For those that like "end times" stuff here is something that I think is an interesting point of view. This info is good and doesn't really matter if your pre, post, mid, none, tribulations.

The line is in Daniel 9:27

Daniel 9:27
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

By looking at this line it is safe to assume that animal sacrification was included in the peace treaty. Apparently, for this to be added, one can conclude that it must of been pretty controversial around the world that it had to be added in the treaty. Treaties usually deinfe territories, weapon building (or denial), etc but they are going to add a clause that gives them the ability to do something that is controversial.
So it is safe to look at this sequence of events.

1. Animal sacrifications will start and controversy will take place. After a certain time...
2. It will be added in a peace treaty as a clause. THIS IS WHERE THE 7 years begin when signed (or enforced).
3. 3 1/2 into it the anti-Chirst breaks and blah blah blah.


So before anyone starts looking at middle east peace treaties telling others "here it comes...."
We have to let the animal sacrifications begin and the uproar start. That just sets it up for it to be inserted in the treaty.

Maybe many of you knew this?
Then this is for those that didn't.

I usually am late with information.

Hi C-Los,

If Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus Christ, as millions of Christians have believed for centuries, then it was Jesus that caused the need for the sacrificing of animals to cease by His one time sacrifice. He said ... it is finished.

However, what you say about a peace treaty is a very popular teaching today.

Daniel 9:27 is not talking about Jesus Christ.

"Daniel 9:27 is not talking about Jesus Christ"

Daniel 9:27 is talking about Jesus Christ.

Well, that was not too difficult to settle was it.

I believe it is a two part prophecy. It is talking about Jesus Christ, but the end that is decreed will be further fulfilled when the beast and false prophet are thrown into the burning lake of fire, and then Satan himself will join them after 1000 years. These two part prophecies are further evidenced when Jesus went in the temple to read, and stopped in the middle of the verse, leaving the last part open for future fulfillment.

Luke 4:16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[e] 20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."




Isaiah 61

The Year of the LORD's Favor
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor (fulfilled)


and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,

(read more)

ok when you see that (daniel 9:27). follow him then.
hope things turn out well...

Thank you C-Los. However, I prefer to follow Jesus rather than that wicked deceptive "interpretation" introduced by John Nelson Darby a 100 or so years ago.

Hmm ... seems to me this is the same guy that introduced the "secret rapture", the "gap theory" and dispensationalism.

Regarding Darby, Newton remarked, "The secret rapture was bad enough, but this (dispensationalism) was worse."

I can honestly say that I don't know who Darby or Newton are but have read what the gap theory is.

As for despensationalism, well....my bible is divided by "Old and New Testament." So I guess I am a dispensationalist.
yay?

Daniel 11 also talks about the ceasing of the sacrifice and the events around it in far more detail. I don't need Darby to tell me that these events have not happened yet. Mind you this does not mean for a moment that I believe in a 'secret rapture', dispensationalism, and gap theory.

That NIV that you are quoting from is most likely part of that abomination. See how those miserable people have made the Lord sound like the culprit. But wisdom is justified of all her children.

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.

the online bible dictionary defaults to NIV. im more into KJV.
i just thought I'd share something that many here knew but I never thought someone would say that Jesus Christ would be cause of the desolation.
with so many different beliefs nowadays, it's going to be a mess at the end of his chapter.

QUOTE(c-los medrano @ Mar 9 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]104780[/snapback]

[/b]

The antecedent of the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is Messiah of verse 26! Do we attribute to some fictional Anti-Christ the once-for-all atoning work of our Lord? There is nothing is this passage about a "peace treaty." There is nothing in this passage about "the anti-Christ (nor is there any mention of Anti-Christ in the Revelation)! Where does it ever say that animal sacrifices are to start again? This is an assumption, a BIG assumption on the part of futurists. Jesus, initially through His atoning death on the cross and ultimately through the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in AD 70, put an end to sacrifices and sin offerings once and for all!

JESUS and JESUS alone put an end to sacrifices and sin offerings. He predicted this in His pronouncement of woes upon those hypocritical, adulterous, white-washed, brood of serpent Jews of His day! THEIR house was to be left unto them desolate. It was His first-century, pre-AD 70 disciples who were told by Jesus Himself that THEY would see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet! Why do we seek another?

Please, I implore you to be careful, lest any of us should strip Jesus of any of His mighty works and attribute them to the works of the devil!

Preterist

the scripture before says:
daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

now let me bold who "he" is because it's not the Messiah.
daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

If I were to say that the "prince" is Jesus Christ then I would have to say that this scripture said "Christ shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Christ didn't do that...the Romans did that in AD 70.

