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

Incorrect, Sir (or Ma'am).



The section in bold is a true statement about Preterists, and specifically the underlined. The difference between a partial preterist and full preterist are the different events they believe were fulfilled in 70 AD...but all believe in 70AD as the end of eschatology.

Historicism isn't Preterism (partial or full).

It takes the view that the prophecies of Matthew 24, Daniel, Revelation etc occur on the timeline of history (some past, some in the present, and whatever remains in the future), such as:

Destruction of Jerusalem - 70 AD

Antichrist (beast of sea) - 538 AD (views differ among historicists)

Great Tribulation - from 688AD up until 1948 AD (from my perspective)

False Prophet (beast of earth) - 1776 AD (from my perspective)

Day of the Lord (2nd coming) - still future (but right at the door from my perspective)

So say you. That is not an assumption but a reasoned conclusion.

While I agree with you that "treaty" isn't necessarily the meaning here... (and likely is NOT)...


Daniel 9:27a - "[confirm/strengthen covenant] with the many"


...Consider:

"lā-rab-bîm" = "with the many [H7227]"


(H7227 - rab)


4x (in this form: "lā-rab-bîm" [as in our verse, here]) -

--Esther 4:3 - Prep-l, Art | Adj-mp

--Isaiah 53:11 - Prep-l, Art | Adj-mp

--Daniel 9:27 - Prep-l, Art | Adj-mp

--Daniel 11:33 - Prep-l, Art | Adj-mp


so...

Preposition-l = l 9997/le ("with regard to")
Definite Article 9998/hē ("the")
Adjective - masculine plural ("many")


... "with [/with regard to] the many"

[someone correct me if I'm wrong on the Hebrew of this word... I'm not a Hebrew expert... = D ]




From what I understand, the phrase "the many" (OT; with definite article) is used to refer to Israel [/those of Israel].

Wrong. PP believe most was fulfilled then but not all. Only FP believes that.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Partial_preterism
Partial preterism (often referred to as orthodox preterism or classical preterism) may hold that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(Christianity)
The main primary texts of interest to Christian historicists include apocalyptic literature, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. It sees the prophecies of Daniel as being fulfilled throughout history, extending from the past through the present to the future. It is sometimes called the continuous historical view.


Also found there:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(Christianity)

This view is also called Classical Posttribulationism, an original theory of the Post-tribulation rapture view which holds the position that the church has always been in the tribulation because, during its entire existence, it has always suffered persecution and trouble. They believe that the tribulation is not a literal future event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Partial_preterism

Partial preterism (often referred to as orthodox preterism or classical preterism) may hold that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation , and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70[26] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[27][28]






Historicism is basically the same as partial Preterism. There is little difference. Essentially two words for the same thing like boat and ship, car and automotive.







partial Preterism believes the same!

Or maybe your assumption drives you into permanent error?

why are you being so direct on a non salvic doctrine, especially When you can’t prove your view is correct, it’s your interpretation that’s it

He came and was cut off (killed) after the 69th week (As the prophet said, he will come on a donkey)

when he was killed only 69 weeks had been completed. There was no 70 weeks.

Furthermore, the 70th Week does not appear to be a full Week of 7 years, since we are told something happens in the midst of the Week. Even if the 70th Week is half a Week, it is still the 70th and last Week of the 70 Week period.

You are defining "everlasting righteousness" in a self-determined context when there is a different context given us. We are told this is a period of 70 Weeks--not 490 Years. What this means is that the Weeks are all consecutive, or they can not be considered to be a 70 Week period. If it is 69 Weeks separated by any length of time with the 70th Week, then they are two separate periods, a 69 Week period and a one Week period.

Furthermore, the 70th Week does not appear to be a full Week of 7 years, since we are told something happens in the midst of the Week. Even if the 70th Week is half a Week, it is still the 70th and last Week of the 70 Week period.

So in light of the fact this is a single consecutive period of 70 Weeks, the 70th Week *cannot* be a future period of time. It had to have been fulfilled in the time of Christ, who is cut off after the 69 Weeks, resulting in the termination of OT offerings in the midst of the 70th Week. Christ's death brought about the termination of OT sacrifices. And the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Abomination of Desolation follows soon after the completion of this 70 Week period. All of this was fulfilled in history.

