Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

beameup

It Shall Be An Everlasting Covenant With Them

Recommended Posts

 

You missed one.

 

Luke 21:20 ¶  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
 
No Jesus was not confused, he was speaking of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.
 
Edited to add.
 
Antiochus did desecrate the temple but he was not an abomination of desolation.  That was the Roman army. Josephus mentions two desolations in his history of Jerusalem, First by Nebuchadnezzar, Second by Titus.

 

Apples and oranges.  Jesus just told you that the abomination of desolation would "stand" in the holy place

It is recorded in Matthew 24:3-51 and is a "private briefing" to his inner circle of disciples.

OBviously "whoso readeth, let him understand" is not "understood" in your case.

 

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.  Mt 24:21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misrepresent my words entirely.

 

In the midst of the week - I meant the 70th week - as I have said already in other places - I could have been more precise in my wording.

 

And I NEVER said that His death did not end the validity of the sacrifice - the PASSAGE does not talk about the validity of the sacrifice, but the ending of the actual sacrifice. This did not occur until the destruction of the temple.

 

You need to show proof that His baptism ended the 69th week - the Passage says He is CUT OFF not baptised after 69 weeks.

And the order of events includes things which happen - significant things - after Messiah is cut off(after 69 weeks) and BEFORE the covenant is confirmed for a week - that week is the 70th week.

There are events that happen between the end of 69 and the start of 70.

It is not me saying it - the passage says it.

And the events of the CUTTING OFF of Messiah - not Baptism - and the ending of the sacrifice and OBlation are not the same thing - the order of event, and the events mentioned between these two things make it such that it can not be so.

 

And to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR - again - the passage says the sacrifice and OBlation will cease - not that they would be made innefective. This did not happen at the death of Christ - the Jews continued the sacrifice and OBlation while the temple stood - and claim today that they will recommence the sacrifice and OBlation if the Temple is ever rebuilt. 

If you talk to a Jew today, they will tell you the ONLY reason they do not do the sacrifice today is because there is no temple.

 

Of course the sacrifice and OBlation are ineffective, but they will still do it if the temple is rebuilt - and they continued them until the temple was destroyed.

 

I can't believe you guys get so hung up on "he" in this passage, but totally ignore the plain language that says the actual sacrifice will cease, instead reading that it will be made ineffective.

It does not say "make ineffective - it says "cease".

 

Sorry Bro,

 

He does not say it will cease, but  that "he will Cause it to cease."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Bro,

 

He does not say it will cease, but  that "he will Cause it to cease."  

Ummmm...... yeah...... cease - not  become ineffective...........

 

Doesn't change it one little bit - "cease" is not "make ineffective" - not at all all...... in any way...... the two things mean different things.

 

And the sacrifice and OBlation clearly did not cease at the death of Christ - which is what happened when the 69th week ended (death of Christ) - nowhere does the passage indicate, intimate, or otherwise suggest anything about the baptism of Christ. But the sacrifice and OBlation "are caused to cease" in the midst of the 70th week, which happens after the war that happens after Messiah is cut off - the order is plain and clear, and the cutting off of Messiah, and the ceasing of the sacrifice have events between them.

Regardless of who "he" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apples and oranges.  Jesus just told you that the abomination of desolation would "stand" in the holy place

It is recorded in Matthew 24:3-51 and is a "private briefing" to his inner circle of disciples.

OBviously "whoso readeth, let him understand" is not "understood" in your case.

 

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.  Mt 24:21

 

 

Not so. All three gospel writers were speaking of the same thing and the believers had to escape from Jerusalem when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies.  Matthew and Mark were circumspect when speaking of Rome as it was not wise to draw attention to prophecies regarding Rome.  Paul was likewise when speaking of the fall of Rome in 2. Thess. 2:7.  Josephus likewise is circumspect when speaking of Rome in Daniel's prophecies.  He says "Rome is also mentioned here, but let any who is interested read it for himself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm...... yeah...... cease - not  become ineffective...........

 

Doesn't change it one little bit - "cease" is not "make ineffective" - not at all all...... in any way...... the two things mean different things.

 

And the sacrifice and OBlation clearly did not cease at the death of Christ - which is what happened when the 69th week ended (death of Christ) - nowhere does the passage indicate, intimate, or otherwise suggest anything about the baptism of Christ. But the sacrifice and OBlation "are caused to cease" in the midst of the 70th week, which happens after the war that happens after Messiah is cut off - the order is plain and clear, and the cutting off of Messiah, and the ceasing of the sacrifice have events between them.

