70th Week and Day of the Lord are separate events.

[Truth7t7]

Yes, absolutely, they burned at the stake over infant baptism.

Your God got a few things wrong.

Mine didn't.

Yes the reformed churches are still carrying Roman Catholic baggage, and infant baptism is just one of them

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Truth7t7]

Those who get things wrong are such as yourself who have fallen for the false Jesuit futurism of the apostate papacy's Francisco Ribera's counter-Reformation.

Catholic eschatology.

Deceiving you.

Father of Reformed Preterism, A Roman Catholic Jesuit Theologian

Luis del Alcázar (Ludovicus ab Alcasar, Louis of Alcazar) (1554–1613) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian.

Title page from the Vestigatio of Luis del Alcázar (1614).

 

[covenantee]

Yes the reformed churches are still carrying Roman Catholic baggage, and infant baptism is just one of them

Jesus Is The Lord

How terrible. The Reformers burned at the stake for nothing, and they and everyone in the Reformed church is going to hell.

There's a missionary opportunity for you.

Do you attend a Catholic church, or a Protestant church?

 

[covenantee]

Father of Reformed Preterism, A Roman Catholic Jesuit Theologian

Luis del Alcázar (Ludovicus ab Alcasar, Louis of Alcazar) (1554–1613) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian.

Title page from the Vestigatio of Luis del Alcázar (1614).

The Reformation occurred fifteen centuries after 70 AD.

Nothing to do with preterism.

 

[Truth7t7]

How terrible. The Reformers burned at the stake for nothing, and they and everyone in the Reformed church is going to hell.

There's a missionary opportunity for you.

Do you attend a Catholic church, or a Protestant church?

There are "Many" church fellowships that find their lineage "Outside" of Martin Luther's works in reformation, I attend one of those many fellowships

 

[covenantee]

There are "Many" church fellowships that find their lineage "Outside" of Martin Luther's works in reformation, I attend one of those many fellowships

A few of your beliefs.

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Reformation occurred fifteen centuries after 70 AD.

Nothing to do with preterism.

Straw Man Again

Reformed Preterist Historicism teaches 70AD fulfillment of many things in scripture, yes the present teachings follow the Roman Catholic Jesuit Luis Del Alcasar

 

[Truth7t7]

A few of your beliefs.

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

Straw Man, And False Claims

 

[covenantee]

Straw Man Again

Reformed Preterist Historicism teaches 70AD fulfillment of many things in scripture, yes the present teachings follow the Roman Catholic Jesuit Luis Del Alcasar

The Reformers were historicists, not preterists. The same is true of churches faithful to the Reformation.

Not one of them ever endorsed Alcasar.

 

[covenantee]

Straw Man, And False Claims

The Reformation exposed such blasphemies.

So why do you believe them?

 

[covenantee]

There are "Many" church fellowships that find their lineage "Outside" of Martin Luther's works in reformation, I attend one of those many fellowships

So your fellowship is "outside" of Luther's central tenet of the Reformation "The just shall live by faith"?

That "fellowship" is a cult.

 

[Davy]

Hey Doug:

Ironically, if there were only one set of 70 Weeks, we would still be close on interpretation, but I believe the second set began in 1537 when the Sultan Sulieman declared Jerusalem be rebuilt, plaza and moat. Plaza and moat are mentioned in Daniel, but never mentioned in the first declaration and rebuilding. 483 years after 1537 is the year 2020. So, however you want to define it, a 70th Week started in 2020.

The other major difference is the separation of the final week of Tribulation and the Day of the Lord. This is a new concept from Christian Widener, and there is scriptural evidence. I strongly recommend you check him out at endtimeberean.com.

You may have a hard time adjusting to these ideas, and you may consider how no one is talking about it, but remember, Israel did not understand the first Advent of Christ by holding on to their own expectations. We should instead compare actual events to see if they line up with scripture.

For example, October 7th, 2023, fits as an abomination of desolation. Hama leaders said publicly the motivation was to stop sacrifices from starting due to the red heifers. This is not what anyone expected.

Please take a little time to go through my system. I try to make the narrative fit the scriptures without predicting the specifics. And please consider the seals are not events unto themselves, but an outline of the entire end times.

Steve.

Your narrative does NOT... fit The Bible. It comes from somewhere else.

The 70th week of the Daniel 9 prophecy is about the final seven years of this present world, and not any other time. Per Daniel 9:27, it is divided up into two 1260 day periods. And that division happens when the coming false-Messiah to Jerusalem sets up the "abomination of desolation" idol that Lord Jesus warned the Church about in His Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

That latter 1260 day period of the 70th week represents the time of "great tribulation" at the end, as Revelation 11, Revelation 13, and Matthew 24 does reveal. God's "two witnesses" are to prophesy against the beast for that latter 1260 day period per Revelation 11. That 1260 day latter period is also rendered as 42 months applied to Satan's host and the beast of how long it will be in power over all peoples and nations at the END of this world.

 

[CTK]

True.

And via grammatical antecedent/referent/referback, Scriptural fulfillment, and Scriptural history; Daniel 9:26,27 also refer to Messiah the Prince Jesus.