And so, when we look at "everlasting righteousness," how are we to explain it as "brought in" in the time of Christ? Quite simply, Christ himself was the "everlasting righteousness" who appeared on behalf of human salvation. He said he was the way, the truth, and the life. As such, he was the epitome of "everlasting righteousness," or "eternal life." And this appearance did, in fact, take place at his 1st Coming.



Again, if the context is the 70th Week, we must ask how Christ's 1st appearing brought about an end to sin? We are told that his death on the cross, the sacrifice of the righteous for all human sin, brought about the eternal judgment of all sin on earth. This was a legal act, and not the full outcome of this judgment.

To "finish transgression" may have to do with the fact that Israel's sin was brought to complete maturity in the time of Christ, when they rejected him and allowed him to be crucified. This brought Israel's sin to the point of eternal judgment, not that the nation would be destroyed, but that all in Israel who reject Christ will be eternally cut off from Israel in the future.

And this fact was shown by God causing the religion of Israel to be completely destroyed under the Law, making all true worship take place through Christ. The temple was destroyed for all time, and Israel was scattered until the time when Christ will come back to bring spiritual restoration to the Jewish people.



Prophecy was fulfilled in the death of Christ. Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished." This didn't mean that there would be no more prophecy and no more fulfillment of prophecy. No, this just meant that Christ's death was the critical aspect by which all of God's promises would be fulfilled. To "seal" this vision is to warrantee that it would happen.



The early Church Fathers saw the "most Holy" as representative of Christ himself, since the temple had been rejected by Christ and devoted to destruction. And so, this "anointing" was God's selection of a new "holy place," namely Christ himself.

Dan 9 has not been fulfilled.

There was never an abomination fo desolation in AD 70.

All flesh means all flesh.

you can use Google translate

Would it not have been all-around better if you had used Google translate and put the [English] result in your post?

I think that uesing English is not my first language, so keep the original origin meaning, I choose to use Chinese.

you can use Google translate, or find someone who knows Chinese.

Rome was known for ASSIMILATION of nations, and only what it couldn't assimilate from a people that it conquered it destroyed (4th beast of Daniel).

Prior to rejection of Messiah, Judea was conquered and then ASSIMILATED into the Roman Empire (per their default nature) and forced to pay taxes to Caesar. But when face with the Jews after rejection of Messiah Rome was all about ANNIHILATION. it had "no mercy" on them. Men, women, children all killed within Jerusalem's walls. Slaughtered. Every stone of the temple knocked down and melted for the interlaced gold.

I can't believe this is really an argument.

The Antichrist is already here, as John stated n 1 John 4:3. The Antichrist and false prophet have been around and continue in their heresy. Revelation and Daniel (along with Ezekiel), make this obvious. I find it interesting - if John said it was already here - how could it be in the future?

^ If you're thinking that the "AOD [singular/singular]" of Daniel 11:31 is identical / the same one as in Daniel 12:11 (meaning, BOTH of these being A4E's in 167bc, according to your view), they are NOT [not the same as each other].

It's a debate due to what Rome did to Jerusalem, they did to everyone of their enemies.

But let's look at the statistics between 70 A.D. and 1099 A.D.

The War of 70 A.D. had an estimated [15,000–20,000] total deaths

The War of 1099 had an estimated [40,000 - 70,000] total deaths


And the total Destruction was basically the same with exception that 70 A.D. had the Temple destroyed.


So Christ said that what took place would not be like Before or After.

Yet, similar damage is accounted for in both wars, but the war of 1099 produced double to triple the amount of deaths than 70 A.D.

So, it appears, that 1099 was even more destructive than 70 A.D.

Just by death total alone, the Siege of Jerusalem 1099 DWARFED 70 A.D.

So how are the words of Yeshua, "the destruction would never be seen Before and After" account for 1099 if Daniel's Prophecy was about 70 A.D.? Both wars were in Jerusalem. Both wars had similar destruction. But, the war of 1099 produced nearly 40,000 more deaths.