I'm not even going to go into that because it seems as though minds have already made decisions.
As i told Calvin, when you see this "Messiah" stop sacrifications you are more than welcomed to stand by his side. it's a free world.

There you go with that 70 AD nonsense again Russ. 70 AD has no significance whatsoever. The destruction of a nonbelieveing bunch has nothing to do with "Who the the new testament was written to". All of the apostles died at different times away from Jerusalem and had nothing to do with the Satanic people who destroyed Jerusalem. Those Satanic types and their children are still in charge of the nations today. The books of Saint John were written after 70 AD anyway. It was not about nonbelieving Jews after Christ came and changed the covenant from law to faith. And here is the truth about the anti-christ.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

So you see Russ the Anti-Christ is still in charge and very much alive. God has not put an end to him yet but He will just as He Promissed.

38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

C-Los, you stated in part:

"If I were to say that the "prince" is Jesus Christ then I would have to say that this scripture said "Christ shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Christ didn't do that ... the Romans did that in 70 AD."

You then stated ... "I'm not even going to go into that because it seems as though minds have already made decisions."

C-Los, I have been searching for scholars prior to John Darby that taught what you believe about Daniel 9:27 ...so far, none to this point in time.

Perhaps you are a Hebrew scholar and know more about this subject than I, as I am only a Joe Blow believer.

Here is a partial list of minds that made their decision that Jesus Christ is the subject of verse 27 and not ... some future Antichrist.

And please do not think for a moment that these scholars (and some among them Hebrew scholars) and dedicated born again Bible believers were unaware of the preceding verse 26.

The Geneva Bible Translators
Adam Clark Commentary
Jamieson, Brown and Faucett
Mede and Graser
E.B. Elliott
Charles Spurgeon
John Wesley
John Calvin
Matthew Henry
Gratton Guinness
Uriah Smith
Philip Mauro
Isaac Newton

You have been informed in love.
I pray that He, Jesus Christ, grant you discernment in this matter.

Calvin,
Never heard of any of those people. Sorry I'm not a person that gets into others teachings because when I am judged I will be responsible for the actions I took and don't want to feel as though my "beliefs" revolved around some scholar or theologian. Theologians are sinners just like you and I. they may have a foundation for you to build on but they aren't perfect. I am not saying I haven't built on anything I have read from a theologian but I question EVERYONE. I want to know why i believe in certain things.
with that said, I can tell you that I'm studying to be a theologian but still have a way to go. Would I say I am a "beginner?" Nope.

Never got into the "I pray that He, Jesus Christ, grant you discernment in this matter." Because Christ reveals to all through His word.
So I will give you some scriptures and hopefully you may read them side to side.
You can dedicate 15 minutes to meditate on them and give it a chance or you can side on the writers you wrote about and discard it since they never talked about it. Just because someone never talks about something doesn't mean it's not true. There will always be room for continual growth.
here ya go:
Scripture is in black, Christ is in red.

Daniel 9: 27And 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.

Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
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:)
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

so two things can happen here.
you will totally disregard what I posted without giving what I said an investigative chance.
or it can spark curiousity that you'd ask more questions.

Now if you feel Christ is in Daniel 9:27. Why would Christ say about that moment "Matthew 24:23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. "
Christ is still talking about that moment that Daniel is speaking about.

Again, Daniel 9:26 involves Christ (Messiah) but ends the scripture with the "Prince" (insert whatever evil name you like).

it's a free world. you do what your studies have told you to do.
God bless you

QUOTE(calvin @ Mar 11 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]105051[/snapback]

[/b]

Calvin: Were you referring to Philip Mauro's great book, The Seventy Weeks and The Great Tribulation? I have read that book and was greatly enlightened by it.

Preterist

Take a look at this article,

http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/peopleofprince.html

While the article was not addressing issues in this thread but dealing with the popular theory that Antichrist is to be a Roman, you can find in there different translations and interpretations attached to Dan 9:26 (which also implies who is the "he" in Daniel 9:27). It should help bring understanding to this discussion.

I have always been bothered by this parenthesis between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel. To me the Bible does not work this way. Why would God give a prescribed timeframe and insert a indeterminate period bang in the middle of it. No such indeterminate dispensation is indicated anywhere in the text.

As for Mauro's book. I just don't get it. I read through most of it and could not find how he calculates 483 years between cyrus' decree to rebuild the walls of jerusalem until the Lord's commencement of his ministry 3.5 years before his crucifixion.
Cyrus died in 530 BC so there must be far more than 483 years between these events.

I admit that I am utterly confused about the 70 week prophecy. As of yet nobody has been able to explain it to me to my satisfaction.

Yes Judy, Mauro was one amazing Christian. I mailed a copy to a futurist and she commented that she learned more from that one book than years of her personal study.

