Revelations 2;18-29, he who hath an ear let him hear, to him who overcomes will rule the nations with Jesus Christ with a rod of iron. Everything you speak is right there. What you call a "gap" are desolations.I was mainly just showing who I felt the prince to come in Daniel 9:26 was meaning. Of course that includes verse 11 since it is obviously connected to verse 10. I don't know why some interpreters insist they always interpret Scripture with Scripture when I'm not seeing any evidence of that when it comes to the following text.
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. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
As if there is nothing in the book of Revelation having to do with abominations and something abominable. As if only 70 AD can explain any of that, lol. Except there were no abominations pertaining to 70 AD, that's the problem. That's what happens when you don't use Scripture to interpret Scripture, you end up arriving at absurd conclusions concerning the text, that it is involving the first century and 70 AD, not anything recorded in Matthew 24:15-21 involving the future, not anything recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and certainly not anything recorded in the book of Revelation, so on and so on.
Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
As you can see, nothing involving anything abominable here----not. I guess 70 AD explains these verses as well?
I don't know where all of these interpreters who insist they are not Preterists, yet possess the same mindset as Preterists, come from, thinking they can tell me I have no case here that all of Daniel 9:27 involves the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week? Everything pertaining to this subject, such as Matthew 24:15-21, Daniel 9:26-27, has to be about 70 AD to them. None of it can involve what I just submitted from Revelation 17 above, nor can it involve 2 Thessalonians 2:4, it can only involve the first century and 70 AD to these interpreters who are not even Preterists yet possess the same mindset as Preterists when it comes to this subject.
Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?
- Thread starter Davidpt
- Start date
-
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!
Revelations 2;18-29, he who hath an ear let him hear, to him who overcomes will rule the nations with Jesus Christ with a rod of iron. Everything you speak is right there. What you call a "gap" are desolations.
Seven times Christ tells the seven churches he that hath an ear, let him hear and lists all that is good and all that is evil. All those churches are gone so what is written must be universal to all Christians. Seven times Christ asks Will you overcome this world?
My thinking is this. There has to be starting point involving these desolations. Thus a gap leading up to when the time involving them begins. What are your thoughts on that, meaning a starting point involving these desolations, lets say in relation to the first 69 weeks? IOW, 69 weeks are fulfilled. What next? We know the 70th week follows the 69 weeks, but what is in question, the time period involving these desolations, when do they initially begin? As soon as the 69 weeks expire then 3.5 years later, thus no gap preceding when they initially begin?
Dave Watchman
Active Member
Thanks for this.
It reminds me of old Bobby Jo. Lol. He's the only other guy I've ever heard that said the 70 weeks were 70 literal weeks, and not weeks of years. Heptads. Sevens. Are you sure you're not Bobby Jo posting under a sock account? Lol. I don't think you are, but he did display a proclivity in the colorizing of the sentences of his posts.
As I can recall, he seemed to be using a date that Israel was internationally recognized, and adding time to that, to find out that we are in the tribulation. And some book he read about prophecies in Psalms and the shortest chapter in the Bible. I was interested in what he said because he thought we were in the tribulation in 2020. Similarly, I also think we're towards the tail end of the last heptad now. In one of the threads I think I said 2022. Right now, I think it was in the summer of 2021, around July, when the censer was cast down in Revelation 8, putting an end to both services in heaven's temple.
Daniel 9 is where it has to be happening, because it's the only place that really sets out the timing of the coming of Messiah. And He's making two visitations. One was in the first century, one is due to be happening now. But it's not the date that Israel was internationally recognized, or of the date that Jerusalem was recaptured in 1967, it's the going forth of the "command" itself, the decree, to restore Jerusalem. I doubt now's the time or the place to post all the empirical again. Other people have been looking at it since 2017 and earlier. There have been two additional decrees relating to the restoration of the Old City of Jerusalem in our modern times. They are set out at 62 weeks, (434 years), and 7 weeks, (49 years). Impossible for those two events to be random. This is where the price action really makes for market commentary. You can't get it from the text alone, like 457 BC is not written in there, anymore so than it tells us to count Passover in 30 AD. Some people were expecting things to start blowing up in 2018, or for the Two Witnesses to start shooting fire from their mouths at that time. But something different was happening.
It looks to me like some of the people in this thread think the 70th week was complete in the first century. Those people are correct. Another group thinks that the 70th week is the future end times prior the Christ's second visitation. They are also correct.
The OP group that thinks that the 70th week can be split into two and half of it moved into the future are incorrect. Prophetic time can't be stopped. It marches on. I'm sorry to say that as I know a lot of very smart people believe in the "gap" theory. But we can't just reach in and wrest out, tearing a prophetic time period in half. Too much violence is done to the language of Daniel.