The claim that “the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 must refer back to “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 because “prince” is the nearest antecedent does not hold grammatically.

First, Daniel was written in Hebrew, not English, and Hebrew does not require a repeated noun to refer to the nearest previous occurrence of that noun. The identity of a person must be determined by the wording and context, not merely by proximity. Verse 25 speaks of “Messiah, a Prince”—the promised Anointed One. Verse 26 then states that this Messiah will be “cut off.” After that, the verse introduces another expression: “the people of the prince who is to come.” The grammatical subject of the destruction is “the people,” while “the prince who is to come” identifies the ruler associated with those people. This is a new descriptive phrase, not a pronoun that must reach backward to the nearest antecedent. The sequence itself distinguishes the two figures. The Messiah is cut off; afterward, the city and sanctuary are destroyed by the people belonging to another coming prince.

Historically, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Roman forces in AD 70, not by the followers of Christ. Therefore, neither Hebrew grammar nor the historical sequence requires—or naturally supports—identifying the prince of verse 26 with Messiah the Prince of verse 25

 

[CTK]

True.

And via grammatical antecedent/referent/referback, Scriptural fulfillment, and Scriptural history; Daniel 9:26,27 also refer to Messiah the Prince Jesus.

Chiastic structure for 9:24 - 27​

A — Spiritual restoration
Daniel 9:24 — sin, atonement, righteousness, prophecy, Most Holy

B — Physical restoration
Daniel 9:25a — Jerusalem restored and rebuilt​

C — True/restorative Prince
Daniel 9:25b — Messiah the Prince comes​

​

C′ — False/destructive prince
Daniel 9:26 — the prince who is to come, identified by the destroying people​

B′ — Physical destruction
Daniel 9:26 — city and sanctuary destroyed​

A′ — Spiritual consequence
Daniel 9:27 — covenant confirmed, sacrifices cease, abomination/desolation follows

Why the “prince who is to come” belongs opposite Messiah the Prince​

The phrase “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 belongs to the restorative half. He is the anointed Prince who comes after the rebuilding of Jerusalem and through whom the redemptive goals of verse 24 are fulfilled. But verse 26 introduces another prince — not “Messiah the Prince,” but “the prince who is to come.” He is not introduced by anointing, restoration, righteousness, or covenant fulfillment. He is introduced through his people, and his people are identified by destruction:

“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

That means his identity is tied to the power responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Historically, that destruction came through Rome in AD 70. Therefore, the coming prince belongs to the Roman sphere and later develops in the same stream of opposition seen elsewhere in Daniel — especially the little horn power.

So the contrast is deliberate:

Messiah the Prince comes to restore.
The coming prince arises from the destroying power.

Messiah the Prince confirms the covenant and ends sacrifice by fulfillment.
The coming prince is associated with the desolating power that follows rejection.

Messiah brings the spiritual restoration of verse 24.
The coming prince belongs to the destructive consequences of verse 26.

Narrative Version​

Daniel 9:24–27 is arranged around two matching movements: restoration and destruction.

The first movement is restorative. Verse 24 announces the spiritual restoration appointed for Daniel’s people and holy city: transgression will be finished, sins dealt with, iniquity reconciled, everlasting righteousness brought in, vision and prophecy sealed, and the Most Holy anointed. Verse 25 then gives the physical restoration: Jerusalem will be restored and rebuilt, even in troubled times. At the center of that restoration stands Messiah the Prince.

The second movement mirrors the first in judgment. The Messiah who comes in verse 25 is cut off in verse 26. After His rejection, the restored city and sanctuary of verse 25 are destroyed. But verse 26 also introduces another prince — the prince who is to come. This prince is not identified with Messiah the Prince. He is identified by the people who destroy the city and sanctuary. His connection is not with restoration, but with desolation.



This gives the passage a clear contrast between two princes.

Messiah the Prince is the Prince of restoration.
The prince who is to come is connected to destruction.

Messiah the Prince belongs to the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose.
The coming prince belongs to the power that follows in judgment after Messiah is rejected.

Messiah the Prince is revealed before the cutting off.
The coming prince is revealed after the cutting off, through the people who destroy the city and sanctuary.

This strengthens the structure. The passage is not merely contrasting restoration and destruction in general. It is contrasting the true Prince who restores with the coming prince whose people destroy.



Therefore, Daniel 9:24–27 may be read as a carefully balanced prophecy:

God restores the spiritual purpose of His people and city.
God restores Jerusalem physically.
Messiah the Prince comes.
Messiah is cut off.
The people of the coming prince destroy the city and sanctuary.
Desolation follows until the decreed end.

The city restored in verse 25 becomes the city destroyed in verse 26.
The sanctuary purpose fulfilled in verse 24 becomes the sacrificial system ended in verse 27.
The Messiah Prince of verse 25 is answered by the coming prince of verse 26.
The covenant purpose of God is fulfilled, but the rejection of that covenant brings judgment.

This makes Messiah the center of the prophecy and the dividing line of the whole structure. Everything before His rejection moves toward restoration. Everything after His rejection moves toward desolation.

