In Daniel 8, 11, and 12, is A4E meant? Or is a future anti-christ meant?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
What is the point of everlasting righteousness unless it affects everyone on the planet equally?
What kind of question is this? Where does it indicate that the everlasting righteousness would affect everyone on the planet equally?

Do you believe any of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled?

When the NHNE are ushered in do you agree or disagree that everlasting righteousness will affect everyone equally? If you agree, and surely you do, how can you insist everlasting righteousness has already been brought in 2000 years when the past 2000 years don't even remotely sound like everlasting righteousness is affecting everyone equally?
Here is the sense in which everlasting righteousness was brought in almost 2,000 years ago...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The shed blood of Christ is what brought in the opportunity for people to have eternal life and experience everlasting righteousness. The prophecy isn't about literally bringing in everlasting righteousness for everyone on earth. Another thing listed as being fulfilled during the 70 weeks is making an end of sins. Do you think that's talking about the literal end of sins? It's not. It's talking about Jesus taking away the sins of the world by way of His sacrifice. It's about Jesus providing for the opportunity to have your sins forgiven while having the penalty of sin taken away.

If it was talking bringing in everlasting righteousness for everyone on earth then, in your view, that wouldn't happen until 1,000+ years after Jesus returns. But, do you claim that the 70th week doesn't end until 1,000+ years after Jesus returns? No. So, how do you reconcile your understanding of bringing in everlasting righteousness with your Premil belief?
Maybe I should ask this? Is there everlasting righteousness that trumps another everlasting righteousness? For example, everlasting righteousness was allegedly brought in 2000 years ago. Peter was still looking for a place 2000 years ago wherein dwelleth righteousness, and that he was anticipating it after Jesus returns in the end of this age. Per this scenario, which everlasting righteousness trumps? The former or the latter? Or are you perhaps going to argue, that wherein dwelleth righteousness, this does not even equal everlasting righteousness? It is simply righteousness in general, not everlasting righteousness. Surely not. Surely you are not going to argue that, yet you insist everlasting righteousness was already brought in 2000 years ago.

The main point being this. If everlasting righteousness was already brought in 2000 years ago, why does it need to be brought in yet again in the future(2 Peter 3:13)? You would think though, the fact it is everlasting, it only needs to be brought in one time not multiple times.
LOL. So, I would assume that you don't believe that any of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled yet because you think it all has to be taken in the literal sense of applying to the whole world?
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Bust. I was playing YOUR game of spewing false accusations before, so I was successful this time. :-)
What a lie. Don't make excuses for your false accusations.

Spare me the empty laughter. Context is exactly why your interpretation fails—you’re forcing 'consummation' from verse 27 back into verse 26, ignoring the actual sequence. The city and sanctuary were already desolate in verse 26. Verse 27 clearly applies the consummation to the covenant-confirmed New Testament congregation. That’s not a 'ridiculous interpretation'—it’s simply reading the passage as written.
It's taking the passage completely out of context. There is no basis whatsoever for not relating the destruction and desolation described in verse 27 to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I don't feel embarrassed at all. I knew exactly what I am doing.
You don't feel embarrassed because you have no shame. You don't care if you make false accusations towards others. You think you can do no wrong because you're completely delusional and lacking in self awareness. Look at all the time you wasted last night insisting that covenantee and I indicated that we believe the 70th week ended in 70 AD. What a joke.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I do understand your position in Dan. 9:27.

So then, let's entertain both scenarios being proposed as consummation #1 for 70AD and consummation #2 for in the future.
Already we have a problem. There is only ONE time period for "THE consummation".
However, lets move on.
In the time of a "consummation" #1 in 70AD., or that of a "consummation" #2 in the future, it is an attempt to discern between the two views that shall cause one to choose the reality of what was "determined" in verse 24, as to what exactly it was that God shall POUR OUT upon the desolate in verse 27. Was it His Grace or was it His Wrath?

To make a wrong choice is to eliminate one of two views, because there is only ONE view of what God means by: "EVEN until [upto] THE consummation" [the singular act of God].