Regardless of who "he" is.

 

There is nothing except imagination to suggest that the 70th week was divorced from the others any more than the 62 being divorced from the seven.  After the 69th week is the seventieth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. All three gospel writers were speaking of the same thing and the believers had to escape from Jerusalem when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies.  Matthew and Mark were circumspect when speaking of Rome as it was not wise to draw attention to prophecies regarding Rome.  Paul was likewise when speaking of the fall of Rome in 2. Thess. 2:7.  Josephus likewise is circumspect when speaking of Rome in Daniel's prophecies.  He says "Rome is also mentioned here, but let any who is interested read it for himself."

Only a "person" can "stand".  There is no ambiguity unless you force it.

 

The "Temple Proper" is already built and is in storage in Jerusalem awaiting reestablishment on the Temple Mount.

2Holy+Temple+Diagram.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a "person" can "stand".  There is no ambiguity unless you force it.

 

The "Temple Proper" is already built and is in storage in Jerusalem awaiting reestablishment on the Temple Mount.

2Holy+Temple+Diagram.jpg

 

Where do you get the source for this information -" The "Temple Proper" is already built and is in storage in Jerusalem awaiting reestablishment on the Temple Mount."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing except imagination to suggest that the 70th week was divorced from the others any more than the 62 being divorced from the seven.  After the 69th week is the seventieth.  

Even if you take that line, the passage separates the cutting off of Messiah from the ceasing of the sacrifice and OBlation.

And it doesn't mention the anointing or baptism of Messiah at all.

And it DOES have a war between the cutting off of Messiah and the confirming of the covenant.

And it is in the midst of the covenant, which happens after the war, which happens after Messiah is cut off, that the sacrifice ceases.

 

 

 

These things are clear in the passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a "person" can "stand".  There is no ambiguity unless you force it.

 

The "Temple Proper" is already built and is in storage in Jerusalem awaiting reestablishment on the Temple Mount.

2Holy+Temple+Diagram.jpg

 

Where is the court of women?

 

There is supposed to be a court of women inside the court of gentiles - the Jews consider gentiles even lower than women.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just come across a book entitled The Destruction of Jerusalem by N Nisbet M.A. published in 1787.  Here is a short excerpt from Part 1.

 

Destruction of Jerusalem — Part 1

It cannot escape the OBservation of any one, in the least conversant with the writings of the Evangelists, that the prophecies, relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, form a very considerable and important part of our blessed Lord’s discourses. Many of his parables have an evident relation to that melancholy event, and were prOBably delivered at an early period of his ministry, when it would have been inconsistent with the great ends of it to have been more explicit.

“In the following places, our Lord uses the parabolic method in speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem.” {#Lu 13:6-29 Mt 22:1-7 Lu 14:17-24 Mt 21:33-46 Mr 12:1-12 Lu 20:9-19 21:11-27 }

Towards the close of his life, he threw aside the parabolic method, and assumed a plainer language upon the subject, both to his own immediate followers, and to the multitude. Bishop Newcome, in his excellent OBservations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine instructor, is of the opinion, that the large discourse, which we have recorded in the 24th of Matthew, and the parallel chapters of Mark and Luke, was delivered but four days before his crucifixion, when Jesus took his final leave of the temple. And it seems to contain the substance of all that is to be met with upon this subject, in the Gospel History.

In the fulfilment of these predictions, as recorded by Josephus, an historian of undoubted credit, who was not only an eye-witness of the transactions of the Jewish war, but bore a considerable share in it, and was an enemy to the christian name; an argument of no small weight arises in favour of the divinity of our Lord’s character and mission; for to allude to what Nicodemus said in the case of miracles, No man could foretell events of such magnitude and importance, and with the precision which he did, unless God was with him. A wise man, says the great writer above-mentioned, may foresee some events, relating to an individual or a nation, which depend on a formed character and a connected train of circumstances; but reason and experience show, that there are likewise events of so contingent and imprOBable a nature, that the foresight of them exceeds the greatest human sagacity.

