Why Daniel's 70th week must be in the future

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
an abomination of desolation is an unclean thing or idol placed in a holy place rendering it desolate. or unclean.

Its not the same as destruction.,

the temple is not destroyed. its rendered unclean.

Hence his ,misunderstanding, But instead of clarifying to make sure he understood me. He would rather blame shift and mock me

its on him. not me.
I've just got better things to do than argue with someone who will argue forever and who cannot be relied upon to understand anything, scriptural or otherwise.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
23,801
8,619
113
Your verbal effluent does nothing for your position. It’s just opinion without evidence, dressed in a ball gown for a ball game.
Thing is....actually being right is quite an unassailable condition. Under those circumstances, strident denials are in fact meaningless and irrelevant.
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
Luke 12-24 is in fact unique in the trilogy of Matt 24 and Mark 13. How people can fail to apprehend the stark differences (and the significance thereof) is utterly inconceivable to me.

Likewise advocating Preterism has one begging for substantially biblical cogent rational arguments (being so profoundly absurd) and leaves one bewildered by its affiliates despite its paucity and vacuousness.
Very true indeed Blovius Maximus
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Thing is....actually being right is quite an unassailable condition. Under those circumstances, strident denials are in fact meaningless and irrelevant.
I agree. However, your presumption that you are correct in this matter is utterly meaningless. If you just want to “be right” and insult those who don’t embrace your view, it’s better that you stay out of the discussion. It won’t take any skin off your nose to do so.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
23,801
8,619
113
I agree. However, your presumption that you are correct in this matter is utterly meaningless. If you just want to “be right” and insult those who don’t embrace your view, it’s better that you stay out of the discussion. It won’t take any skin off your nose to do so.
Well....when you are actually right, its quite impossible to be offended....:rolleyes:
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Well....when you are actually right, its quite impossible to be offended....:rolleyes:
I know. That's why your verbose drivel doesn't offend me. ;)
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,883
4,345
113
mywebsite.us
The abrahamic covenant is an eternal covenant

So how do we get it to be only 7 years?
It says the confirmation of the covenant is for a 'seven' - not that the covenant is for a 'seven'.

It says absolutely nothing concerning the length of the covenant; rather, it is talking about the length of the confirmation of the covenant.
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
It says the confirmation of the covenant is for a 'seven' - not that the covenant is for a 'seven'.

It says absolutely nothing concerning the length of the covenant; rather, it is talking about the length of the confirmation of the covenant.
Well done Gary.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
It says the confirmation of the covenant is for a 'seven' - not that the covenant is for a 'seven'.
This looks like playing word games. So let's take another look at that: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [7 years]

If a covenant or agreement is confirmed for seven years, does it not mean that the covenant itself is for a period of seven years? Of course it does. What is this covenant or agreement? It is a covenant to allow the Jews to maintain their temple sacrifices and offerings (oblations) without any interference for a period of seven years. But since the covenant was deceptive to begin with it, will be broken after 3 1/2 years. And the sacrifices will be shut down.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
972
276
63
Pacific NW USA
The abrahamic covenant is an eternal covenant

So how do we get it to be only 7 years?
You're right that the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal, even though there were temporal features, such as circumcision, involved. Circumcision went away, but left the eternal promise intact.

But I don't mean to say that a 7 year covenant is being confirmed--no, that's what those are saying who believe Antichrist makes a 7 year covenant. Rather, I'm saying that within the 70th Week, the final 7 years of the 70 Weeks period, an act would take place that confirms the eternal covenant.

And that act was Jesus overturning the old covenant in favor of a new covenant that would last forever. The covenant of Law was temporary, and the only way it could be rendered eternal, as intended, was through a transformation of the temporal features and the old covenant into something strictly eternal, an essentially new covenant.