OK, now that we know that there is only ONE total "consummation", being that of 2 Peter ch. 3, let's move on.
In verse 27, did God mean:
1. His Grace of the Holy Spirit was poured out, beginning on Pentecost in 1 AD.?
or did He mean:
2. His Wrath was poured out on Israel as a nation in 70 AD.


I dare say that none of us today can change, ignore, or eliminate choice #1 of the Holy Spirit being poured out on the desolate. Acts 2:15, 10:45.
Therefore, since choice #2 was never an option of total consummation in God's Mind, we must stop entertaining it as such and accept it to be so, that God's singular act of total consummation is still looming in the future (2 Peter ch. 3), and that no other act of consummation took place during His Age of Grace in 70 AD.

There is no such thing as a partial, little consummation in 70 AD.
However there is still to come THE ONLY consummation, as shown in 2 Thes. 1:7-10 and 2 Peter ch. 3, whereby even the heavens and the earth will be vaporized, aka consumed by fire.
Sorry, but I couldn't follow your logic here. I don't find anything you're saying here to be convincing. There can be a consummation of what was prophesied to happen in Jerusalem as well as a consummation globally of what will happen when Jesus returns in the future, so I I don't buy your one consummation theory. Daniel 9:24-27 doesn't have anything to do with the second coming of Christ.
 

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2023
2,720
959
113
56
Somewhere west of Mississippi River
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What a lie. Don't make excuses for your false accusations.

I think you overreacted. Need some tissues?
It's taking the passage completely out of context.

LOL. How?

There is no basis whatsoever for not relating the destruction and desolation described in verse 27 to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26.

No, your interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Each verse refers to a distinct desolation, and you are wrongly conflating them.

Verse 26 concerns the judgment upon the Old Testament congregation—the people of Israel at the time which is the body of Christ. This is why Jesus declared in Matthew 23:36-38 that the judgment would fall on them:

Matthew 23:38:
“Behold, your house is left to you desolate.

This desolation was directed at the people themselves, not merely a physical temple or city. The idea that Christ prophesied the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD as a judgment is a false preterist invention that you were delusional to add to your amillennial doctrine. LOL. Christ’s Words focus on the judgment poured out upon His own people who rejected Him. Weren't they the builders who rejected the stone, eh?

Now, Verse 27, on the other hand, speaks to the New Testament congregation—the spiritual Israel—with whom Christ confirmed the new covenant at the Cross (Hebrews 9:15). The “abomination of desolation” on the same verse is a spiritual defilement standing within the New Testament body (after the sarcifice and the obligation for salvation has ceased), signaling the true consummation of the covenant week about to come when Christ’s return (Daniel 9:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Your view collapses under biblical scrutiny because it depends on private interpretation involving animal sacrifices and a physical temple that were already rendered obsolete by Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 10:1-18).

You ignore the clear biblical distinction between the Old Covenant people who rejected Christ and the New Covenant congregation He rebuilt. This error leads to confusion and false teaching. Period.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
It's never a good idea to say he is correct about any verse.


LOL. You saying this means less than nothing to me. Almost every time you say something like this you proceed to do NOTHING convincing to back it up.


Stop right there. Where are you getting this from? I use Blue Letter Bible (blueletterbible.org) as my usual Greek reference and it shows that the word "see" there is translated from the Greek word "horaō".


The Greek word horaō can refer to seeing something physically, so this is not a convincing argument that you're making here.


You're missing one very important detail here. He said they would not see Him anymore or again until they said blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. That means they would see Him again in a way that they had already seen Him and the only way that the scribes and Pharisees that He was talking to there saw Him was physically. So, I would like to take this opportunity to throw your words back at you by saying this is a no brainer that you are not correct about that verse for certain.


Let's just not take context into account like you frequently do? Is that a good idea? No, I don't think so. Jesus was talking about them seeing Him again in the future in the way they had seen Him up to that point, which was only phyisically.


That's what I see as well, but what does that have to do with Matthew 23:39? He knew it was close to the time when He would be crucified, so He knew the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees would soon not be physically seeing Him again for a long time. He only appeared to believers after His resurrection. The reason that none of them would see Him again any time soon was because of their spiritual condition that He ranted about just previous to that. Otherwise, if they believed in Him instead, He surely would have appeared to at least some of them after His resurrection.