If you like Mauro, you would likely enjoy "Great Prophecies of the Bible" by Ralph Woodrow, and "The Israel Of God" by O. Palmer Robertson.

QUOTE(calvin @ Mar 13 2007, 02:07 AM) [snapback]105231[/snapback]

Yes Judy, Mauro was one amazing Christian. I mailed a copy to a futurist and she commented that she learned more from that one book than years of her personal study.

If you like Mauro, you would likely enjoy "Great Prophecies of the Bible" by Ralph Woodrow, and "The Israel Of God" by O. Palmer Robertson.

Thanks, Calvin. I'll check them out.

Judy

Trouble is he is wrong at the most fundamental level and that is that there are far more than 490 years between the decree of Cyrus and the death of Christ. He sidesteps this issue in shameless fashion. If he is wrong at this most fundamental point there is a high likelihood that he is entirely wrong on every point.
The other thing that all writers who try to link the 70 week prophecy to Christ do err is that they say that the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks which is translated to 483 years. However it does not say that he was cut off after 69 weeks, it says he was cut off after 62 weeks.

The fact that these prophecies make completely and utterly no sense, indicates to me that these events are yet in the future although I cannot fathom how they will be fulfilled from other passages in the Bible. The angel said that these words and the meaning of them are sealed up until the time of the end. This is proof that we are not yet at the time of the end because NOBODY understands what they mean. In fact Christianity is just making fools of themselves trying to match them to Christ. The Jews scoff at our interpretations and rightly so. In fact nobody in the early church tried to match these prophecies to Christ until the 300's AD. Surely the early church who spoke to Christ would be in a better position to claim Christ fulfilling prophecy than people 300 or 2000 years later. Jesus himself many times pointed out how he was fulfilling scripture and never once mentioned Daniel with regards to him being the Messiah the Prince of Daniel 9. Surely this would have been THE MOST persuasive evidence if he could point to an exact year of his appearing.

It was not until Darby of the 1800's that the fanciful and quite ridiculous parenthesis between the 69th and 70th week was invented. This is nothing more than a carving up of scripture bending it to suit the argument. Such shameless abuse of the scripture would not be tolerated in any other passage of the Bible however masses of Christians believe this errant nonsense today.

That a three and a half year tribulation will occur at the end of days is clearly demonstrated elsewhere in scripture without carving up Dan 9. Aberrating Dan 9 introduces a spurious 7 year tribulation found nowhere else in scripture.

[quote name='excubitor' date='Mar 14 2007, 06:36 PM' post='105437']
[Trouble is he is wrong at the most fundamental level and that is that there are far more than 490 years between the decree of Cyrus and the death of Christ.

How do you know there are "far more than 490 years between the decree of Cyrus and the death of Christ?"

Preterist

Because Cyrus died in 530 BC the decree to rebuild the temple and jerusalem was given in 539 B.C
Christ died at about 33 AD.
That makes 572 years between when the decree was issued and the messiah was cut off, not 483 years.

QUOTE(excubitor @ Mar 14 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]105456[/snapback]

QUOTE(Preterist @ Mar 15 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]105455[/snapback]

How do you know there are "far more than 490 years between the decree of Cyrus and the death of Christ?"

Because Cyrus died in 530 BC the decree to rebuild the temple and jerusalem was given in 539 B.C
Christ died at about 33 AD.
That makes 572 years between when the decree was issued and the messiah was cut off, not 483 years.

Whose dates are these?

Preterist

These are secular dates agreed by all Bible scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks which says
A decree permitting rebuilding of the 2nd Temple (Ezra 1:2-4) issued by Cyrus in the first year of his reign (539-536 BC, depending on reckoning system)

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in ALL THE WORLD for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

... the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven ... Col 1:23

His Word says that the gospel WAS preached to every creature under heaven ... "was" is past not future.

It was preached unto all the world and then the end came. The desolating destruction of the city, temple and sacrificial system. This was God's "day of vengeance" upon the Jews for their rejection of His Son's one time sacrifice.

When you therefore shall see that abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, STAND in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Christian historians have said that the abomination of desolation was the "STANDING" Roman army which encircled the "holy city" ... then completely destroyed it, leaving it an utter desolation.

The Jewish historian Josephus, an eye witness to the event, said that it was a fulfillment of Daniel.

It is said that the Jews that received Jesus as their Messiah, heeded Jesus' warning 30-40 years earlier, and when the standing army unexpectedly withdrew for a period of time, they fled to the mountains of Pella.

Did the Roman armies come on their own, or did God cause them to come and fulfill His "day of vengeance" upon a city, temple and people that rejected His Son?