The reason that both the historicists and the futurists can be correct, at two different times, is that there are multiple decrees to restore Jerusalem. These decrees are setting out two sets, two timelines, of 70 weeks. One was based on a 457 BC decree, the second set of 70 weeks was based on a decree in 1535, and confirmed again by Levi Eshkol in January 1969.
If what I'm saying is true. Some of those verses in Daniel 9 must be speaking specifically and only to what is going on right now in the second example of the 70th week.
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,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Verse 26 is pertaining to the first coming of Messiah only, the primary set of 70 weeks, the 70th week. It's also distinguished from the second occurrence of the 70th week, by occurring: "after the sixty-two weeks". In the second set of the 70 weeks, the intervals are reversed with the 49 year span completing just prior to the final 70th week. Newton had posited that the the 7 weeks, the 49 years, was specific to the second coming. This is why he though the intervals were split up as 7 AND 62, and not just stated as 69 weeks. The things Newton said to be looking for, appear to be here now.
Jesus dying, cut off, in the middle of the week on April 7, 30AD.
The people of Satan, the Roman Army, destroying Jerusalem.
And it gives this ancillary information, and until the end, the end we are in now, desolations are decreed to continue.
Fast forward 2000 years to the end of the second set of the 70 weeks, the 70th week in our modem time.
27Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”
This is not any part of a "week" in the first century. This is a complete and full "one week" that He, Jesus, is confirming a covenant with many. It began in January 2018 with the Two Witnesses in operation. They stand before the Lord of the whole earth, not before mankind. Only God can see them. They are the measuring rod given to John that measures the inner court, the judgement of the living prior to Christ's return.
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. This is the end of probation. Two Witnesses made war on and killed. This would have been around summer 2021. There are two services in the Temple. The last one to end is seen in Revelation 8. The censer is used at the alter of incense. When that censer is cast down to earth, Jesus puts a final end to all sacrifice and offering. "He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
"And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”
These are multiple abominations in our modern times. Murders, adulteries, abortions, pornographies, same sex marriage, and the popularization of the Sodomite culture.
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolator.” (Satan).
There are a wide range of translations for Daniel 9 that range in disagreement, even with the original Hebrew that Daniel wrote.
Even some of the English translations the translator will insert "temple", on the wing of the "temple" Lol.
There's even one English translation what writes it like Daniel did, "Seventy seventy are decreed.
Moshe Cohen thinks there's two sets of "70" in Daniel 9, but he thinks the first "70" was that Babylonian captivity. He's fun to watch anyway.
I know all this is a bit much of a radical idea to most, but if true, it would be a good thing. It would mean Jesus is coming soon, sooner than many now are expecting. And that's what I'm in the Game for.
Peaceful Sabbath.
Last edited:
Revelation 1
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Roman commander Titus: "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?"
You should close your imagination, and open your Bible and history book, once in a while.
Last edited:
What is the logic in verse 27 being the 70th week then nothing in that verse even showing how the 70th week ends? It can't be this part below if some of you insist is meaning after the entire 70 weeks already expired decades earlier.
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
In your mind then---even until the consummation---it is not involving the end of something, therefore, it can't be meaning how the 70th week ends for certain?
consummation
kalah
kaw-law'
from 'kalah' (3615); a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:--altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.
I like this def---(full, utter) end---which can't even remotely fit with the city being destroyed in 70 AD the fact that same city is back on the map again, as we speak. That does not then equal this in regards to the city of Jerusalem---(full, utter) end---that that was fulfilled in 70 AD. We can't be cherry picking here. 70 AD involved the destruction of both the city and the temple. While this might be true pertaining to the temple---(full, utter) end---it clearly isn't true pertaining to the city, though. Keeping in mind this as well---Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression
Unbelieving Jews, not believing Christians, are in control of Jerusalem today. That to me sounds like the transgressions involving the holy city, they are not quite finished yet. And until they are finished, it is a contradiction to insist the entire 70 weeks have already been fulfilled.
Last edited:
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Sadly when it comes to doctrines, We have not gotten rid of our pride.. It is painful to admit you were wrong or may be wrong, or worse yet, those who you trusted taught you wrong..
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
This is proof positive of one who has a closed mindRevelation 1
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Roman commander Titus: "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?"
You should close your imagination, and open your Bible and history book, once in a while.
Gabriel did not say that The messiah would destroy the city.. Yet he must have the messiah destroy the city or his whole doctrine is destroyed.