That's what this prophecy in Dan 9 was all about, the 70 Weeks prophecy. It was about the framework in which the temporary covenant of Law would go out the door with the destruction of the temple and with the end to Israel's exclusive reign as God's People. It would make way for a new everlasting righteousness that could not be soiled with human failure, the covenant of Christ.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
972
276
63
Pacific NW USA
1. Your arguments make no sense, especially since history does not agree
2. church fathers? When did John and Peter and James believe anything else? Even Paul knew when the time of the gentile was finished all Isreal would be saved
3. prophesy is linear, when you look at it straight up. Many times when you turn it sideways you see events are sequential in order. But their are valleys or gaps in between individual events of years. The best example being when Jesus read from a prophet and said today is that day, he stopped mid prophecy, the rest of that prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. Yet reading it, you would think it all happened at the same time

dan 9 is about Israel, Jerusalem and the temple. It’s not about the church, it’s not about the messiah, it’s about what Gabriel said it was about

dan 9 24 “Seventy [t]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,

there is the opening statement, there is the context. It is ALL about those two items (you can add the temple since the temple is built, destroyed, then a new temple is defiled by an idol) to make it about anything else is to take the prophecy out of context

since NON of the things which are said about Daniels people and holy city have been fulfilled. Dan 9 is not fulfilled

thats ALL we need to know

we don’t twist it, add to it, make it about something other than Israel or Jerusalem or the temple, only because our belief system does not want it to be about those things,
I'm sorry you feel that way, that I'm adding to Scriptures. I'm not. I'm interpreting this the same way the Church Fathers did for the most part. They saw Dan 9 as being historically fulfilled. There were a few who thought the AoD was a future phenomenon, but most of them--I would say a good majority, believed that the AoD and the bulk of this prophecy had to do with events around 70 AD.

You say that nothing about the temple and Jerusalem being destroyed took place in 70 AD-135 AD? What history book are you reading from? That's exactly what took place!

You add the part about a temple being rebuilt. The only part of the prophecy that deals with the temple's restoration is about the restoration taking place in the time of Nehemiah!

The AoD was explained by Jesus to be the Roman Armies surrounding Jerusalem in his generation. If you put Matthew and Mark's version together with Luke's version, there is no other conclusion you can come to! The AoD is, in fact, the encircling of Jerusalem by Roman Armies!

You say Daniel's prophecy didn't have anything to do with Messiah! All prophecy has to do with Messiah! And this one in particular. And that's the consensus view of the Church Fathers, as well. We can't all be crazy! You say it is senseless. Are all the Church Fathers senseless? If I am, certainly they aren't!

But Dan 9.24 outlines the very things that only Messiah could do, including the ushering in of everlasting righteousness, fulfilling all prophecy, and anointing himself as the new "holy of holies." But obviously, you disagree, made that point, and that's fine.
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
As far as beheadings; recall earlier in Matthew 24 that the Messiah warned His disciples that they would be captured and killed for their testimony. I strongly feel that was the 5th seal event was fulfilled with the death of Messiah's disciples between 34 AD and 64 AD. Revelation chapters 6-7 even shows as much; that the martyrs die before the great tribulation begins.
From the historical position though, the Apostles were not [proposed] with the option to deny Christ, Accept the Mark of the Beast, or be Beheaded. And we know only a couple were actually Beheaded. It would be more believable and accepted had [ALL] the Apostles been Beheaded.

Example:
Peter was boiled and it did not kill him. So one would think here is the point of being Beheaded to fulfill Prophecy. We know Peter was Crucified. So, I don't buy the Beheading Prophecy was fulfilled and we know the Papyrus of what is known as the Book of Revelation was dated the earliest mid 90's A.D. And we know Papyrus dating is rather a good indicator because we know it changed 5 times throughout history and the Revelation Papyrus was made by the 5th progressed process. So that Prophecy was written in 90's A.D. and what happened in 68-70 A.D. does not relate.

From my studies, The man of sin is the self-proclaimed head of the universal church. The Papacy. Remember that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in Paul's day. We have letters from disciples warning the reader to earnestly contend for the original faith. Historically, the bishop of Rome grew in power over all of bishoprics as the faith spread.
We also have accounts that people not related to the Catholic Church were imitating Paul and acting as Prophets. And Paul had his readers compare his teachings to their for authenticity. So this false doctrine was well before Rome got involved and no sense trying to make this about Rome to fulfill Scripture.

