of jerusalem and the city. which still is in effect today.

war? WARS..how many wars have been fought over the last 2000 years?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm playing your game. Aren't you enjoying your game any longer?

Games?

I am not playing games, I gave you specific answers.,

Your the one trying to use tactics and not showing me the word.

 

[covenantee]

Yes.

But that is not what Daniel 9 SHows. It shows a gap..

It shows no gap. That is futurist fantasy.

Like your using the catholic anti semetic system?

Like you're labeling Paul a Roman Catholic?

I have, And it does not fit your system. (YOUR INTERPRETATION)

So provide evidence of a WW2 calamity on the scale of the one the Jewish Virtual Library cited which occurred in 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

the desolation of jerusalem and the city.

True.

which still is in effect today.

If so, where has the Knesset been meeting?

war? WARS..how many wars have been fought over the last 2000 years?

Daniel 9:26 "...unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Better trash your Darby/Scofield spectacles.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It shows no gap. That is futurist fantasy.

Like you're labeling Paul a Roman Catholic?

So provide evidence of a WW2 calamity on the scale of the one the Jewish Virtual Library cited which occurred in 70 AD.

you continue to show no biblical proof of anything and just attack

Its obvious you can not argue your own point scriptural..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

True.

If so, where has the Knesset been meeting?

Daniel 9:26 "...unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Better trash your Darby/Scofield spectacles.

again, nothing substansative to back your theory or refute mine


when your ready to actually discuss the word. let me know

 

[covenantee]

you continue to show no biblical proof of anything and just attack

Its obvious you can not argue your own point scriptural..

You're the one claiming a gap, so provide the evidence from Scripture and/or history, not from your Darby/Scofield imagination.

 

[covenantee]

again, nothing substansative to back your theory or refute mine


when your ready to actually discuss the word. let me know

When you've trashed your Darby/Scofield spectacles so that you can read, let us know.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I've been sharing this forever. But for the sake of any new readers I will repost this.

If you will compare Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse it appears to me that Jesus interpreted the "People of the ruler to come" as the Roman Army who, under the Roman general, destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Jesus said, in that Discourse, that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. That happened twice, once in 66 AD and again, in 70 AD. The 1st approach to Jerusalem by the Roman Army gave warning to Christian believers in Israel to escape to the nearby mountains. This they did by leaving for Pella, an area beyond the reach of the invading Army.

I've been relentlessly attacked by strict Futurists and called a Preterist for this belief. But this was the predominant belief in the Early Church. Only a couple of Church Fathers projected the "70th Week of Dan 9" to be something future (Irenaeus and Hippolytus). Largely, the entire 70 Weeks Prophecy has been interpreted to be fulfilled in the time in and around Jesus' earthly ministry, which was completed at the cross, and followed by the judgment of the Jewish People in 70 AD.

For the record, historical interpretations like this does not make one a Preterist, and I am not--not even a Partial Preterist. Nor does it make one a strict Historicist Interpreter--I'm not that either. It's just that some prophecies were, in fact, fulfilled historically, such as the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Some prophecies remain future--not the 70 Weeks Prophecy, however, in my opinion.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

In my view, the Roman Leader "confirmed" God's covenant of destruction upon the Jewish People for breaking their agreement under the Law. And he began by having the Jewish Messiah killed, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What this plainly says is that the "Great Tribulation," so often cited by strict Futurists as the Reign of Antichrist, actually began as a punishment against the Jewish People. And this led to an age-long Diaspora of the Jewish People, until the Gentile nations have had their opportunity to be nations of God, and God tires of their own apostacies and hostilities towards the Jewish People.

You are correct in your belief that the people of the ruler is rome and that the Luke portion of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 66-70 Ad concerning Jerusalem. However the 70th week has not commenced yet- for thatr prince ( A roman ruler howeer that means when he arises) has yet to sign a 7 year covenant with Israel which commences the 70th and final week of Daniel. More popularly called the tribulation.

 

[covenantee]

You are correct in your belief that the people of the ruler is rome and that the Luke portion of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 66-70 Ad concerning Jerusalem. However the 70th week has not commenced yet- for thatr prince ( A roman ruler howeer that means when he arises) has yet to sign a 7 year covenant with Israel which commences the 70th and final week of Daniel. More popularly called the tribulation.

Misnaming "prince" as "ruler" in Daniel 9:26 only confuses Daniel's description. The Hebrew word for prince is "nagid", and it is identical to "nagid", describing Messiah the Prince, in Daniel 9:25. Thus, the only prince in the passage is Messiah, and the Romans were His people serving as His instruments of judgment and destruction upon Jerusalem.

There is no future Roman ruler, no future 7-year covenant, and no decapitated future 70th week. All are Darby/Scofield futurist fantasies and fallacies.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When you've trashed your Darby/Scofield spectacles so that you can read, let us know.

well since the only thing you have is darby/scofield. and con not answer anyone's questions. or show any scripture.

and since in post 59, I explained the passage and explained the gap between the 69th and 70th week. for which you ignored and have not refuted.

I can only assume you wish to argue.. so will just say, You will never convince me or anyone else to follow you the way you are trying to debate, which is no debate at all

 

[covenantee]

well since the only thing you have is darby/scofield. and con not answer anyone's questions. or show any scripture.

and since in post 59, I explained the passage and explained the gap between the 69th and 70th week. for which you ignored and have not refuted.

I can only assume you wish to argue.. so will just say, You will never convince me or anyone else to follow you the way you are trying to debate, which is no debate at all

You still haven't explained why you replaced "war" with "wars" in the passage.

Let's see if you can explain that before we proceed further.