He that hath an ear, let him hear

I noticed that you made no comment on your favoured author Mauro being completely up the creek with his exposition on Daniel's 70 Weeks. You should check up on your Christian historians a bit better. I find it almost unbelievable that someone could read this book cover to cover and not notice this glaring error on Mauro's part and go forth expounding the wondrous virtues of the book and the author to others. How gullible people are, believing what they read because it seems wise and yet not even making the most elementary of enquiries or checks to verify what they are being told is the truth.

Personally, I desperately wish that there were 483 years between the decree and the crucifixion, then I would understand the prophecy. But to hide the facts, or twist them to make them fit our favoured views is disgraceful. In fact it's a lie. Christians of all people should be lovers of the truth.

[quote name='excubitor' date='Mar 14 2007, 11:38 PM' post='105474']

Preterist
[/quote]
These are secular dates agreed by all Bible scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks which says
A decree permitting rebuilding of the 2nd Temple (Ezra 1:2-4) issued by Cyrus in the first year of his reign (539-536 BC, depending on reckoning system)
[/quote]

Not all scholars, but most. But the dates are all based upon speculative calendars and dating. None of them can be proven. There is much biblical evidence supporting Cyrus' decree. I prefer to count backwards from what we know to determine when Cyrus lived then count forward to Christ based upon unsupportable, man-made calendars. It does not matter how many scholars believe something if their source(s) is (are) the same! The same is true of the dating of Revelation. Who cares how many "scholars" or church fathers believe it was written in AD 95 if they are ALL basing their arguments on one source--Irenaeus! Similarly, those Bible scholars who agree on the secular dates agree on the basis of limited and similar sources. Are the sources reliable and fully substantiated?

Preterist

QUOTE(excubitor @ Mar 15 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]105539[/snapback]

I noticed that you made no comment on your favoured author Mauro being completely up the creek with his exposition on Daniel's 70 Weeks. You should check up on your Christian historians a bit better. I find it almost unbelievable that someone could read this book cover to cover and not notice this glaring error on Mauro's part and go forth expounding the wondrous virtues of the book and the author to others. How gullible people are, believing what they read because it seems wise and yet not even making the most elementary of enquiries or checks to verify what they are being told is the truth.

Personally, I desperately wish that there were 483 years between the decree and the crucifixion, then I would understand the prophecy. But to hide the facts, or twist them to make them fit our favoured views is disgraceful. In fact it's a lie. Christians of all people should be lovers of the truth.

Excubitor: Did you notice all the verses Calvin quoted? Would you like to deal with Scripture rather than simply, through your own opinions, attempt to discredit someone? Have you read Mauro's book? If not, you should not judge it because you are then making a judgment upon insufficient data! Why don't you prove, with SCRIPTURE, why Mauro is wrong? Mauro has a "glaring" error because he does not accept without question the man-made, unsupportable, and unsubstantiated calendars upon which "scholars" created their dates!

Have YOU checked the authenticity of the dates you cling to so tenaciously? I think it is gullibility on your part to unquestioningly accept these unproven calendars and then judge the clear teachings of Scripture with them!

What is not clear to you about this:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." (Daniel 9).

Does Daniel clearly say that "after the sixty-two weeks "Messiah shall be cut off?" Notice that it does not say there would be 483 between the decree and the crucifixion; it says UNTIL Messiah. It is only after the 483 years that Messiah is cut off. This is not a "favored" view, Excubitor. This is the plain teaching of the Word of God!

I vehemently agree with Mauro when he says "there is no chronology in existence of the period from Cyrus to Christ except in the Bible!" Despite the plain and clear teachings of the Word of God concerning Cyrus, people prefer to reject it because certain men have created calendars that "disprove" it! This is "twisting" facts in order to support one's "favored" view!

What saith the Scriptures?

2 Chronicles 36:22, 23--"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded ME to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah."

Ezra 1:1-4--"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God has given me. And He has commanded ME to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah."

Isaiah 44:28--"Who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, "You shall be built," and to the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

Isaiah 45:1, 13--"Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held . . . . I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways; HE shall build My city and let My exiles go free."

Yet, in spite of these clear statements by God, many Christians say "No, it can't be Cyrus! According to all "Bible" scholars Cyrus didn't live at the right time. God must have meant someone else!" And this you do NOT consider "disgraceful?"

Again, I ask--Have YOU read Mauro cover to cover so that you can accurately understand for yourself (not necessarily agree with) his positions? Otherwise, I really do not think you should criticize him. If you have read his book, could you please be more specific (actual quotations) about the things about which you find disagreement?

Preterist

"I noticed that you made no comment on your favoured author Mauro being completely up the creek with his exposition on Daniel's 70 weeks."