It does not matter what the rest of the word says.
Jesus is my king. The prince of rome will take power again, and he will rule.. he will usher in the great tribulation and he will be defeated personally by Christ at his return.
But you deny this, and then mock others.
well mock away..
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Remember also. Jerusalem is split into 3 parts,,
1. Christian
2. Islam
3. Jewish
and the temple or house of God still remains destroyed
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
That's because the 70 weeks is NOT about what you say it's about.
Your whole argument is based on the false notion that the text says this:
"70 weeks are determined for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by the people of the prince who will come."
The above is NOT what the 70 weeks about. The 70 weeks is about this:
70 weeks are determined until Messiah the Prince and 1. to finish the transgression, and 2. to make an end of sins, and 3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and 4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and 5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and 6. to anoint the most Holy.
"And after (the first seven plus the) threescore and two weeks (after the 69th week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease."
Therefore there is no gap because it was only for (during) one of those 70 weeks that Messiah would confirm the covenant, i.e during the final week.
The 70 weeks is not about anything else. The prophecy about the destruction of the city and temple by the people of the prince who would come has nothing to do with "70 weeks". It had to do with what would follow the time that Messiah was cut off.
The 70 weeks is only about the timing for the coming of the Messiah.
So there is no gap.
You are the one who is not being objective or honest with the text brother.
Your whole argument is based on the false notion that the text says this:
"70 weeks are determined for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by the people of the prince who will come."
The above is NOT what the 70 weeks about. The 70 weeks is about this:
70 weeks are determined until Messiah the Prince and 1. to finish the transgression, and 2. to make an end of sins, and 3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and 4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and 5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and 6. to anoint the most Holy.
"And after (the first seven plus the) threescore and two weeks (after the 69th week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease."
Therefore there is no gap because it was only for (during) one of those 70 weeks that Messiah would confirm the covenant, i.e during the final week.
The 70 weeks is not about anything else. The prophecy about the destruction of the city and temple by the people of the prince who would come has nothing to do with "70 weeks". It had to do with what would follow the time that Messiah was cut off.
The 70 weeks is only about the timing for the coming of the Messiah.
So there is no gap.
You are the one who is not being objective or honest with the text brother.
Last edited:
You're unable to disprove any Scripture or history that I cite. Your only alternative is to spout nonsense.
The blinded Jesuit futurist mind is oblivious to the realities of Scripture and history.
You obviously have two kings. The other one is your imagination.
Your obdurate refusal to recognize that Messiah is the Prince, and the Prince is Messiah, does not by one iota change Gabriel's inerrant inspired declaration that He was and He is.
Your apostate Jesuit futurism will never invalidate that Glorious Truth.
Last edited:
As to this you very well could be right for all I know. Regardless whether you are or not, no hard feelings either way. I'm not going to make this the main focus. If I can say that about others, others then have the right to say that about me in return. IOW, we all have a right to our opinions. Others don't have to agree with our opinions. And if I can dish it out, I should not be doing that unless I can take it as well.
What the OP is in regard to is Daniel 9:27 and the entire verse involving events transpiring during the 70th week.
B) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
From what I can tell, and any of you can correct me if I'm wrong, those of you that argue there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks are applying B) to the first century involving leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself. Then using Matthew 24:15, for example, to support this. Except for you. You are not using Matthew 24:15 to support, that B), which you too take to be involving the first century involving leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself, because you are not taking Matthew 24:15 to be involving the first century involving leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself to begin with.
Though, I don't agree with their interpretation of B) I submitted above, one reason being how they are connecting that to Matthew 24:15 and how they are then connecting Matthew 24:15 to 70 AD, but unlike you, at least they have something in the NT that might support their interpretation of B), while you have zero in the NT supporting your interpretation of B). You for sure can't use Matthew 24:15 to support that if you already disagree that that is involving 70 AD.
How is it then that you are arriving at the same conclusion pertaining to B), when you have zero in the NT supporting that, but that they do at least have something in the NT that might support that, Matthew 24:15? Can't you then see you are not being logical here? If you were being logical here you would at least be agreeing with their interpretation of Matthew 24:15, not disagreeing with it.
I'm not even remotely suggesting you should actually agree with their interpretation of Matthew 24:15. And since you don't agree, maybe you need to quit agreeing with their interpretation of B), the fact they are using Matthew 24:15 to support that, but that you disagree with their interpretation of Matthew 24:15.
Think about it for a moment. You are agreeing with those that take the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 to be meaning the 2nd temple. If they are incorrect about that, how could you possibly think they might be correct about B), the fact they are basing B) on their interpretation of Matthew 24:15?
