Quote Originally Posted by Gakak45
There is no seven year peace treaty. Daniel's 70 weeks are about the Jesus Christ the Messiah. He is the main focus of this narrative, not the Anti-Christ. It is not about some fabled peace treaty but rather the confirmation of God's covenant with Abraham.
Daniel's 70th seven is a 7 year peace treaty (each half is 1260 days) - a covenant of seven years. While people as a result are saying all is peaceful, the Antichrist breaks the covenant in middle when he will "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9.27).

The passage in 9.24-27 is not talking about just Jesus nor is it talking about just the Antichrist. It is talking about both: "Messiah" and "the people of the prince [the Antichrist] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (v.26) in 70 AD, as well as, at the end of this age cause "the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (v.27) so that "Seventy sets of seven of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place" (v.24). The holy place, the Temple, was not anointed in 70 AD, but will be when Jesus steps down on the mount of olives. Praise the Lord!

I would suggest to you that your conscience is seared like a hot iron, insensitive and dead to God, because you have no conscience to sense these past two thousand years there has not been an "end of sin" (50,000 people die per day due to sin), "finish the transgression" (Israel is sinning rejecting God), "atone for iniquity" (this is not the atonement of the cross, but reconciliation of all things), "everlasting righteous" (Jesus reigning on earth in Person), "seal both vision and prophet (Israel a nation again, Tribulation, first rapture according to readiness, and so forth), anoint "a" "most holy place" (the Temple from where Jesus will reign). Amen!

The 70 weeks in question DO NOT refer to the future Tribulation. In fact, more than half of it has already happened. 69 1/2 weeks have been fulfilled, leaving only half a week (3 1/2 years) remaining.
The first half has not taken place yet as it is connected time-wise with the second half. Jesus never made a covenant for 7 years. The first half of the 7 years is the first four trumpets. The 2nd half is the last 3 trumpets or 3 woes. What occurs before the trumpets of the Tribulation (because it is loud), is the first rapture according to readiness (Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9). Nor has the great earthquake, H3 Solar eclipse and Total Lunar Tetrad (Rev. 6.12) occurred yet either, thus we have a fully 7 years of the Tribulation from Sept. 14, 2015 Feast of Trumpets through 2,520 days to Aug. 7, 2022 Tisha B'Av, Sunday when Jesus steps down on the mount of olives (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7, Rev. 19.11-16).

If it's after the 69th week, that means his death had to happen during the 70th week.
That's illogical. The 70th week as all one unit occurs at the consummation with commences with the first rapture "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9). You're not making sense. The 69 sevens are from Nisan 1, 444 BC to March 28, 33 AD (Monday) in the Gregorian calendar. This the end of the 69 weeks. Then the 4 day inspection of the Lamb takes place from March 28-31. Jesus died 4 days after the first day inspection of the Lamb on April 1, 33 AD (Friday), but nobody teaches this is the first 4 days of the 70th. There was not three and a half years found after Jesus died nor in 70 AD. Just like the other sets of seven are very precise, we can nail down precisely Daniel's last seven.

There is nothing in Daniel 9 that says a covenant was made midway through the 69th week, none whatsoever. The covenant is the 70th week, hence the events after verse 26.

Therefore Jesus is the one who caused the "sacrifice and oblation to cease" in the "middle" of the week.
Jesus replaced the animal sacrifices as the once-for-all sacrifice, but He did not cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease since the Jews kept on doing it and will do so again when the Temple is built again even in the years leading up to it. Thus, the Jews are still in transgression. Your conscience can't sense this and the evil that permeates this condition in the world of iniquity and sin. Therein lies the problem with your heart.

Jesus' ministry took up the first 3 1/2 years of the 70th week. At the end thereof, He died on the cross for your sins and mine, then rose from the dead.
I think you are confusing yourself, because before you said Jesus' ministry took up the last three and a half years of the 69th week, but now you say it took up the first three and a half years of the 70th week. I've show you why His ministry could not have been the last half of the 69th week, but His ministry did not take up the first half of the 70th week either, since Jesus was "cut off" (Dan. 9.25) 4 days after the 69th week, and Jesus did not minister for three and a half years after He entered Jerusalem or died on the cross. It's really silly what you are trying to do, because then then Jesus would have died on the cross on the 4th day of the 70th week instead of as you say at the midpoint of the 7 years.