Excubitor ... my post was not in reference to Mauro. C-Los had asked me to meditate on Matthew 24.

One of Mauro's conclusions was that Daniel 9:27 was about Jesus. In that you believe Mauro was "completely up the creek" ... therefore, should I conclude that you believe it is about some "future antichrist"?

Believe me this is the first thought that I had. I was desperate therefore to find evidence that that there was 483 years between the cyrus decree and the crucifixion of Christ. This would have Cyrus living and ruling at around 453 BC. Nobody thinks that. I scoured the Internet and found nothing like that.

Perhaps you can help and provide EVEN ONE source that thinks Cyrus lived and ruled in 453 BC. I guarantee you will find NOT ONE. Nor are these dates even the least speculative. The persians were very organised and kept meticulous records of events in their realm, recording the position of the sun and moon. Ptolemy used these astronomical records to calculate precisely the dates which these events of Cyrus occurred.

In fact so certain is the date of Cyrus conquering Babylon set at 539 BC that this date is considered a pivotal date in the Old Testament from which very many other biblical events may be derived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_chronology

The fact is that if you want to use the Bible alone to date every chronological event, you will NOT be able to. Obviously if we are to have a Bible Chronology at all we must resort to secular datings.


I see that you are using every mechanism you can muster to avoid the issue I have raised. If you want to quote Mauro as being your support for arguments relating to Matthew 24 then you must be prepared to have that author scrutinised.

As I have shown Mauro is WRONG at the most very fundamental point of his argument. His testimony therefore must be considered completely flawed.

QUOTE(excubitor @ Mar 15 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]105547[/snapback]

Believe me this is the first thought that I had. I was desperate therefore to find evidence that that there was 483 years between the cyrus decree and the crucifixion of Christ. This would have Cyrus living and ruling at around 453 BC. Nobody thinks that. I scoured the Internet and found nothing like that.

Perhaps you can help and provide EVEN ONE source that thinks Cyrus lived and ruled in 453 BC. I guarantee you will find NOT ONE. Nor are these dates even the least speculative. The persians were very organised and kept meticulous records of events in their realm, recording the position of the sun and moon. Ptolemy used these astronomical records to calculate precisely the dates which these events of Cyrus occurred.

In fact so certain is the date of Cyrus conquering Babylon set at 539 BC that this date is considered a pivotal date in the Old Testament from which very many other biblical events may be derived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_chronology

The fact is that if you want to use the Bible alone to date every chronological event, you will NOT be able to. Obviously if we are to have a Bible Chronology at all we must resort to secular datings.

As I have shown Mauro is WRONG at the most very fundamental point of his argument. His testimony therefore must be considered completely flawed.

You have NOT shown him wrong. I used Scripture, Excubitor. What did God mean in the verses I provided concerning Cyrus? If Cyrus was clearly told by God that He was to issue a commandment to rebuild and restore Jerusalem and from that time there would be 483 years until Messiah, should that not be our primary method of dating? It is not the Word of God that must be conformed to Ptolemy's or Ussher's or Anstey's chronologies but Ptolemy and Ussher and Anstey and all those "scholars" who appeal to them who must conform to God's Word! "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4)."

There is a growing number of those who are also questioning Ptolemy's faulty dating. There are many who agree with them, though you would probably question their "scholarship."

1. From BRM (biblicalresearch.info/page39.html) "Since Gabriel said that the initial date of the 490-year period was the year for the issuing of the decree to restore Jerusalem, and since Cyrus issued that decree, we may be certain that this 490-year prophetic period began with Cyrus's issuing the decree, which was proclaimed in the year 536 B.C. according to the Ussher chronology; but, since, as we learn in Daniel 9:25 and 26, the Messiah would be cut off after 483 years (seven weeks and three score and two weeks), and since the Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ) was crucified in 30 A.D., there were more than 483 years from 536 B.C. to 30 A.D. The facts are that there are 82 years too many between these two dates of the Ussher chronology. Is there a mistake in Daniel's prophecy? I answer with a most emphatic denial. God's word is infallibly inspired and is accurate in every detail. But Daniel's prediction does not coincide with the chronology which we accept. Obviously there must be a mistake in the received chronology. All who have studied the basis of the current chronology know that it is founded upon the Ptolemaic system of dating. Ptolemy, the heathen astronomer and chronologer, simply made the wrong calculation and devised a system of dating which contradicts the plainly written Word of God. We of the modern world have accepted a chronology that was worked out by a heathen philosopher. Which shall we then take, that which God has infallibly inspired or that which a heathen chronologer has given to us? As for me, I choose God's infallible Word. I therefore am convinced that this period of 483 years from the issuing of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem to the execution of the Messiah is an interval of only 483 years. We must therefore discard the current chronology for the biblical record.

