The gap in the 70 weeks is not absurd

[Jill]

No Sean I typed it in actually...I think the cut and paste feature may have been disabled,no worries though I was glad to sit here this morning and type it up for you,I hope it meets with your approval. There is so much more to get on to once you offer an explanation for your fuzzy math and why you move the Lords crucifixtion out 3 1/2 years farther than it should be...Did you know that many Jews have actually accepted Jesus once they do the math and figure out that Daniel gave them the exact date Messiah would enter Jerusalem and it was Jesus!!!!


Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

No Sean I typed it in actually...I think the cut and paste feature may have been disabled,no worries though I was glad to sit here this morning and type it up for you

Ok, that's not exactly what I meant. You said:

See what Dr Ice wrote Sean and why doesnt your math add up.

So since you said Dr Ice wrote it I figured you copied what he wrote and pasted it here. So how is it that you typed something that Ice wrote unless you copied it?

I hope it meets with your approval. There is so much more to get on to once you offer an explanation for your fuzzy math and why you move the Lords crucifixtion out 3 1/2 years farther than it should be...Did you know that many Jews have actually accepted Jesus once they do the math and figure out that Daniel gave them the exact date Messiah would enter Jerusalem and it was Jesus!!!!


Maranatha

Crusader

If you want to accept someone's math on their own authority that's ok with me. There are problems with the math your accepting though. I've already been down this road (although not with you). But thanks for pointing it out to others.

One problem with your interpretation is Daniel 9 says "after the 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off". This puts the death of Jesus in the last "week" and prevents it from being future.

Another problem is what happends after this:

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

What "city and sanctuary" is destroyed?

The one that was to be built:

Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince

So lets follow the context. Jerusalem is rebuilt starting from the decree/command.

Then the Messiah is cut off after the full 69 weeks (7+62) are over (logically, the 70th week is in view unless your theology requires an insertion of a gap). Then the city and sanctuary are destroyed.

Verse 27 goes over it again in more detail. During the last week is the time when the new covenant is confirmed. This covenant makes no provision for the sacrificial system and the old covenant is made obsolete.
The destruction of the temple is in view and the greek version of this is the same "abomination of desolation" that Jesus refers to in Matthew 24 in speaking of the destruction of the very temple that this chapter in Daniel is referring to as to be built.

The fault of the futurist view is it has an entirely different temple in view than the prophecy in Daniel does, as that temple in Daniel 9:25 was destroyed in 70AD, just as predicted it followed the fulfillment of the 70 weeks.

[Jill]

Sean there can be no doubt as to when Jesus entered Jerusalem and to the day it was at the very end of the 69th week. Even Gary Demar hasnt refuted Hoehners work,or Gentry for that matter.Daniel understood it and Jesus clearly greived over the Jews in Luke 19:41 for not figureing it out when He said" If you,even you,had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now its hidden from your eyes" so Jesus knew they could have understood it by doing the math from Daniels prophecy..the reason you reject it is not based on its merrit but its because the facts would change your theology. Your view Sean has many severe weaknesses,if you advocate a continuous fufillment of the 70 weeks you have to put both the crucifxion of Christ and the destruction of Jeruslaem,some forty years later,into the final week of years which is only seven years in length,which no amount of "theological presterist silly putty" can accomplish. If I were you I would align my theolgoy with the facts and not the other way around,of course this is only a suggestion on my part.


Hes coming soon


Crusader

[Guest]

Please see my post of today at this thread:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=925&start=30

Crudader's behavior here is, in my opinion, unacceptable. If you read what I posted at this other thread, you will know my reasons for saying so. Nowadays, everything he posts fits my description there.

[Jill]

Well then why dont you meet with the people who run this forum and have a moderator available when we have problems, the last time I had one it took 3 to 4 days...You could be an example Mr Gregg!!!.....you could start by removing the pretribulation humor site....that would be a nice start...because I said it offended me, its just a slam and you know it,but you said oh its just a joke....well jokes can be insenstive...and it is...and adress the wife beater deal from Allyn...that came way out of left field and was uncalled for..


Crusader

[Guest]

The fact that you missed Allyn's point and still haven't seen it after it was explained illustrates the fact that it is impossible to conduct an adult conversation and to guarantee at the same time that no one will misunderstand and take offense.

It was not I who posted the dispensational humor page, but I found nothing in it that would have offended me when I was a dispensationalist. If someone wishes to post an amillennialist humor page, I would have no objection. Could you tell me what there is on that page that you found offensive? If it was the whole idea of finding humor in dispensational idiosyncrasies, then I have to assume that you are merely a humorless individual.

If that is the case, I do not see how we can accommodate you. Most adults have a sense of humor. There were no personal jabs, as I recall (I haven't read it for months) for anyone to get offended by. If you can't allow people to find dispensationalism amusing, then you should probably stay within a hermetically-sealed church, where no one is allowed to see the absurdity in any of it.

Though I am the moderator, I am not available every day to monitor everything that goes on here. However, the things you were complaining about from others were mild things compared to the verbal abuse you have dished out here. I do not typically interfere with the dialog of others, but if I had had a policy of doing so, at least half of your posts would have been deleted.

I suggest (again) that you either grow up and stop acting childish, or that you find another forum where folks will allow you to insult them without their ever succumbing to the temptation to respond in kind.

[Jill]

Actually my favorite anti Crusader comment comes from you Stevo and I think it deserves honorable mention here...rememebr when you said I was a tool of satan being used by him without my knowledge because your time is just to important to be used dealing with me...No Im here to stay...and Im glad we understand each other..I could rummage through all the old posts to find your exact quote if you wish but Im sure you trust me enough to be accurate and its pretty close...

Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

Yes, Crusader, please find that quote. I don't believe that I said that, but I would be open to being shown to be wrong.

[Guest]

I was wondering if anyone here who is anti-gap would read the following article from jews for Jesus on Daniel's timeline:

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publication ... /timetable

Now just to note that they don't confirm or deny a millennial kingdom. They just try and show how the gap comes into play. I was just curious on how you would refute that.

[Guest]

The following quote from the link is a pretty major assumption with no argument in its defense given

Whereas the second subdivision of the 70 sevens was to immediately follow the first, the third subdivision was not immediately to follow the second. Daniel pointed out (in verse 26) that three things would occur after this second subdivision and before the third one.

I see no reason to believe these things were to occur b/w the 69th and 70th week. Verse 26 does say these things occur AFTER week 69, but it says nothing about them happening BEFORE week 70. The very assumption goes against the nature of the prophecy being so time specific! Why call it a 70x7 prophecy if it's actually much longer?

In short, the article simply assumes a gap without making an argument for a gap. It ignores all the argumentation FOR a simple 490 year reading of the prophecy.