Of this nature were the predictions of our Saviour concerning the destruction of Jerusalem; upon the completion of which, the very credit and fate of Christianity depended; not in some distant and uncertain period, but in that very generation in which they were delivered. Verily, says Christ, this generation shall not pass away, before all these things be fulfilled. This is not the language of an impostor, but of one who knew that his predictions would be most exactly fulfilled. Dr. Jortin says:

“Christ foretold the total destruction of the city and temple; the coming of false Christs and false prophets; famines, pestilences, earthquakes, fearful sights and great signs from heaven; the persecution of the apostles, the apostasy of some Christians; the preservation of the faith; the spreading of the gospel through the Roman world; the Roman standards defiling the holy place; the city encompassed with armies, walls and trenches; the retiring of the Christians to the mountains; the greatest tribulation that ever was known; the time when these things should happen; the comparative happiness of the barren woman; wars and rumours of wars, nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom; the dispersion of the captive Jews through all nations; the continuation of the desolation; a shortening the days of vengeance for the sake of the elect: all which came to pass.” {Jortin’s Remarks on E. Hist. vol. i. }

 

“If the reader is desirous to see in what manner these signs were fulfilled, he may consult Bishop Newton on the Prophecies and the present Bishop of Waterford’s excellent OBservations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine instructor.”

The accomplishment of our Lord’s prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem, may likewise be considered as a standing monument to all future ages, of the truth of the OBservation of the wise man; that righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is eventually, the ruin of any people.

The Jewish nation were favoured with many very extraordinary privileges, both of a civil and religious nature, which, if properly improved, would have distinguished them in an eminent degree above all their surrounding neighbours for national happiness. The whole history of that people, affords ample evidence that they enjoyed prosperity, or suffered affliction, proportioned to their virtuous or vicious conduct. But in our Saviour’s time they were remarkable for their profligacy and wickedness, and their punishment was equally distinguished for its severity. It was such as had no example in former ages, and would never again be repeated.

To give a particular account, says Josephus, as quoted by Dr. Jortin, of all their iniquities, would be endless. Thus much in general, it may suffice to say, that there never was a city which suffered such miseries, nor a race of men, from the beginning of the world, who so abounded in wickedness. I verily believe that if the Romans had delayed to destroy these wicked wretches, the city would either have been swallowed up by the earth, or overwhelmed by the waters, or struck with fire from heaven as another Sodom; for it introduced a far more impious generation than those who suffered such punishments.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you take that line, the passage separates the cutting off of Messiah from the ceasing of the sacrifice and OBlation.

And it doesn't mention the anointing or baptism of Messiah at all.

And it DOES have a war between the cutting off of Messiah and the confirming of the covenant.

And it is in the midst of the covenant, which happens after the war, which happens after Messiah is cut off, that the sacrifice ceases.

 

 

 

These things are clear in the passage.

 

26  ........ and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; ......
 
Do you deny that the prince did come and destroy the sanctuary?
 
26 continued........and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
 
And that the end came as suddenly as a flood and that desolations continued to the end of the war?
 
In case you did not see the earlier post here is the image from the arch of Titus.
 
 
There is no other prophecy in the bible that I can think of where we have such a graphic picture of its fulfillment.
 
The leader of the rebellion was taken to Rome and put to death in front of the statue of Jupiter, before Titus could enter Rome in triumph.  It is interesting to note that that same lump of metal is now worshiped in Rome under the name of Peter.
 
Titus was a prince.  His father was Emperor but Josephus constantly refers to Titus as "Caesar" 
Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a "person" can "stand".  There is no ambiguity unless you force it.

 

Have you never heard of a standing army?

 

If this refers to a person standing in the temple, those in Judea and Jerusalem would not see it unless they were also in the temple.

 

Matt 24:15  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16  Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17  Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18  Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19  And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
 

(whoso readeth, let him understand:) The Christians would understand, Luke did,

 

Luke 21:20 ¶  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21  Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22  For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel 9:27
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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
 
cease-
 שָׁבַת shabath (shaw-bath') v.
1. to repose, i.e. desist from exertion
 
Thank you Covenanter and Invicta for all of your responses; it helps me to better understand where you are coming from. I believe the meaning of "cease" is clear...it is the stopping of an actual action, not the stopping of an adjective (effectiveness).
 
I humbly bow out of this discussion now. Thanks again...and Invicta, I trust you are feeling better after getting some rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26  ........ and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; ......
 
Do you deny that the prince did come and destroy the sanctuary?
 
26 continued........and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
 
And that the end came as suddenly as a flood and that desolations continued to the end of the war?
 
In case you did not see the earlier post here is the image from the arch of Titus.
 
 
There is no other prophecy in the bible that I can think of where we have such a graphic picture of its fulfillment.
 
The leader of the rebellion was taken to Rome and put to death in front of the statue of Jupiter, before Titus could enter Rome in triumph.  It is interesting to note that that same lump of metal is now worshiped in Rome under the name of Peter.
 