LOL. What is your point here? What does this have to do with verse 39, which I did not say had anything to do with 70 AD? Why are you even bringing 70 AD into this when it has nothing to do with verse 39 or with anything I said?


LOL. What in the world made you start going on about 70 AD when that has nothing to do with what we're talking about? Are you thinking I'm saying they saw Him again in 70 AD or something? You did read what I said, didn't you? I'm saying they would see Him again in the future from now at the judgment when they will be bowing before Him and confessing that He is Lord.
@Davidpt Are you having trouble coming up with a response to this post? You acted so certain that my interpretation was wrong, but I showed that the context of Matthew 23:39 is that Jesus said they would not see Him again until they said blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, which means when they said that they would see Him in the way they saw Him before, which was physically with their own physical eyes. So, you are ignoring the context of the verse by trying to say that Jesus was not talking about them physically seeing Him again. They could only see Him again in the way they had seen Him at that point, which was physically.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I think you overreacted. Need some tissues?
Of course you would think that since you are too prideful to admit that you have a problem with making false accusations and you need to do something about it. It's not surprising that you would act like I should think it doesn't matter.

LOL. How?
LOL. Read the passage. The context is introduced in verse 26 and it relates to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary. So, clearly, the reference to the consummation of the destruction and desolation in verse 27 is in reference to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary. Very simple. Making the verses about two completely different events makes no sense.

No, your interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Each verse refers to a distinct desolation, and you are wrongly conflating them.
Wrong. Context clearly is not something you know anything about. There subject does not change in verse 27. Only in you imagination.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
What I was thinking is this, though. 2 Peter 3:13 wasn't already applicable 2000 years ago when Peter spoke those words. And that verse is still not applicable as we speak. I don't know what you are trying to conflate with what here, but everlasting righteousness can't be brought in until the new heavens and new earth are brought in first. Then everything fits since the NHNE involve an everlasting age, an age everlasting righteousness can fit in. The key word is 'everlasting' and that righteousness is connected with it. No finite age is everlasting. That is a contradiction.

Maybe your idea of everlasting righteousness is something like such? Crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked cops, so on and so on, that this is the result of everlasting righteousness having been brought in? That this is a fine example of what everlasting righteousness looks like when it has been brought in? But guess what, though? When the NHNE are ushered in during the 2nd coming there will no longer be any of the following throughout the earth---Crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked cops, so on and so on, thus, it will then be a place wherein dwelleth righteousness, and not a place wherein righteousness does not dwell within, such as now. Even if there is a thousand years following His return, none of it will have any of this taking place throughout the earth---Crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked cops, so on and so on. Imagine a millennium with Crooked courts, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked cops, so on and so on. Oh, wait a minute, we already have an alleged millennium like that. Amil's proposed millennium.
Do you think anything in Daniel 9:24 has been fulfilled yet?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
If you believer the mystery that the Gentiles believers would be included in the New Covenant, then it can't end in 70AD, humm?
LOL. What in the world are you talking about? Do you ever know what you're talking about?

I just realized this comment was based on your false assumption that I believed the 70th week ended in 70 AD. LOL. You went on and on about that last night which was a complete waste of your time.

Really? Are you sure you read what I wrote carefully? You agreed with me that the Pharisees, Scribes, and all external believers are the "stones" falling of Matthew 24:1-2. LOL!!!!
No, I did not. Where are you getting that from? You know I associate Matthew 24:1-2 with the temple buildings standing at that time, so why are you lying about this? You truly need to learn how to read.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2023
2,720
959
113
56
Somewhere west of Mississippi River
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL. Read the passage. The context is introduced in verse 26 and it relates to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary.

Desolate upon the Old Testament congregation, and their kingdom representative was already taken from them. Nothing to do with "physical" city and the sanctuary.
So, clearly, the reference to the consummation of the destruction and desolation in verse 27 is in reference to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary.