 

[covenantee]

The claim that “the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 must refer back to “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 because “prince” is the nearest antecedent does not hold grammatically.

First, Daniel was written in Hebrew, not English, and Hebrew does not require a repeated noun to refer to the nearest previous occurrence of that noun. The identity of a person must be determined by the wording and context, not merely by proximity. Verse 25 speaks of “Messiah, a Prince”—the promised Anointed One. Verse 26 then states that this Messiah will be “cut off.” After that, the verse introduces another expression: “the people of the prince who is to come.” The grammatical subject of the destruction is “the people,” while “the prince who is to come” identifies the ruler associated with those people. This is a new descriptive phrase, not a pronoun that must reach backward to the nearest antecedent. The sequence itself distinguishes the two figures. The Messiah is cut off; afterward, the city and sanctuary are destroyed by the people belonging to another coming prince.

Historically, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Roman forces in AD 70, not by the followers of Christ. Therefore, neither Hebrew grammar nor the historical sequence requires—or naturally supports—identifying the prince of verse 26 with Messiah the Prince of verse 25

The destruction of Jerusalem was carried out by people, the Romans, who were under the ultimate command and control of Messiah the Prince. The Roman commander prince Titus himself acknowledged that reality:

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

That ultimately allows for no prince other than Messiah the Prince ("the prince of the prince") in the passage.

 

[rwb]

The destruction of Jerusalem was carried out by people, the Romans, who were under the ultimate command and control of Messiah the Prince. The Roman commander prince Titus himself acknowledged that reality:

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

That ultimately allows for no prince other than Messiah the Prince ("the prince of the prince") in the passage.

While I agree the Romans did physically destroy the city and temple through the providence of God. That was accomplished that God would bring a final judgment against the nation. But the judgment of God came against them because they; apostate Jews, had already become a desolation spiritually. The apostate Jews destroyed the city and temple spiritually, and for that cause they felt the wrath of God's judgment in 70 AD.

I believe the prophet Daniel points us to the same spiritual destruction the people of his own time had come to, that brought the judgment of God's wrath upon them by the Babylonians. Just as Daniel's own people became apostate and spiritually fallen were physically destroyed, so too Jews who would live beyond Daniel at the time when Messiah the Prince would come will also become spiritually fallen and also suffer the wrath of God's judgment against them. What the prophet Daniel is showing both them and we who live after the cross is how spiritual fallenness will always lead to physical destruction. Which is why Christ says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet", IOW when the Jewish people cried "crucify Him" their physical fate was sealed forever. No longer will the Jewish nation of Israel be God's special people. Think not that we; the church, as it exists on this earth are any better than the Jewish people have been. When we too become spiritually fallen, physical destruction will come for us also.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

While I agree the Romans did physically destroy the city and temple through the providence of God. That was accomplished that God would bring a final judgment against the nation. But the judgment of God came against them because they; apostate Jews, had already become a desolation spiritually. The apostate Jews destroyed the city and temple spiritually, and for that cause they felt the wrath of God's judgment in 70 AD.

So, which verses in the Bible do you think prophesy about that event of God's wrath and judgment against unbelieving Jews that occurred in 70 AD, if any?

 

[rwb]

So, which verses in the Bible do you think prophesy about that event of God's wrath and judgment against unbelieving Jews that occurred in 70 AD, if any?

There is NEVER a date specific given in Scripture for the physical destruction we now know since it is past history, came in 70 AD. Throughout the Bible we find God's warnings of judgment and wrath that would come to His people if/when they do not repent of their unbelief and sins against Him. This promise is given not only to the nation of Old but also to the church as it exists on this earth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is NEVER a date specific given in Scripture for the physical destruction we now know since it is past history, came in 70 AD.

I never said that a date was given. Why can't you ever just respond to what I'm actually asking instead of resorting to strawman arguments? Let me try again. Do you believe that what ended up happening in 70 AD, which you acknowledge was God's wrath and judgment against unbelieving Jews, was prophesied anywhere in the Bible (without that specific date being given)?

Throughout the Bible we find God's warnings of judgment and wrath that would come to His people if/when they do not repent of their unbelief and sins against Him. This promise is given not only to the nation of Old but also to the church as it exists on this earth.

But, you don't believe there is any specific prophecy related to God taking out His wrath on unbelieving Jews in the form of physical destruction in relation to them having crucified Christ and in relation to continuing to perform old covenant sacrifices and offerings instead of accepting Christ's once for all sacrifice and offering that established the new covenant?

 

[CTK]

I never said that a date was given. Why can't you ever just respond to what I'm actually asking instead of resorting to strawman arguments? Let me try again. Do you believe that what ended up happening in 70 AD, which you acknowledge was God's wrath and judgment against unbelieving Jews, was prophesied anywhere in the Bible (without that specific date being given)?


But, you don't believe there is any specific prophecy related to God taking out His wrath on unbelieving Jews in the form of physical destruction in relation to them having crucified Christ and in relation to continuing to perform old covenant sacrifices and offerings instead of accepting Christ's once for all sacrifice and offering that established the new covenant?

Daniel 9: 26“ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,