Do you see what you are doing? You are conflating and overlapping the last half of the 69th week with the 1st half of the 70th week. Satan is the author of confusion and you are following in his footsteps. Shameful!

I'm tired of arguing about Titus with you too. I never said he was the Anti-Christ. He was the prince who razed the city and the temple. This has been proven and yes, it's accruate to identify him as a prince, for that's what he was at the time. He didn't become a king himself until later on. This prophecy has come and gone.
You're wrong about Titus also, because when John said "is not" and "one is" (Rev. 17.8,10,11) he was referring to Domitian at the time of John's writing in 95 AD. I have supplied to you his writing during 95 AD not 70 AD.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Aids_to_Revelation.htm

Titus is not mentioned in Dan. 9.27 so who cares if he was around at the time. We've gone over this already that it is a very strange way to speak to refer to a Roman Caesar as a prince, and John should have mentioned Titus by name or at least used some other terminology instead of "people of the prince". "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dan. 9.26) which occurred in 70 AD. Then "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" (v.27). Where did Titus confirm a covenant with people for 7 years? Where did Jesus confirm a covenant with people for 7 years after Jesus died? Ridiculous nonsense. You are so deceived and deluded. Satan has you in his hands.

"The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." All students of Revelation know that this refers to the Romans. After the death of Christ the Jews incurred God’s severe judgment: the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary in 70 A.D. Since the term "the people" refers to the Romans, many accordingly think that the term "the prince" obviously points to the Roman prince Titus who led the Romans. But there are many reasons to refute this conclusion. Why is it that the Scripture here does not say the prince shall destroy the city but rather says the people of the prince? Although the prince must work through his people, it is still unnatural to say the people and not directly say the prince. Since the Holy Spirit mentions both the prince and the people, while nevertheless putting a primary emphasis on the people, can it be that He is implying by this that these people represent the people of that prince who is yet to come? If so, then the prince in question here is not Titus, and the people who attacked Jerusalem in the former day were in spirit and in attitude morally the people of the future prince. This prince whom Daniel prophecies about will be a world renown figure in the future, who is the Antichrist. "The prince that shall come" is therefore the Antichrist.

"The end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (v.26). "The end" here is not the end of the city nor of the sanctuary. According to correct grammatical construction, "the end thereof" should be connected to the phrase "the prince that shall come." The fulfillment did not come at the time of Titus but is yet to come in the future. The people of the prince who shall come shall destroy this city and the sanctuary, but "the end thereof" (that is to say, the end of the prince)* shall come as a flood. We know that this superman is soon to come, and the world will have no peace. But thank God, we shall be gone before the Antichrist arrives.

* The Revised Standard Version (1952) recognizes this construction of the verse, as follows: ". . . and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. His end shall come with a flood . . ." (9.26 mg.).—Translator

Speaking of Anti-Christ, your theory on Nero as the Anti-Christ doesn't hold up. First off, the 7 kings in Revelation chapter 17, are LITERAL kings, not forms of government.
That's right, they are 7 historical kings and not princes by the way. The Antichrist will be a prince, e.g. perhaps Prince William who will be crowned King William V (I AM VI VI VI) in 2015 and bypass Prince Charles as king because William has more marketability for the Royal Family. The first 5 Caesars who died horrific deaths, not by natural causes, were Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. Since the Antichrist comes from one of the five (Rev. 17.10-11), and only Nero has the number of the beast, 666, in Aramaic as Neron Kaisar then this is no issue at all for learned Christians. But you should know better, and because you don't, you are not my brother in Christ and probably never will be. That makes me sad.

Nero is the most evil man in history towards Christians. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Nero.htm

The 10 kings are different than the 7 kings. The 10 kings are contemporary in our day, whereas the 6 kings are historical and related to John's day, something close to his understand which would be of the Roman government. The 7th king is the forerunner to the Antichrist who is with us for a short while, then the 8th who is the Antichrist inhabits his body because the forerunner receives likely a deadly head wound.

"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are also seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth" (Rev. 17.10). The woman is the Roman Church and sits on the 7 hilled city which is Rome. This is the European Union. What's going to happen is when the Antichrist as one of the 10 kings takes over, he will replace 3 of the 10 kings so there is 7 kings. These 7 kings are responsible to administer the mark of the beast over 7 regions of the world. As Rome has seven hills the earth has 7 pillars of regions as it were.