That’s pure private interpretation—completely disconnected from what God actually says. You’re arbitrarily forcing verse 26 to connect with verse 27 by slapping ‘consummation’ onto 70 AD, all while conveniently letting the 70th Week stretch indefinitely into the future. That’s selective reading, nothing more.

Very simple. Making the verses about two completely different events makes no sense.

Oh, sure—let’s just pretend the two completely different desolations are actually the same event. Denial sure makes complicated truths way easier to swallow, doesn’t it?

Wrong. Context clearly is not something you know anything about. There subject does not change in verse 27. Only in you imagination.

Funny how you accuse me of lacking understanding of context while completely ignoring the obvious shifts in subject and timeline that the text itself lays out. Maybe it’s your imagination that’s stuck in denial.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2023
2,720
959
113
56
Somewhere west of Mississippi River
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, I did not. Where are you getting that from? You know I associate Matthew 24:1-2 with the temple buildings standing at that time, so why are you lying about this? You truly need to learn how to read.

LOL. Your carnal mind blinds you to what’s plainly revealed. I read with the spiritual discernment the Lord grants—something clearly missing from your approach.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
LOL. Your carnal mind blinds you to what’s plainly revealed. I read with the spiritual discernment the Lord grants—something clearly missing from your approach.
Your reading comprehension skills have failed you again. I was not commenting on your interpretation of the passage, I was commenting on the fact that you made a false accusation about how I interpret it despite my having told you how I interpret it many times before. One of us regularly makes false accusations about what the other person believes. Let me give you a hint. It's not me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Your reading comprehension skills have failed you again. I was not commenting on your interpretation of the passage, I was commenting on the fact that you made a false accusation about how I interpret it despite my having told you how I interpret it many times before. One of us regularly makes false accusations about what the other person believes. Let me give you a hint. It's not me.
@TribulationSigns How interesting that you find it to be funny that you make false accusations about what I believe. I guess you think that being dishonest isn't a sin. Sad.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TribulationSigns

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,516
798
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so it was fulfilled well before 70 AD. Here are the NT scriptures which show the fulfillment of each of the six things listed in that verse.

I will list the scriptures that I believe refer to the fulfillment of each of them.

Let's start with number 6 on your list. Per verse 24 that is basically the last thing on the list, yet you have it being the first thing that is fulfilled. Why don't you stick with the flow brought out in verse 24, rather than being all over the place by making it in any order you please?

Plus, I noticed that you omitted this in verse 24--Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression. Where is your interpretation of that? Your interpretation in general has the transgression upon the holy city being finished first, then some 40 years later this same holy city where the transgression upon it was finished 40 years earlier is then attacked and destroyed. Not before the transgression upon the holy city is finished first, but after it is finished. Seriously, how does it make sense for there to be this transgression upon the holy city that needs to be finished, and once it is finished, instead of it leading to something like this at the time---And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited(Zechariah 14:11)--it leads to 70 AD instead? Totally absurd, totally backwards.

BTW, whether you admit it or not, all it takes is just one thing to successfully debunk something. This alone debunks that the 70 weeks ended before 70 AD. And we haven't even factored in that this holy city is once again on the map, and that it doesn't even remotely agree with what Zechariah 14:11 records about the holy city. The point being, until Zechariah 14:11 is true first, in the meantime the 70 weeks determined upon the holy city, to finish the transgression concerning it, they haven't been finished yet. Maybe in the Twilight Zone it has been finished, but not in the real world.

Clearly, some of verse 24 has already been fulfilled, yet not all of it has been fulfilled. Only the parts that were fulfilled within 69 and a half weeks were fulfilled, except 70 weeks are determined in total, not just 69 and 1/2 weeks. I don't know what it is about some of and why you are not reading the texts correctly? You basically have the transgression only involving 69 and 1/2 half weeks rather that an entire 70 weeks exactly and plainly like verse 24 says.

In your list there, could you point out which part or parts is meaning at the end of the 70 weeks? All I'm seeing in your list are things, in light of the passages you are providing to support your interpretation of verse 24, events connected with the cross, the middle of the 70th week. Once again, 70 weeks are determined in total, not just 69 and 1/2 weeks. Surely there are things in the list in verse 24 that can't get fulfilled until the entire 70 weeks are finished first. Once again, here is what the text states--Seventy weeks are determined upon--and not this instead---69 and 1/2 weeks are determined upon.