Titus was a prince.  His father was Emperor but Josephus constantly refers to Titus as "Caesar" 

 

 

I am looking at the passage itself and I see the order of events - if you want this to relate only to the AD70 destruction of the Temple it makes no difference to your or my position on the understanding of the order of events - the cutting off of Messiah, but not for Himself is OBviously the Crucifixion of Christ.

Then there is a war.

Then there is a covenant that is confirmed for one week - this implies the beginning of the week starts at the confirmation.

Then the sacrifice and OBlation cease.

 

You can argue about all sorts of side issues, but the order of events is plain, and it with absolute definition separates the death of Messiah from the ceasing of the sacrifice.

 

The 69 weeks ends with the cutting off of Messiah, then there is a war, then the covenant is confirmed for a week - if you can fit a war in between 69 and 70 and still have them continuous, then good for you - I have never heard of  war that lasted for no time at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the court of women?

 

There is supposed to be a court of women inside the court of gentiles - the Jews consider gentiles even lower than women.... ;)

The Court of Israel was the place for women and children. :)

 

96 A.D.  - John the Apostle:
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles
Rev 11:1-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then there is a covenant that is confirmed for one week - this implies the beginning of the week starts at the confirmation.

Then the sacrifice and OBlation cease.

You folk have repeatedly mentioned "a covenant" meaning a new, unspecified 7-year covenant that will be made by antichrist, who will renage on it mid-week.

 

 

 

Scripture says: he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Not "a covenant." Jesus did confirm the covenant during his ministry & through the Apostolic Gospel, until they were declared "uncircumcised." That did not end A 7-year covenant but it did end covenant people status for those who rejected THE covenant being confirmed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Do you reject what Isaiah & Amos prophesied - that ritual killing of animals is NOT sacrifice? The LORD did not think so.

 

The covenant stands, confirmed for all believers through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You folk have repeatedly mentioned "a covenant" meaning a new, unspecified 7-year covenant that will be made by antichrist, who will renage on it mid-week.



Scripture says: he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Not "a covenant." Jesus did confirm the covenant during his ministry & through the Apostolic Gospel, until they were declared "uncircumcised." That did not end A 7-year covenant but it did end covenant people status for those who rejected THE covenant being confirmed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you reject what Isaiah & Amos prophesied - that ritual killing of animals is NOT sacrifice? The LORD did not think so.

The covenant stands, confirmed for all believers through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


It is a covenant.
Which covenant is not important in the argument of timing.
The covenant is confirmed for one week - at the time of the confirmation of the covenant the "one week" begins.
This occurs after the war which itself cones after the cutting off of Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a covenant.
Which covenant is not important in the argument of timing.
The covenant is confirmed for one week - at the time of the confirmation of the covenant the "one week" begins.
This occurs after the war which itself cones after the cutting off of Messiah.

No  - it's THE covenant. The result of the covenant relationship is the oft-repeated expression:

I will be your God and you will be my people.

See Lev. 26:9-12 fulfilled in the Gospel, 2 Cor. 6:6 and in the NH&NE Rev. 21:3 

 

Why should a glorious prophecy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and and his salvation be downgraded to a prophecy of antichrist ?

 

As Hebrews explains so clearly, God's glorious covenant purposes for his people are fulfilled in his Son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - it's THE covenant. The result of the covenant relationship is the oft-repeated expression:
I will be your God and you will be my people.
See Lev. 26:9-12 fulfilled in the Gospel, 2 Cor. 6:6 and in the NH&NE Rev. 21:3

Why should a glorious prophecy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and and his salvation be downgraded to a prophecy of antichrist ?

As Hebrews explains so clearly, God's glorious covenant purposes for his people are fulfilled in his Son.


By your arguing about the covenant in particular your are sidestepping the issue of the timing inherent in the passage.

The timing is not dependent upon which covenant. The covenant is confirmed for a week - the phrasing indicates that this covenant is confirmed at the start of that week, which is the 70th week of the prophecy.
This confirmation occurs after Messiah is cut off, and the war following it has been ended.

Arguing over which covenant is a smokescreen to blur the prOBlem you have with the timing inherent in the passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prOBlem is believing that 70 weeks (of years) means 490 years, not 2,500 years & counting. And those years were completed (finished) in around AD 35.

 

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prOBlem is believing that 70 weeks (of years) means 490 years, not 2,500 years & counting. And those years were completed (finished) in around AD 35.

 

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

 

More smokescreen.....

 

I never mentioned 2500 years.

 

I am talking about the inherent order of events - 69 weeks, Messiah is cut off, war ending with flood, covenant is confirmed for a week, in the middle of that week the sacrifice ceases.