2. Ron Wallace, biblefragrances.com/studies/70thweek.html. "A thorough study on "who" issued the decree as it relates to the Persian king lists, the Jewish king list for Persia, and the Ptolemic king list for Persia will resolve the apparent problem concerning where the 483 years can fit. It is resolved by accepting the Jewish king list for the Persian Empire instead of Ptolemy's king list which is highly suspect as to its accuracy. What it amounts to is adjusting the "BC" dates to accommodate the "true" biblical chronology which "must" begin with the decree of Cyrus."

Preterist

Good response,
Thanks for this, I will look into this further.

Good find Preterist ... you go girl!

Excubitor ... I did not quote Mauro in my post to C-Los. If you wish to scrutinize the author, check out the writer of Matthew and Colossians.

Still waiting to hear if you believe that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is some future antichrist ... are you avoiding the question?

i am totally confused on who youre asking what to whom.

I am certain that Dan 9:27 refers to a future antichrist and certainly have no need to avoid any question.
Firstly I will address Mauro's ludicrous claim that the "he" is Jesus Christ.
Now remember that Gabriel is talking to Daniel to help him understand the vision which he has just had in Chapter 8 saying to him "23 therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision". In fact the whole reason Daniel was distressed and praying and fasting was because the vision was disturbing and he did not understand it.

8:15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man

So lets go back to Chapter 8 which describes Daniels vision of the Ram and the Goat.
In this vision he describes a little horn which is described with Satanic imagery "8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host [3] of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground" akin to the luciferic rebellion. Now what does this "He" do?
1. Magnifies himself as if he is the prince of the host. This shows that the He and the prince of the host are different entities
2. Takes away the daily sacrifice
3. Sets up a transgression of desolation
4. Tramples the sanctuary and the host for 2300 days after which it is cleansed

Now I am utterly certain that this "He" is not Jesus Christ the Messiah and is an antiChrist opposed to Christ future to Daniel.

Now according to our esteemed and hopelessly incorrect Mauro. The "He" in Dan 9:27 is Jesus Christ the Messiah who confirmed the New Covenant, caused the Jewish sacrifices to be redundant. I can't remember how he explains how he made desolations or what he made desolate.
Anyway, Mauro having claimed that the "He" in Daniel 9:27 who
1. Also destroys the city and sanctuary.
2. Also causes the daily sacrifice to cease.
3. Also abominates or transgresses to cause desolation.
is Jesus then he must, in order to be consistent, also believe that the little horn "He" in Daniel 8:9-14 is also Jesus Christ .

Clearly therefore the "He" of Dan 9:27 and 8:9-14 is an evil entity diametrically opposed to all that is Holy and especially opposed to Christ, an anti-Christ if you will. So who is he? He could be antiochus epiphenes, but we know he is not because Christ repeated the prophecy, predicting a yet future abomination of desolation.

So it could be Titus barging in on Jerusalem in 70 AD. He did destroy the daily sacrifice and cause desolation. You could even say his army abominated the holy sanctuary by standing there.
However there are massive differences between Titus and the little horn of Dan 8 and the "He" in 9:27.

They are:
1. Titus DID NOT institute a covenant with many
2. Titus DID NOT stand up against the "Prince of Hosts" or "Prince of Princes" which I think we all agree is Jesus Christ Messiah
3. Titus DID NOT trample the sanctuary for 2,300 years returning to Rome less than a year later
4. Titus was never destroyed out of hand but returned to Rome as emporer

Most importantly and strikingly, the sanctuary WAS NEVER CLEANSED. Not after 2,300 days, and is still desolate to this day. If we want to insist that the "He" is Titus then we had better be consistent and apply the day for a year principle and expect the sanctuary to be cleansed in 2370 AD and not before.

It is very clear to me that "the one who takes away the daily sacrifice" is definitely not Titus, and especially when we add in the very many other reference in various places in the Bible which describe this abominator who takes away the daily sacrifice and who opposes the saints of God and Christ himself.

And all of the tribes of the earth mourned and saw the Lord come riding on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory?

I am here to tell you that the time is very short It is time to get real or get out.

Well I have done quite a bit of research and there is no question that the received chronology is based on very shaky Greek history and is opposed to the Jewish chronology. So I admit that I was wrong on this point and am very pleased to have been corrected and learn some very important and critical information.

What stuns me is that there are so many mountains of 70 week Christian literature that relies entirely on these shaky modern chronologies. Surely as Christians we should place more credo with the Jewish chronology than the Greek. In fact the modern accepted chronology is completely at odds with the Bible. The Bible in Dan 11:2 says that there were three Persian kings.
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth (counting also the current king Darius the Mede) shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

So the chronology should be Darius the Mede - Cyrus the Great - Cambyses (Artaxerses) - Darius the Great (Darius the Persian also called Artaxerses/Ahaseurus in Ezra and Nehemiah).