Also remember that the soldiers who destroy Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD are from Rome. They're literally "the people of the prince who shall come"...so the means that "prince" must come from Rome also. The Pope is the bishop of Rome.
The Prince of what?
Daniel 10 was fulfilled as soon as Gabriel left Daniel. That was not a future event in terms of 490 years.

The Papacy:
- Received power from The Pagan Roman Empire ("dragon gave him his power")

- Came to power roughly 538 AD and ruled for 1260 years until 1798 AD when it was ended...and then was later resurrected in 1929 AD

- Changed the sabbath, instituted our calendar (times & laws)

- Changed the 10 commandments by removing the 2nd one and splitting the 10th one into two separate ones (times & laws)

- Was known as the "vicar of Christ" ("Christ vicariously") and "God in the flesh" (names of blasphemy); said in publications that he stands in the position of "God on earth"

- Installed many kings during middle ages who worshiped him...whose subjects also worshiped him.

- Life a life of celibacy ("Has no desire for women")

- Initiated Papal bulls (like "dom diversas") authorizing the capture & slavery of heretics, which precipitate the worldwide slavery of humans ("he that leads into captivity shall go into captivity"). Laity even killed and enslaved "thinking they were doing God's work" (John 16:2), literally prophesied by Messiah.

- Initiated the inquisitions that tortured Jews and protestant gentiles as "heretics" alike

- Initiate the counter-reformation to divert protestant attention away from identifying Papacy as the Beast of Revelation

- Renamed Fortress goddess Cybele, Queen of Heaven, into "Mary" and worship Mary over Messiah ("worship the god of fortresses")

- Initiated the long Crusades to recapture holy land from Muslims ("desolations determined")

- Wiped out The Heruli, the Vandals, and Ostrogoths barbarians ("three horns plucked up by the roots")

- Outlawed any possession of the bible; said only the Church authority can interpret scripture

- The Church is called the "Mother" church birthing daughter churches and religions

- The cardinals wear Scarlet and Purple ("purple and scarlet colored beast")
The Papacy only had power because few people could read and write and could not challenge them. Once people began being educated, the Catholic Church was basically shut down. So, we think Prophecy was fulfilled on the basis of UNEDUCATED people during that time?

I do not see the Papacy as Rulers ever. I just see like today's preachers who teach a false message and when the Congregation doesn't read the Word, they just assume Pastor G.I. Joe is correct.

But I do agree on the points you make concerning the Papacy. But I see if they did Rule, it was during a period of Lack of Education.


After the Messiah resurrected the temple is the body of the believer and the throne is the heart of man. The "Man of Sin" sat in God's Temple for many, many centuries and is still in the hearts of many, worshiped as a celebrity wherever he visits.

His influence still lingers in certain Christian doctrines today.
And still to this very day, if we remove American Catholics, the majority of the Catholic followers are Uneducated peoples from 3rd World Nations and Economies.

If we wish to give them credit, it's only for seeking out those who for a better term, are stupid!

Look at the Denominations today from Baptist, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc, these are full of people for the most part can read and write. They cannot be fooled by the Catholic [cross-dresser] known as the Pope.

So if Yeshua's prophecies were based upon STUPID PEOPLE, then I agree it could be fulfilled. But all throughout the History from Adam to Christ, the followers of Yahweh were properly Educated in the Torah and Tanakh. From Noah to his grandson Abraham to Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, into slavery, the people were aware of I AM. Exodus 3 shows us that the pre-incarnate Christ told Moses [tell the People] I AM sent you. So there's always been an Educated system about God's people. And for Rome to fulfill prophecy, God must have allowed his creation to be highly Stupid until the 1700's.

Personally, the people of TODAY are the most educated than mankind has ever been before. It makes more sense for duping to happen to the Educated Peoples, not the ones who could not read or write.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
972
276
63
Pacific NW USA
This looks like playing word games. So let's take another look at that: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [7 years]

If a covenant or agreement is confirmed for seven years, does it not mean that the covenant itself is for a period of seven years? Of course it does. What is this covenant or agreement? It is a covenant to allow the Jews to maintain their temple sacrifices and offerings (oblations) without any interference for a period of seven years. But since the covenant was deceptive to begin with it, will be broken after 3 1/2 years. And the sacrifices will be shut down.
It works regardless, from my perspective. I'm not speaking for the other brother, but only for myself here.