Secondly, regarding the "five who have fallen". In the Bible, the word fallen is "epesan" in Greek which means..."to fall". Simple as that. No violent death is implied.
The word in Greek is not "epsesan" but "pipsto" to be removed from power by death, evilly, and to be thrust down as if with a spear.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G4098&t=KJV

The word “fallen” in 17.10 carries with it the idea of violent death (see 2 Sam. 1.19,25,27).

"The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (2 Sam. 1.19,25,27).

All seven kings do indeed meet with violent death: Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero—these five kings all assumed deity for themselves; they called for their people to worship them as gods; and all five died unnaturally, either by being murdered or by committing suicide.

Domitian was the sixth one. He was present during the time of John. He too deified himself, and was later murdered.

Also you forgot a king: Augustus. He succeeded Ceasar. Had to forget him to make Nero fit, huh?
Augustus died on natural causes. I was waiting for you to bring this up to corner you like you are wild dog. "August 19, 14 AD Natural causes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors

You misspelled Caesar.

No matter how you try to spin it, the 7th king IS the Anti-Christ.
No matter how you spin it, the Antichrist can't be the 7th king, but the 8th. There can't be an Antichrist after the Antichrist. The Antichrist is the 8th.

The forerunner is only for a short space: "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space" because of a deadly wound (Rev. 17.10). At the time of John's writing we are told then comes the Antichrist at some future date who is the 8th: "And the beast that was [Nero], and is not [not Nero but Domitian], even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition" (Rev. 17.11). Nero is the "eighth". He is of the seven because the 5 are of the seven and the Antichrist is the culmination of the evil of all seven as well, and he possesses the body of the 7th, but do not think that Prince William as the 7th is the Antichrist. Rather, the Antichrist Nero possesses his body when someone tries to kill King William V.

And you want to come at me with a lecture about Biblical interpretation AND question my salvation?
I contacted you because I realized you were not born-again, so the Holy Spirit wanted me to help lead you to Christ, first by showing you how you are misreading who the Antichrist is, how you have conflated the 69th and 70th weeks, and by showing you that you worship a false Christ for Jesus never made a 7 year covenant for His crucifixion.

Guess which lake you're dangerously close to treading in, by the way.
A Christian can't lose salvation. I am a Christian. Since you think a Christian can tread close enough to lose salvation, realize this is salvation by works, for no man can keep himself saved or lose salvation once-saved-always-saved. John said those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). You are not about to lose your salvation; rather, you were never born-again to begin with.

Also, did you know that Paul thought the rapture was going to be in his time?
Paul never taught that, but we are told to live as though He could return any time.

Would Paul enlist himself among this class of people who are alive and are left in 1 Thess. 4.14-18? Not at all. He uses the word “we” only because he is speaking at that moment of writing, and the proof of this is that since Paul no longer lives today, he cannot be numbered among those who are left on earth. Why accuse Paul of sinning?

So did John, who said back in the first century AD that the time for the prophecies in his Book of Revelation were near.
Nearness is a matter of perspective. From God's perspective it's just 2 days, for a day equals a thousand years. When we look back in time a million years from now, we will think that way to. It will seem like only 2 days. Don't think he meant that Jesus would return in his lifetime. He was making no such claim at all. It's interesting all the new false teachings you keep revealing about yourself that you harbor.

Uh oh. If you're gonna throw rocks at me, guess you best start chucking stones at these two "great men" of God. According to you, that's proof enough that they're unsaved and probably Satan worshippers in disguise.
You've just sinned bearing false witness against them. Sinning bearing false witness against them doesn't constitute a valid argument. God hates that sin.

I'll leave you with one last thing, Mr. Pharisee: remember that God will measure YOU with the same yardstick you use to measure others.
The Pharisees are going to Hell, so you are accusing me and the saints day and night (Rev. 12.10) because you are not even saved. Remember, God won't judge me for the judgment coming upon you. Moreover, I don't possess your false teachings, so why would I be judged for your sins? Funny.

My advice to you is repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated and though shalt be saved. With a new life, a quickened spirit, God's Spirit will slowly begin to work in you to show you the error of your ways.

You're trying to understand God's word from the standpoint of a false tare trying to look like the saved wheat. You're not actually regenerated.