 

Messiah is cut off, the war ends before the covenant is confirmed, the last week starts with the confirmation of that covenant, and the sacrifice ceases in the middle of that week.

No mention of other time periods, not 10 days, not 10 years, not 70 years, not 700 years, not 2500 years - but the order is OBvious and simply stated, and the passage is blatantly plain about that order.

 

 

However, you have to fit a war in between Messiah being cut off after the 69th week, and the covenant being confirmed at the start of the 70th week.

The passage includes it; so must we.

And Messiah being cut off, and the sacrifice ceasing are also separate events in this passage.

 

What implications these things have is not at issue here - when reading the passage these things are plainly seen.

 

Therefore our understanding of events and timing must fit with these facts. But the passage itself does not comment further on other events or timing.

2500 years, 70 years, whatever, are just not in this passage.

7 weeks, 62 weeks, Messiah cut off, a war, a covenant confirmed for a week, the sacrifice ceases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More smokescreen.....

 

I never mentioned 2500 years.

 

I am talking about the inherent order of events - 69 weeks, Messiah is cut off, war ending with flood, covenant is confirmed for a week, in the middle of that week the sacrifice ceases.

 

Messiah is cut off, the war ends before the covenant is confirmed, the last week starts with the confirmation of that covenant, and the sacrifice ceases in the middle of that week.

No mention of other time periods, not 10 days, not 10 years, not 70 years, not 700 years, not 2500 years - but the order is OBvious and simply stated, and the passage is blatantly plain about that order.

 

 

However, you have to fit a war in between Messiah being cut off after the 69th week, and the covenant being confirmed at the start of the 70th week.

The passage includes it; so must we.

And Messiah being cut off, and the sacrifice ceasing are also separate events in this passage.

 

What implications these things have is not at issue here - when reading the passage these things are plainly seen.

 

Therefore our understanding of events and timing must fit with these facts. But the passage itself does not comment further on other events or timing.

2500 years, 70 years, whatever, are just not in this passage.

7 weeks, 62 weeks, Messiah cut off, a war, a covenant confirmed for a week, the sacrifice ceases.

I see what you are saying. The events of 26 &27 are consecutive, so the 70th week begins after the destruction. That forces an indefinite gap between 69 & 70.

 

That makes nonsense of the 70 week prophecy - we are still waiting, and 300 weeks have passed without week 70 appearing.

 

Whether Jesus' baptism or final entry marks "after 69 weeks" is not the argument. It is when the 70th begins. I believe God can count, so 70 must immediately follow 69. Verse 27 therefore describes the final week. Verse 26 prophesies the crucifixion and the destruction that followed the rejection of the Messiah - a 40 year period of grace. Then the events of week 70.  The covenant is confirmed by the Gospel, with many thousands believing and suffering rejection by the authorities. 

 

Finally, with Stephen's defence, accusing the Jewish authorities of offering corrupt sacrifices, and declaring them "uncircumcised" the week is finished. All that remains is the destruction and desolation, as prophesied in detail by the Lord. The Jerusalem Christians understood. Why is it such a matter of contention? 

 

The 70 weeks can be readily understood by Scripture. Why invent a futuristic fulfilment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the wall (and gates) of Jerusalem until the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem is 483 years,

which would bring us to 33 A.D.

Now, if the prophecy is fulfilled consecutively, then it must have been fulfilled by 40 A.D.

If not, then there is a "gap" and so it doesn't matter how long the gap is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the wall (and gates) of Jerusalem until the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem is 483 years,

which would bring us to 33 A.D.

Now, if the prophecy is fulfilled consecutively, then it must have been fulfilled by 40 A.D.

If not, then there is a "gap" and so it doesn't matter how long the gap is. 

 

And how exactly do you work out that timeline?

 

Henry Grattan Guinness, who was an astronomer of note and a writer on prophecy said that  From Artaxerxes to Jesus (I cannot remember what point in His ministry) was 490 lunar years and 490 solar years from Darius.  

 

Ptolemy on whose writings secular chronology is based gives the Persian Empire 205 years, whereas Jewish and Persian traditions give only about  55 years.

 

Ptolemy gives 10 or 11 Persian kings  after Cyrus, but Herodotus, Xenophon, and scripture give only four. 

 

First we read of Xerxes

 

Daniel 11:2  And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
 
Then Alexander
 
Daniel 11:3  And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4  And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
 
Herodotus only gives Artaxerxes as a Pro Rex for his father looking after the kingdom while Xerxes was on his Greek expedition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 40 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...