Last edited:
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Dude I refuted it so many times I lost count.You're unable to disprove any Scripture or history that I cite. Your only alternative is to spout nonsense.
The blinded Jesuit futurist mind is oblivious to the realities of Scripture and history.
You obviously have two kings. The other one is your imagination.
Your obdurate refusal to recognize that Messiah is the Prince, and the Prince is Messiah, does not by one iota change Gabriel's inerrant inspired declaration that He was and He is.
Your apostate Jesuit futurism will never invalidate that Glorious Truth.
I just give up. you’re closed minded.
Good day sir
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
@Davidpt You're mistaken again that I have nothing in the New Testament to support my view brother. I certainly do not need Matthew 24:15 to support my view.
Before I continue, I just want to make sure that you understand that I believe that the following two sentences of Daniel 9:26-27 are linked:
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself,
27 and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
I also believe these other two sentences are linked (but not linked to the above two sentences):
26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war,
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Before I continue, I just want to make sure that you understand that I believe that the following two sentences of Daniel 9:26-27 are linked:
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself,
27 and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
I also believe these other two sentences are linked (but not linked to the above two sentences):
26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war,
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
I definitely do have something in the New Testament to support it. This is where you make your mistake regarding the above accusation, and I'm surprised that you have overlooked this:
Jesus:
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate. -- Matthew chapter 23.
1 And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down. -- Matthew chapter 24.
As I said, I certainly do not need Matthew 24:15 to support my view.
I also believe that the first error that the others make, i.e those who link Matthew 24:15 to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, is that they fail to see this:
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
Jesus was in the temple, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees He said,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
And He had gone out the temple gates and was walking away from the temple when He said to His disciples:
I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!" (Matthew 23:37-24:2).
The above was long before He reached the Mount of Olives. He still had to walk down the Temple Mount, across the Kidron Valley, and up the Mount of Olives.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
The second error those who link Matthew 24:15 to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple make, is that they fail to see what the very first thing was that Jesus began to speak about after He had sat down on the Mount of Olives (despite the disciples' question regarding the "when" of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple)
- in all three synoptic gospels what Jesus began speaking about after sitting down on the Mount of Olives was the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to endure in the time leading up to His return - and this is the context of what he said in Matthew 24:15 - NOT the Temple in Jerusalem.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
Jesus did not mention the destruction of the temple again after walking away from the temple. The only thing He spoke about on the Mount of Olives aside from the tribulation the disciples were going to endure and His return, was the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24). He says nothing again about the destruction of the temple in those verses either.
In all the things Jesus had said inside the temple and just outside the temple, and on the Mount of Olives - it's the first time we read about Him saying that the entire city was also going to be destroyed (Luke 21:20-24).
So I definitely do have something in the New Testament to support my assertion - the words of Jesus in the temple and as He was departing from the temple - before He reached the Mount of Olives and spoke about the abomination of desolation in the holy place in the context of talking about the tribulation of His disciples and the time leading up to His return.
Whether in the days of Jesus or today I do not know how long it would have taken Him to walk down the Temple Mount, across the Valley and up the Mount of Olives but it was not less than 10 minutes, I'm sure. Probably more like half an hour or more.
The protest that I always hear about this is that "the church" or theologians or Bible commentators or whatever have always linked what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives a.k.a "the Olivet Discourse" to what He had said about the destruction of the temple when He was still on the other mountain on the other side of the valley (the Temple Mount).
My answer to that is, "So? So what?" They didn't look.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
What did Jesus begin to speak about once He had sat down on the Mount of Olives? Because that's the context of what He said about the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
Jesus:
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate. -- Matthew chapter 23.
1 And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down. -- Matthew chapter 24.
As I said, I certainly do not need Matthew 24:15 to support my view.
I also believe that the first error that the others make, i.e those who link Matthew 24:15 to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, is that they fail to see this:
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
Jesus was in the temple, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees He said,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
And He had gone out the temple gates and was walking away from the temple when He said to His disciples:
I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!" (Matthew 23:37-24:2).
The above was long before He reached the Mount of Olives. He still had to walk down the Temple Mount, across the Kidron Valley, and up the Mount of Olives.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
The second error those who link Matthew 24:15 to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple make, is that they fail to see what the very first thing was that Jesus began to speak about after He had sat down on the Mount of Olives (despite the disciples' question regarding the "when" of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple)
- in all three synoptic gospels what Jesus began speaking about after sitting down on the Mount of Olives was the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to endure in the time leading up to His return - and this is the context of what he said in Matthew 24:15 - NOT the Temple in Jerusalem.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
Jesus did not mention the destruction of the temple again after walking away from the temple. The only thing He spoke about on the Mount of Olives aside from the tribulation the disciples were going to endure and His return, was the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24). He says nothing again about the destruction of the temple in those verses either.