It seems that the Greeks were not aware that Artaxerses was a general title for persian kings. Ahaseurus is a chaldean version of the persian title of Artaxerses. The modern chronology does not even mention the character of Darius the Mede which the book of Daniel records as having taken Babylon Dan 5:30-6:1 . This alone proves the conventional chronology to be entirely unreliable.

This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_weeks
although it uses conventional chronology it proves that Artaxerses of Ezra and Nehemiah must have been Darius. This is because the Artaxerses of Nehemiah ruled for at least 32 years and the decree was in his twentieth year. Given that many of the priests which came up from Babylon at the decree of Cyrus were still alive in the 20th year of Artaxerses then it would be impossible for them to be alive if they had left Babylon in their 30's, lived through Cambyses reign of 7 years and Darius the Greats 35 years of reign and survived until the 20th year of Xerses reign (As Josephus contends) or the 20th year of Artaxerses Longimanus (as conventional chronology contends). Also it is quite erroneus to imagine that the temple was built and then sat for 60- 100 years waiting for the city and the walls to be built to defend it.

The conventional chronology has over ten persian kings http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html
and has Darius III being conquered by Alexander the Great instead of Darius I.

Now for poor Christians desperately trying to make Daniels 70 weeks work out you would think this is good news, however it is not. The Jewish chronology makes for a 369 BC decree of cyrus. 62 * 7 years takes us to 65AD for the cutting off of the Messiah, 69*7 years takes us to 114 AD and 70*7 takes us to 121AD which is almost as far out as the conventional chronology.

So therefore Christians have to conclude that the Jewish chronology is also incorrect and that the Jews cooked the book to make 490 years between the destruction of the first temple and the destruction of the second. In fact I found one error in the Jewish chronology. We know from Daniel that it was seventy years from destruction of the first temple until the decree to rebuild it. And yet the Jews have only provided about 50 in their chronology.

So basically as Christians we must conclude that the chronologies are in disarray. Having said that we are then in no position to say that Daniels 70 weeks is a proven fulfillment of prophecy because we have no reliable authority as to when the counting of those 70 weeks should be started. Without an independantly verifiable starting point the prophecy is quite useless to us. If the Bible is to be our authority on chronology we are also sunk because there is simply inadequate information in the Bible to establish a chronology. The chronological period of the persian kings is sketchy at best and non-existent for the Greek and Hamonean periods.

Now one final point. Preterist here argues from the wrong position. He states that because the Bible says that there are 490 years between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the cutting off of Messiah the prince that therefore we should reject all established chronologies. However the Bible does not say this. First of all we are supposing that the messiah is cut off after 69 weeks and not after 62. We are assuming that cut off but not of himself means the crucifixion of Christ. We are assuming that Messiah the prince means Christ when Messiah simply means "anointed one". Just way too many assumptions being made here to warrant tossing out all chronologies. If the 69 weeks really did coincide with an unshakeable chronology then we might be induced to make these assumptions but instead we are left without a leg to stand on.


Even if we conclude that there are 69 septets between the decree and Christ it leaves us (if we are to treat the scriptures properly) to find a covenant confirmed for one week which is broken in the middle of the week in order to stop the daily sacrifice. Clearly nothing like this happened in the seven years after Christ's crucifixion. So Christians make up scores of theories desperately trying to salvage their theory that Messiah the Prince is Jesus. Futurists utterly debauch the scriptures by inserting a parenthesis between the 69th and 70th weeks where absolutely none is suggested and where all logic denies that such a treatment of scripture could be possible. Preterists utterly debauch the scriptures by saying that the Messiah was cut off at his baptism at the end of the 69th week and give him the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8 and have Jesus breaking covenants in the 70th week.

So as I said before, we are left without a leg to stand on. An unconvincing chronology and a vague prophecy describing events and timelines which do not match anything in recorded history as of yet. As far as I am concerned we must assume the following:
1. The prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus Ephines and the anointed one was the High Priest Onias who was murdered by Antiochus and who desecrated the temple 3 years later (unlikely); or
2. The prophecy was fulfilled by some other ancient event that we have no independent record of; or
3. The prophecy is yet unfulfilled and relies on a future end time 70 week event which we cannot even fathom at this stage; or
4. The prophecy has utterly failed.

it seems that people want to push this away, like some kind of theoretical debate...not!
the kingdom of God is at hand...no matter if we agree on it's coming or not...
how can anyone not discern the times...the fulfilling of the prophetic is upon us and the
Bible is becoming our diary...and our daily planner...maybe, i don't hear ya all so closely,
but i am hearing the Lord, and i think we should be joining together in prayer and
calling out to Him.

if i was a teacher, i would teach. if i was a preacher, i would preach. i am called to pray,
so that is what i do...a mandatory pray-er to God.