Jesus made a covenant for, or on behalf of, the 70th Week, to complete the 70 Weeks period. It was not a covenant of 7 years duration, but rather, a confirmation of an everlasting covenant that took place either within the final 70th Week, or in order to complete the final Week of this 70 Weeks period.

After all, the purpose of the 70 Weeks was to complete a period for the purpose of accomplishing 6 stated things. If Jesus did all of those things, then this constituted the *confirmation* of the eternal covenant of Abraham, which is what all 6 things were about.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
It says the confirmation of the covenant is for a 'seven' - not that the covenant is for a 'seven'.

It says absolutely nothing concerning the length of the covenant; rather, it is talking about the length of the confirmation of the covenant.
Yeah

when did Jesus confirm a covenant for seven years?

please answer the question, your belief system depends on it
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
You're right that the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal, even though there were temporal features, such as circumcision, involved. Circumcision went away, but left the eternal promise intact.

But I don't mean to say that a 7 year covenant is being confirmed--no, that's what those are saying who believe Antichrist makes a 7 year covenant. Rather, I'm saying that within the 70th Week, the final 7 years of the 70 Weeks period, an act would take place that confirms the eternal covenant.

And that act was Jesus overturning the old covenant in favor of a new covenant that would last forever. The covenant of Law was temporary, and the only way it could be rendered eternal, as intended, was through a transformation of the temporal features and the old covenant into something strictly eternal, an essentially new covenant.

That's what this prophecy in Dan 9 was all about, the 70 Weeks prophecy. It was about the framework in which the temporary covenant of Law would go out the door with the destruction of the temple and with the end to Israel's exclusive reign as God's People. It would make way for a new everlasting righteousness that could not be soiled with human failure, the covenant of Christ.
1.it says he confirms a covenant for 7 years,

daniel 9 is about the city of Jerusalem and the Jews, That’s what Daniel was praying about, and that’s what Gabriel said the promise was concerning

your people and your city

again, when did Jesus confirm any covenant for 7 years, then break that covenant by the abomination which causes desolation

thats what dan 9 says happens.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I'm sorry you feel that way, that I'm adding to Scriptures. I'm not. I'm interpreting this the same way the Church Fathers did for the most part. They saw Dan 9 as being historically fulfilled. There were a few who thought the AoD was a future phenomenon, but most of them--I would say a good majority, believed that the AoD and the bulk of this prophecy had to do with events around 70 AD.

You say that nothing about the temple and Jerusalem being destroyed took place in 70 AD-135 AD? What history book are you reading from? That's exactly what took place!

You add the part about a temple being rebuilt. The only part of the prophecy that deals with the temple's restoration is about the restoration taking place in the time of Nehemiah!

The AoD was explained by Jesus to be the Roman Armies surrounding Jerusalem in his generation. If you put Matthew and Mark's version together with Luke's version, there is no other conclusion you can come to! The AoD is, in fact, the encircling of Jerusalem by Roman Armies!

You say Daniel's prophecy didn't have anything to do with Messiah! All prophecy has to do with Messiah! And this one in particular. And that's the consensus view of the Church Fathers, as well. We can't all be crazy! You say it is senseless. Are all the Church Fathers senseless? If I am, certainly they aren't!

But Dan 9.24 outlines the very things that only Messiah could do, including the ushering in of everlasting righteousness, fulfilling all prophecy, and anointing himself as the new "holy of holies." But obviously, you disagree, made that point, and that's fine.
1. The Roman army did not place an idol in the holy place
2. even if they did, Jesus said they would see it, how could they see inside a building on the “wing of the temple”
3. The temple was destroyed almost 4 decades after messiah the prince came and was cut off after the 69th week

your time line and the events just do not fit,