In all the things Jesus had said inside the temple and just outside the temple, and on the Mount of Olives - it's the first time we read about Him saying that the entire city was also going to be destroyed (Luke 21:20-24).
So I definitely do have something in the New Testament to support my assertion - the words of Jesus in the temple and as He was departing from the temple - before He reached the Mount of Olives and spoke about the abomination of desolation in the holy place in the context of talking about the tribulation of His disciples and the time leading up to His return.
Whether in the days of Jesus or today I do not know how long it would have taken Him to walk down the Temple Mount, across the Valley and up the Mount of Olives but it was not less than 10 minutes, I'm sure. Probably more like half an hour or more.
The protest that I always hear about this is that "the church" or theologians or Bible commentators or whatever have always linked what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives a.k.a "the Olivet Discourse" to what He had said about the destruction of the temple when He was still on the other mountain on the other side of the valley (the Temple Mount).
My answer to that is, "So? So what?" They didn't look.
--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37
What did Jesus begin to speak about once He had sat down on the Mount of Olives? Because that's the context of what He said about the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
Last edited:
This doesn't add up. This is horrible hermeneutics. History shows that the 490 years were linear, congruent and sequential. Those of us that take 490 years to mean exactly that do not have to prove that it is harmonious; we just have to accept what it states. We take it literally (1) because it happened literally, (2) there is no command to decapitate it and project it into the unknown. Seven multiplied by seventy comes to 490 cohesive unitary years, not 2,500 broken up years and counting. The clincher is: there is no gap mentioned in the prophecy so there is no need or warrant to insert one in there.
Let’s use an illustration. If you were directed to go to the next state and told and told it was exactly a 490-mile journey (right down to the very yard). You were told that in-between the starting point and your destination you would pass two important landmarks, the first after 49 miles, which was accurate to the very yard. The next was a further 434 miles ahead (bringing your journey to 483 miles in total), which also occurred right down to the very yard. The journey's end would be a final 7 miles down the road from your second landmark, making your total journey 490 miles. Exactly half way between 483 miles and 490 (486 ½ miles) you would witness a monumental landmark that would surpass anything you have ever seen. How would you then feel if you were told when you hit the second landmark that your final location was still a possible 2,000+ miles down the road with NO exact finishing point? Such an idea would be totally unthinkable in the natural, but unprecedented in God's economy. God always fulfils His promises.
Can you give me another example in Scripture of such a decapitation of a harmonious time-period - like where God says 7 days and He didn't mean a linear, congruent and sequential 7 days, or 7 years and He didn't mean a linear, congruent and sequential 7 years, or 70 years and He didn't mean a linear, congruent and sequential 70 years? Anything?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
They did cease to have any meaning once Christ made His once for all sacrifice. How can you, as a Christian, not recognize that? You should have more discernment than this.
How can Israel finish its own transgression? Only Jesus could do that for them. Daniel 9 is all about Jesus but you make it all about Israel! Open your eyes! Jesus did for them what they could not possibly do themselves.
Jesus accomplished all of those things listed in Daniel 9:24 as only He could! Read this if you want to understand how the transgression was finished, how the end of sins was made and how reconciliation was made for iniquity:
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him and by his wounds we are healed.6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
From the Bible, of course. Are you somehow not aware that Jesus made their temple spiritually desolate around the time of His death (see Matthew 23:37-38) and that it became physically desolate in 70 AD?
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You equate someone disagreeing with you with not being open about these things. You are coming across as being very confident that you are correct about these things. Does that mean you are not open to correction and can't be wrong? I doubt you would say that. So, why is that the case for those who disagree with you?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. I agree with preterists in their interpretation of some things and I agree with futurists like you in your interpretations of other things. But, somehow you want to equate people like me with preterists. Ridiculous. You are making the false assumption that everyone has to be labeled either a preterist or a futurist. I am neither. Both preterists and futurists share the very bad mistake of assuming most prophecy is either about the past or about the future. There is no balance in either doctrinal system.
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,028
- 3,307
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I disagree with your claim that Jesus came in the first century, there was one future coming of Jesus spoken about, and it's a future coming of Jesus Christ in fire and final judgment (The End)
(Second Time Not Third Time) your claim of a 1st century return of Jesus is "False"
Hebrews 9:28KJV
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Similar threads