Father,

we know that many things are now coming quickly, even as we call out to you. may all that
are called by your name drop their defenses and offenses and seek you. let no one stand
on past accomplishments for they are now gone, and let no one stand on yesterday, for it is
no longer with us. let us see a blessing in the land of the living, and give you honor and
glory and praise for Your work at the cross is complete, and we are the children of your grace.

bless all that read this. for those that have not decided to follow you, yet, may it come upon
them now...that your love and sacrifice is there. Jesus will receive you, now, with a simple
prayer of repentance. how it works? ask Jesus to forgive your sins, and to come into your
heart now, and cleanse you. this is a new beginning...if you want it, take it now...
He is there for you.

QUOTE

Thank you, excubitor for the very interesting information. I appreciate your desire for truth and willingness to "dig" deeper--attributes sorely lacking in far too many "students" of the Scriptures.

As far as the making of a covenant, here is something to consider. There is no "for" in the Hebrew text. Here is the verse as it is translated into English from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT [forgive me if you already know this. I simply wish to be clear]):

"And one week shall establish the covenant with many; and in the midst of the week My sacrifice
and drink offering shall be taken away; and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation; and
at the end of the time (the age) an end shall be put to the desolation."

The meaning, then, is not that the confirmation of the covenant lasts FOR a period of seven years but rather that it occurs WITHIN the time-span of the seven years. To illustrate, if I say that in 2008 I will visit my friend in Hawaii, do I mean that my visit will last for the entire year? No. Because if I visit my friend in June of 2008, I have fulfilled my promise even though there are still six months remaining in the year. In the same way, the confirmation of the covenant was to occur IN the one week and not FOR the duration of the one week. When was this covenant confirmed--the covenant in His blood? See Hebrews 9 and Matthew 26:28). Furthermore, the new covenant in His blood is an eternal covenant (Hebrews 13:20). Christ does not confirm it for seven years but forever.

I also do not see any gap in Daniel's seventy weeks. Accusations are made against preterists who denounce futurists for their postponement theories because as futurists claim that preterists themselves have a gap between Christ's death and AD 70. But is there a gap? As Daniel clearly states, the 70 weeks and their events are determined. In other words, the events themselves do not all have to actually occur within the seventy weeks--they simply have to be determined. In particular, was not the abomination of desolation determined by Christ to happen (Matthew 23:38; Matthew 24:15)? It occurred some forty years later but it was DETERMINED (within the 70 weeks) that it would happen. In conclusion, the seventy weeks of years are consecutive.

It is the things of Daniel 9:24 that are determined. Those things spoken of in verses 26b and 27 do not immediately follow the cutting off of the Messiah. Verse 26b simply begins with "and." From here there is a projection into the future (AD 70) and then in verse 27 there is a return to the confines of the 70 weeks. There is nothing in these two verses which demands that the events spoken are consecutive or that they immediately follow one another. However one understands these verses, there is nothing in them that indicates a discontinuity in the 70 weeks, especially one involving thousands of years. I believe that it is a matter of speculation to find in these verses a coming "Antichrist" who will sit in a rebuilt temple and commit the "abomination of desolation." This is clearly reading into the text something that is not there.

I look forward to hearing your understanding of these things, Excubitor. While we might not agree, I do enjoy your thoughtful and respectful treatment of Scripture. I think we are both seekers of truth.

In Christ, Preterist

Unfortunately, this translation is an English translation (your own? looks similar to Brenton's) of the Greek LXX (which one? Old Greek or Theodotian's?). That's twice removed.

You are correct that there is no "for" in the Hebrew text, but the Hebrew text also does not have "My" (no such pronomial suffix) and "temple" (the word means "wing").

And since gabar (establish, confirm) is in the Hiphil form (higbir, often indicating causative action), it is strange that "one week" is the subject of gabar in the above translation. It seems that "He shall establish/confirm" is a better translation.

The question, then is, who is this "he"? The only way is to look at the previous verse. Unfortunately, Dan 9:26 gives us two different persons: a Messiah in 9:26a and a prince (to come) in 9:26b, although the closest antecedent is that "prince (to come)". Depending on how you want to translate and interpret Dan 9:26, you end up with different ideas of who this "he" in Dan 9:27 will be.

Thanks for your kind words Preterist. I too have enjoyed your thought provoking posts and have benefited from them greatly.
I understood the point about the 70th week from Mauro's book however I was far from convinced. If I said to you I will vis