I hit a 1000 character limit, therefore, I had to remove your quotes, unfortunately. But even so, it doesn't really matter anyway since all one has to do is look at the initial post I was addressing. What you said in that post is still all there.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Let's start with number 6 on your list. Per verse 24 that is basically the last thing on the list, yet you have it being the first thing that is fulfilled.
There is no indication that they would be fulfilled in the order listed, so this is just yet another weak argument from you.

Why don't you stick with the flow brought out in verse 24, rather than being all over the place by making it in any order you please?
LOL. Get serious. Nowhere does it indicate that the six things were listed in order of fulfillment. That's something you made up, just like you make up many things such as how you interpret Matthew 23:39. Are you still going to insist that my interpretation of that verse is wrong even though I showed how you take it out of context by denying that it's talking about people literally, physically seeing Jesus?

Plus, I noticed though that you ommitted this in verse 24--Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression. Where is your interpretation of that?
Right at the beginning of my post.

Your interpretation has the transgression upon the holy city being finshed first, then some 40 years later this same holy city where the trangression upon it was finished 40 years earlier is then attacked and destroyed. Not before the trangression upon the holy city is finished first, but after it is finished. Seriously, how does it make sense for there to be this transgression upon the holy city that needs to be finished, and once it is finished, instead of it leading to something like this at the time---And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited(Zechariah 14:11)--it leads to 70 AD instead? Totally absurd, totally backwards.
LOL. What in the world are you saying? Did you miss where I said "I believe Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled by the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so it was fulfilled well before 70 AD."? Did you not read the scriptures I posted that I believe relate to finishing the transgression? What I said and what those scriptures say has nothing to do with 70 AD, so why are you bringing that into it? If you actually read the passages I used to support my understanding of finishing the transgression you should see that it has to do with Jesus finishing what He came to do by sacrificing Himself for our transgressions. Jesus Himself said "It is finished" and Isaiah 53:8 says "he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.".

BTW, whether you admit it or not, all it takes is just one thing to successfully debunk something.
Of course I admit that, but you fail to do that every time you claim to do so. For example, you acted so sure that you debunked my understanding of Matthew 23:39 while failing to see that the context is clearly in relation to seeing Jesus physically. This is what you do over and over again. You claim to debunk something and then I debunk your supposed debunking.

This alone debunks that the 70 weeks ended before 70 AD.
What does? Your word salad above? Hardly.

And we haven't even factored in that this holy city is once again on the map, and that it doesn't even remotely agree with what Zechariah 14:11 records about the holy city. The point being, until Zechariah 14:11 is true first, in the meantime the 70 weeks determined upon the holy city, to finish the transgression concerning it, they haven't been finished yet. Maybe in the Twilight Zone it has been finished, but not in the real world.
Your understanding of what it means to finish the transgression is flawed. You fail to understand that only Jesus could fulfill the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about how you think "to finish the transgression" will be fulfilled. How exactly do you think it will be fulfilled?

Clearly, some of verse 24 has already been fulfilled, yet not all of it has been fulfilled. Only the parts that were fulfilled within 69 and a half weeks were fulfilled, except 70 weeks are determined in total, not just 69 and 1/2 weeks.
I've asked you multiple times now to tell me which of the six things in verse 24 you think have been fulfilled. This would have been a good time to answer that question, but you didn't do so. Can you tell me which of the six things you believe were already fulfilled and how they were fulfilled?

I don't know what it is about some of and why you are not reading the texts correctly?
You mean like yourself?

You basically have the trangression only involving 69 and 1/2 half weeks rather that an entire 70 weeks exactly and plainly like verse 24 says.
It does not say that it wouldn't be finished until the end of the 70th week. It says a 70 week time period was determined or given in order for those things to be fulfilled before that time ended. That does not mean those six things aren't fulfilled until the last day of the 70th week. You read so many things into scripture that aren't there. What about the things that you do think were already fulfilled? Can I question why you would have them fulfilled within 69 1/2 weeks instead of at the end of the 70th week? How can any of the things be fulfilled using the logic you're using here in relation to finishing the transgression?

In your list there, could you point out which part or parts is meaning at the end of the 70 weeks?
None. But, so what? How do you have any of them being fulfilled before the end of the 70 weeks? You shouldn't have any of it being fulfilled before the end of the 70 weeks using your logic. You're not even thinking here.

All I'm seeing in your list are things, in light of the passages you are providing to support your interpretation of verse 24,
Yes, and I'm putting in far more effort than you are in considering what the prophecy is really all about while trying to use scripture to interpret scripture. You, in contrast, are making a minimal effort to understand it while mostly just using your own flawed imagination.

are events connected with the cross, the middle of the 70th week. Once again, 70 weeks are determined in total, not just 69 and 1/2 weeks.
Yes, 70 weeks, which we agree equate to 490 years, were determined and the prophecy had to be completed within that time frame. You have twisted it to extend that time frame to around 2,500 years so far instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,782
3,444
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
That’s pure private interpretation—completely disconnected from what God actually says. You’re arbitrarily forcing verse 26 to connect with verse 27 by slapping ‘consummation’ onto 70 AD, all while conveniently letting the 70th Week stretch indefinitely into the future. That’s selective reading, nothing more.
Your gnostication continues to increasingly befool you.

You've been shown that the 70th week ended in 34 AD.

It is your own dispensationalized decapitated orphaned undetermined 70th week that stretches indefinitely into the future.

Private interpretation at its worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Your gnostication continues to increasingly befool you.

You've been shown that the 70th week ended in 34 AD.

It is your own dispensationalized decapitated orphaned undetermined 70th week that stretches indefinitely into the future.

Private interpretation at its worst.
Agree. Also, notice how he makes the 70th week last much longer than any of the other weeks when there is no indication whatsoever that each of the 70 weeks would not be of the same duration. Stretching the 70th week out into thousands of years makes even less sense than inserting a gap between the end of the 69th week and beginning of the 70th week. Imagine coming up with an interpretation that makes even less sense than the typical dispensationalist interpretation. That's hard to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,516
798
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your gnostication continues to increasingly befool you.

You've been shown that the 70th week ended in 34 AD.

None of you have done any such thing until you have shown it with the text itself. Verse 27 is the text itself, so where is there anything in that verse that supports that the 70 weeks ended in 34 AD?

On another note, obviously once Christ returns all these things will be revealed where it is no longer a question as to how this should be interpreted, how that should be interpreted. And once it is revealed that the 70 weeks never ended in 34 AD to begin with, are you all planning on arguing with Christ about that, insisting He too is wrong that it is you that is correct, or do you plan on accepting you were wrong the entire time? The way some of you act at times by placing your doctrinal bias' high above the truth, I can see you actually refusing to take His word for it, thus arguing with Him about it.

In my case if it turns out that I have been wrong about this or anything else involving other subjects, I'm simply going to accept that I was wrong the entire time, therefore, the last thing I would be trying to do is argue with Christ about it.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,994
6,879
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
None of you have done any such thing until you have shown it with the text itself. Verse 27 is the text itself, so where is there anything in that verse that supports that the 70 weeks ended in 34 AD?

On another note, obviously once Christ returns all these things will be revealed where it is no longer a question as to how this should be interpreted, how that should be interpreted. And once it is revealed that the 70 weeks never ended in 34 AD to begin with, are you all planning on arguing with Christ about that, insisting He too is wrong that it is you that is correct, or do you plan on accepting you were wrong the entire time? The way some of you act at times by placing your doctrinal bias' high above the truth, I can see you actually refusing to take His word for it, thus arguing with Him about it.

In my case if it turns out that I have been wrong about this or anything else involving other subjects, I'm simply going to accept that I was wrong the entire time, therefore, the last thing I would be trying to do is argue with Christ about it.
Which of the things listed in Daniel 9:24 do you believe are fulfilled? With the way you understand the bringing in of everlasting righteousness and how you understand the finishing of the transgression, it's a wonder to me that you believe any of it is fulfilled. But, please tell me which things you believe are fulfilled and how they were fulfilled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee