joelstrumpet

Is it possible to have a third temple built while the dome of the rock still stands? These people seem to think so: http://www.godsholymountain.org/index.html
The painting on the main web page is eery enough, and brings to mind this verse from Daniel 9:

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.

The people behind this site are observant Jews who want to find a common bond with Islam and Christianity, and have a place for all who worship one God to worship together. I think they're out to lunch, and I don't know how much influence this group has, but it is interesting.

I think it is sad that the people of this web site believe that the muslim's worship the same God that they worship. Do they truely believe that God called a new prophet called Mohammed and had a new book written to replace the law of the Torah? Is that what God would do?

I also find it sad that they don't seem to concider the Muslims role in this: in that they would NEVER share the temple mount with Jews and certainly would place no value in a Jewish prophet saying that they should. Their only goal concerning Jews is to remove them from the land of Israel. Not to share their holy Mount with unbelievers (non-Muslims such as Jews or Christians).

And as far as convincing the rest of the orthodox Jews that the Temple can be rebuilt in any other place but the original is a VERY farfetched idea.

Yep, out to lunch.

In Him
Norma

Socks,

Are you trying to get me started again!

I see you're quoting from the NIV. The use of the phrase "of the temple" in the second sentence is added by the commentators. Here is what the preface to an NIV Bible states:

To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. If there is uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets.

Go back and check your Bible...

Lol! Perdonado

That's why I once talked my father-in-law into giving me his NIV bible and replaced it with a different Bible. NIV should never be used as a study bible. Way too much has been changed or added to it.

It isn't just "of the Temple" that has been added but also abominations (plural) has been changed to "set up an abomination" These changes of course change the whole meaning of what the angel said to Daniel.


If I were going to paraphrase this part it is saying that when the abominations reach their highest point then will come one who makes desolate even to a complete destruction.

That is a reference to the previous verse. It was determined that the temple and city would come to a complete destruction.

it all starts with the word wing. Which is a reference to feathers, which the Hebrews are to cut the "corners" of their robes in fringes like that of a wing. So then the word took on the meaning of a "corner" Hence the corner of the of the walls of the temple compound became known as a wing of the temple. The corners were the pinnacles, or highest points. Probably because that is where the towers were located and because they were built to the edges of the mount and so were built over the valleys.


So to me the worst thing that the NIV did in the translating of this verse is to change abominations to "set up" an abomination. That doesn't just work around a tricky word like wing. That changes the whole meaning of what the angel was saying.

In Him
Norma

note of interest; The pinnacles of the temple that satan took Jesus to is presumed to be the southeast corner of the temple because it was the very highest point, looming over the Kidron valley.
pinnacle "pterygion" in Greek also means wing and the top of the temple.
1) a wing, a little wing
2) any pointed extremity
a) of fins of fishes
b) of part of a dress hanging down in the form of a wing
c) of the top of the temple at Jerusalem

socks,

Other translations of the Bible may be used to provide more straightforward insight into the reference to the temple assumed in the NIV translation of Daniel 9:27. If we analyze this scripture in detail and go back to the original Hebrew text written by Daniel, “of the temple” is not included. The NIV translation added this phrase to the translation. Two other translations, the King James Version and the Young’s Literal Translation, of the Hebrew scripture can be reviewed to verify this.

KJV 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.”

YLT (Young's Literal Translation) Daniel 9:27 “And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.”

As we can see from these translations, the use of “of the temple” is not added to the scripture. From the literal word-for-word translation performed by the YLT, we notice that “of the temple” is not in the original Hebrew text. Why would the translators of the NIV Bible have to assume that this is a reference to the temple?

The key words in the two translations above are “overspreading” and “wing”. The transliterated Hebrew word that is being interpreted is “kanaph” (Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary - Number: 3671), which can be used to mean wing, extremity, uttermost part, overspreading, edge, winged, border, corner, or skirt. The KJV decided to translate the word to “overspreading” which suggests a scattering of the abomination. Several of the other alternate meanings could be used to imply the same: extremity, uttermost part, edge, or border.

Perdonado,
I definitely do not want to go down that road again. I have been trying to impose on myself a kinder gentler socks (norma, I hope you've seen this) when it comes to debating prophecy; there's a lot of stuff that is still considered as falling under the pale of orthodoxy that makes me shake my head, so who am I to judge?

That being said, you still don't realize there's going to be a third temple?!?!!! I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL! Just kidding. I would say that the NIV translators said "of the temple" because where else would the sacrifices (that obviously are being performed) be ceased from? I suppose from the temple mount, or perhaps even a resurrected tabernacle, what are your thoughts?

I am still struck by Irenaeus' words of the antichrist sitting in the temple:

Against Heresies Book V, Chapter XXVIII.—The distinction to be made between the righteous and the wicked. The future apostasy in the time of Antichrist, and the end of the world: For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire:

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John who wrote Revelation. How much closer to the source can we get? And Irenaeus wrote this several years after the destruction of the second temple. Forgive the pun, but that must have taken some vision to write about a future temple that had no possibility of being built in his time. I know you've argued before that the temple of God is the minds of Christian believers, but do you think that's what Irenaeus thought it meant? Or Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2?




Pause for effect...





At any rate, the only reason I posted this is in the first place (Sorry to let you down, it honestly wasn't intended as round 3 in the temple debate, we disagree, should we see how much we disagree? Again?) is because I thought it was very interesting to see a group of Orthodox Jews who live in Israel, willing to reach out (read concede, or whatever it is dhimmi's do) to Islam. And even Christianity too! All three religions have; I'd say a history with Judaism and Christianity; Islam somewhat, Ishmael being the bastard son of Abraham

Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.

(great enough to destroy the world apparently), but I'm pretty sure there is no room in any of the three religions to think we are worshiping the same God. Yet here we have Orthodox Jews willing to reach out to the world. I just thought it was interesting...

I have been trying to impose on myself a kinder gentler socks (norma, I hope you've seen this)

A good goal for all of us.

I do have a little bit of trouble concerning what Irenaeus himself may have meant by the words "Temple of God". Did Irenaeus believe the Temple would be built quickly during the remainder of his life? Or is he speaking of it more in a symbolic sense.

I say this because of course there was no Temple at the time of Irenaeus. The last Jewish rebellion in Israel (Palestine) (135 AD) had taken place during Irenaeus' life with over 500,00 Jews killed and the remainder of the Jews being taken to Rome as slaves.

So no possibility of the temple being rebuilt in Irenaeus life time and yet Irenaeus spoke about the Roman empire being the Antichrist beast. Even inferring that he knew the name of the AC but should not say who it was.

"We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hidden in the number 666 in Rev.13:18], for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign."


So how was this antichrist that he believed he could identify as a leader of the Roman Empire be able to set in the temple of God, which did not exist?

Leads me to believe he was not referring to an actual re-built temple building.


Anyway something worth thinking about.

In Him
Norma

Excellent information Norma!

Also socks, I wouldn't say that I trust everything that Irenaeus said should be taken as the absolute truth. In all likelihood it was his assumption. His writings do have serious problems that we have come to find out are not true.

Here is another quote from the same book and chapter from Irenaeus' Against Heresies that is just plain wrong! He believed that the world was going to end after 6000 years. This was a popular teaching of the Jews during his time.

Irenaeus: (A.D. 120-202) – “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.” – [Against Heresies V. XXVIII, 3]

So, my point is -- If I can prove that Irenaeus's belief was wrong about age of the earth (which I can in great detail), then we should be cautious about believing everything he wrote as being inspired by God and being the absolute truth as is all of the scriptures of the Bible.

Also, what right do the translators of the NIV have to "ADD" to God's word? (Please answer that one for me)

Socks,

As to your questions:

I know you've argued before that the temple of God is the minds of Christian believers, but do you think that's what Irenaeus thought it meant? Or Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2?

I don't think Irenaeus fully understood the meaning of what John wrote in the Revelation.

I think I can get the point across with an example laid out by the disciples:


Jesus first discussed His death and resurrection in the terms of figurative language.

Matthew 12:38-40 – 38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." 39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

How do you interpret this literally? We have to look at the overall teachings of Jesus.

Jesus explains this in simple, more natural terms on 3 occasions:

Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23 and 20:18-19 – 18 "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"

Even though it was plainly laid out the disciples didn’t know how to interpret this event. They had a preconceived thought on how the Messiah would come and save them. They still didn't believe what Jesus was saying...

I believe the same misinterpretation can be seen in all of us (even Irenaeus).

Norma,
It's curious that you're arguing about it not being a temple, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said in the Daniel 9 instance that you made Jesus into the abomination and that the temple in that case refers to the second one destroyed in 70 ad? Or have you changed your mind?

Perdonado,
At no time have I ever said Irenaeus writings should be taken as absolute truth, if they were they'd be part of a little book we call the bible. True that he did formulate a large part of early church doctrine though. But I'd be willing to concede that he was a little out to lunch.

Also, what right do the translators of the NIV have to "ADD" to God's word?

I'm not an apologist for the NIV version, I do think it's easier to read and understand than the King James though. The only other version which translated it as "wing of the temple" on biblegateway.com is the Holman Christian Standard Bible which I'm not familiar with. According to wikipedia, Arthur Farstad who was general editor of the KJV started a new translation based on the same texts as the KJV, and the result is the Holman.

What in your mind is Daniel 9:27 referring to then? I always thought it is the same event spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. (Foreth youreth pleasureth, weeth willeth useth thoueth King Jameseth!)

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Norma,
It's curious that you're arguing about it not being a temple, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said in the Daniel 9 instance that you made Jesus into the abomination and that the temple in that case refers to the second one destroyed in 70 ad? Or have you changed your mind?

I'm not arguing about anything. I made an observation because of what you said about Irenaeus beliefs.

The only way he could believe that the antichrsit could sit in the temple of God, at that time, was if he considered that to be something other than a building in Jerusalem, since there wasn't a temple, nor Jews in the land of Israel which might build one. Since they had, within his lifetime, been taken away captive as slaves into Rome. So perhaps he believes as you are suggesting Perdonado does about the temple of God.



pause for effect I loved it when you said this.


As for suggesting that I make Jesus into the abomination......Is that the kinder Socks? I hope that wasn't done with effort for the purpose of trying to make me sound like an idiot. Or do you really misunderstand what I have said that much? In anycase I wasn't speaking of what I believe. I was just speaking about an observation I made concerning Irenaeus.

But do you still not understand "on the wing of abominations" which is exactly what the text says according to the Hebrew words, without the aid of the NIV translators playing fast and loose with their translation? Addding the words "he will set up" without putting it in brackets to show that they added those words should cause you to put down that translation and pick up a study bible. Do you have more than one Bible? I have many bibles added in over the years, one of which is an NIV, but I never use it for actual study because it is paraphrased by people who believe certain things and that is reflected in their translation in many places. Very misleading because the change the meaning of the verse without telling you that they are doing so.

The NASB Student Edition sticks a little closer to the original and is a fairly good study bible, with the aid of a concordenance. The Blue Letter Bible on-line shows the original hebrew, so that you can tell what the original actual says and how it has been translated into English.

Dan 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations {will come} one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." NASB

Anyway, just a suggestion.

In Him
Norma

The only way he could believe that the antichrsit could sit in the temple of God, at that time, was if he considered that to be something other than a building in Jerusalem, since there wasn't a temple, nor Jews in the land of Israel which might build one. Since they had, within his lifetime, been taken away captive as slaves into Rome. So perhaps he believes as you are suggesting Perdonado does about the temple of God.

Do you think he was expecting it in his time? I assumed he meant in a future literal temple.

I guess I have misunderstood Norma, my understanding of your theory is that Jesus is the one who makes the covenant for 7 years, breaks it in the middle, and so on.

I have many bibles added in over the years, one of which is an NIV, but I never use it for actual study because it is paraphrased by people who believe certain things and that is reflected in their translation in many places. Very misleading because the change the meaning of the verse without telling you that they are doing so.

That's kinda curious that you hold a translation to a higher standard, when your translation might not even be the correct one, but you yourself have changed the meaning of the verse before. Remember when you said Paul was wrong regarding the man of lawlessness sitting in the temple? That means that that particular passage is not inspired by God.

socks,

Can I assume you mean "physical" when you refer to a "literal" temple?

Do you think he was expecting it in his time? I assumed he meant in a future literal temple.

What is the definition of "literal"?

What is the definition of "physical"?

Perdonado,
Yeah we went through this before...

Literal: Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

as in

Temple: An edifice or place dedicated to the service or worship of a deity or deities.

Or if you prefer
Naos: temple; of the temple in Jerusalem.

I should have said I literally believe we will see a physical third temple. Is that better?

Why not answer my question instead of splitting hairs over semantics, you already know what I mean by temple.

That's kinda curious that you hold a translation to a higher standard, when your translation might not even be the correct one, but you yourself have changed the meaning of the verse before. Remember when you said Paul was wrong regarding the man of lawlessness sitting in the temple? That means that that particular passage is not inspired by God.

aw so it doesn't matter if the translation adds words without brackets to show they have been added. okie dokie.

As I said it was just a suggestion. But you reacted as per same ole Socks. .

Norma, I gave my reasons......see above. The event is the same as Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2. And it's called the temple. Why is that so hard to understand?

But you reacted as per same ole Socks.

And I always will react that way Norma, it's not just towards you. Whenever someone twists the words of scripture to make it fit their paradigm I have a problem with it. I find it incredibly hypocritical that you won't apply that same standard you seem to have against the NIV to yourself. Even taking the KJV out of context and switching the words around because some spirit told you it was true. "That's not the way I interpret it". It's like I said in the other post, all the JW's want is one word, an "a".

your opinion doesn't count for much when you have sooo much wrong in what you believe is going to happen. You don't even know yet how much you are twisting the scriptures to fit your senerio, and it's not just you, but all who believe much like yourself about the ole 7 year countdown.

And you actually don't believe that the apostels truely believed that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the people they were teaching. That doesn't make anything they said uninspired by God. God did not tell them any different.....no one, including Jesus, were allowed to know any different..... for God's own purpose. Re-read the new testament and try to put it into perspective.

You know what they say about people in glass houses.

In Him
Norma

Do you think he was expecting it in his time? I assumed he meant in a future literal temple.

Irenaeus makes it clear he is not speaking of some future temple that would be built in our time.

He says he knows the name of the antichrist. One who is alive at the time he (Irenaeus) wrote his book. Since he believed the AC lived in 2nd century then the temple would have to be built for things to be fulfilled by the antichrist that he believed lived back then.

I put up the quote from his writing about this in my post above.

or he believed it wasn't going to be an actual temple building for the AC to be standing in. Since no Jews were left to rebuild a temple in the land of Israel.

In Him
Norma

your opinion doesn't count for much when you have sooo much wrong in what you believe is going to happen.

When you first came here and told us "the holey spirit told you to come here and show us all the 'correct' way to interpret prophecy" I had a little chuckle. I've read a lot of your page where you state that "Saddam Hussein" is the Antichrist dead or alive, and "the first four trumpets of Revelation blew during the first Iraq war". Well I have tried to be nice, but it hasn't been reciprocated. This spirit of yours seems to be a spirit of derision.

I've yet to see one person agree with your strange ideas, because frankly, those ideas are just laughable, and don't conform to the scriptures. And I'm sure you've probably found out that when you take the text and twist it to fit your mold, that people have an issue with that. You have to realize that most Christians believe in sola scriptura, meaning that the bible is divinely inspired and that means every word dear. I hope one day you realize that.

regards...

Well, we have established that we each have a poor opinion of each others end times views. I think you twist scripture, you think I do.

But for some reason you think that because of that we are not able to discuss Irenaeus' views of what he thought about end times being in his day.

You really need to get over yourself. I haven't found two people on this forum that agree with each other and yet people do still mange to debate things. I also find some of your idea laughable. But ya know that it is who laughs last that counts. But I doubt anyone will feel like laughing at that point and time.

What you seem to be doing is avoiding discussing Irenaeus' views. Attacking me is your way of getting around that. That is why I wrote you two different posts. I figured you could continue your rant about me by answering the first one, and then could actually discuss Irenaeus on a second post.


In Him
Norma

Norma, I'm not going to keep coming back and try to talk to, and be insulted by someone who acts like a child because no one will believe the crazy stories she makes up. You've insulted me by saying my opinion doesn't count, so what point is there in continuing a discussion? Then you insult almost the whole board when you say this:

and it's not just you, but all who believe much like yourself about the ole 7 year countdown.

I think the only preterist view here is yours! Don't you get that? Nobody's picking it up because it simply doesn't make sense, it doesn't fulfill the prophecies word for word unless you spin the words the way you do, turning black into white.

I'd like you to say where I have twisted the scriptures, I've given several times where you have. What I mean by that is where I've taken the scriptures and said they mean the opposite of what is written to make them fit my views. Not because they are different from "Norma's" interpretation, and therefore I must be twisting the text, but where I've challenged God on the validity of what he wrote, much like you have. YOU WILL NOT FIND A SINGLE INSTANCE!!!

I think the only preterist view here is yours!

Then there must not be any preterists on here since my view is not preterist, but a partail-futurest.

You sure can dish it out, but not able to take it when the tables are turned on you. You have insulted me in almost every post you have ever written to me. I just don't respond to the insults very often because I am an easy going personality, I concider the source, and I turn it over to the Lord rather than stress about it.


Your view of scripture concerning end days ie. Dan 9, are simply your view. In your opinion I am wrong and you are right. I disagree and don't have twist scripture to prove it. Just let the scriptures interpret themselves, so to speak, without interjecting your view into it and you just might be very shocked. Take the time to really listen to what is being said by Jesus His Olivet Discourse and you'll have the conformation as I do concerning Dan 9. But if a person is insulted when someone says they are interpreting Dan 9 incorrectly then they just might be a little to thin skinned to be on a forum.

But you don't have to keep coming back and insulting the crazy lady if you prefer not to. That is up to you.

In Him
Norma

Couldn't find even one hey?

Well I apologize for being rude, I do get hot headed some times (I'm a redhead, that's not an excuse, it's just the way it is ) and I know that I'm not glorifying God by being that way. You're pretty good at pushing my buttons, but you already know that.

I do apologize for being rude, but I won't apologize for not accepting when someone puts their own slant on bible verses. Like I've said before I've debated cultists for years and they don't really ask for much either. But in reality they ask for everything.

But you don't have to keep coming back and insulting the crazy lady if you prefer not to. That is up to you.

Are you kicking me off then? Peace and God bless you Norma...

norma,

Hey, I couldn't agree with you more on the Irenaeus points that you've been making. I think you're spot on...

Socks

I accept your apology for being rude. I will chock some of it up to the fact that you are young and the young are more hot headed. Whereas I am old and a retired high school teacher and acquired a great deal of patience with people because of it. I too have debated with many a JW and Mormon, and even Muslim and Jew over the last 30 something years. And Catholics and Protestants also....because I find the church to be full of people who don't know the Lord. What I have learned is that it is a "mater of the heart" with the Lord...not the letter of the law, so to speak.

Of all the OT Jews that lived some will be raised to Glory on that day and some to damnation. Not because they did or didn't have full understanding of the law, or kept it to the letter. The Pharisees kept the letter of the law. But because God judges by the heart toward Him first and foremost...... It will be who loved God with all their heart and soul, and mind and loved their neighbor as themselves that will be there on that day.

That is how it is for Christians also. It is a mater of the heart not a denomination or how perfectly they know their bible that causes a person to know Christ and be known by Him. I once knew a JW that loved the Lord and said she would have never made it through the tribulations of her life without Jesus. She will be there on that day, even though she was born into the JW religion and knew no other way....because she loved the Lord with all her heart, mind and soul.

I am not perfect but the Lord knows my heart. He knows I would not go a day without Him. He is my heart. I will be there on that day. Try to remember that when you post to me. Perhaps it will help stem your temple a little.

Also try to remember that much of what you believe about end times is your opinion based upon your interpretation of what you think things mean. And so is mine. If things were as clear cut as you seem to believe they are then there wouldn't be so many denominations..... and there wouldn't be discussion boards like this where people daily disagree with each other. Being hot headed is a waist of time and really gets a person nowhere in a debate if you think about it. The only thing perfect down here is agape, love, and a heart daily crying out to the Lord because they would rather die than to face a day without Him in their lives.

But you don't have to keep coming back and insulting the crazy lady if you prefer not to. That is up to you.

Are you kicking me off then?

We do misunderstand each other a lot. Perhaps it is a generation gap or coming from different places in this world.

But what I meant was the way not to have to speak with me is to just not answer my posts. That is what is up to you. But if you do choose to answer my post I prefer you do so in a more peaceful way, remembering that I am your sister in the Lord.

In Him
Norma

Perdonado

Thanks. I figured we would maybe be in agreement on this particual thing. Now my hope is that the thread will make it's way back to the subject of Irenaeus, which I believe needs a little more discussion or dissecting.

In Him
Norma

And likewise Norma, respect is a two way street. I don't think you have the right to play entirely innocent

You and I are always butting heads it seems, so maybe we can't discuss things. I commend you for the work you've done in researching and you seem quite knowledgeable in facts and dates etc.

I do think Daniel's last week remains to be played out, it is simply the only explanation that makes sense to me.

24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Much of that did not happen with Christ's resurrection. The new testament was written after Jesus death and resurrection, and it contains a lot of prophecy. How could prophecy be sealed if these books were written after Jesus?

Another issue we have is regarding 2 Thessalonians 2 in which Paul is telling the Thessalonians not to be worried about the day of the Lord, meaning Christ's second coming. It's not even about the destruction of the second temple, it is about Christ's return.

I think these 2 issues (there's others as well) are the basis of how we each look at the end times. And I think our differences are irreconcilable.

24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.


Much of that did not happen with Christ's resurrection.

Actually none of that happened for the Jewish nation as whole (Daniel's people as a nation).

They were given 490 years to meet and accept their Messiah. If they had believed then it would have put an end to transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

At the end of the 490 years Gentiles became first and the Jews became last. The word was then sent out to the nations through Paul.

I do think Daniel's last week remains to be played out, it is simply the only explanation that makes sense to me.

I understand that. And yes we will continue to be at odds over all these things you have mentioned in your various posts.

But I doubt that will stop either of us from posting about these things.

I wasn't playing innocent. I am not innocent. I will always fight for what I believe is right just like everyone else and that will make people mad. Hence, I make you mad. I am just asking you to remember that I am a sister in Christ when you get mad. Because I never forget you are my brother in Christ.

In Him
Norma

Well that's an interesting slant on it. Sometimes I wonder how you and I read the same passage and get entirely different meanings from it. Such as "put an end to sin", even if they had accepted Jesus, there would still be sin. There will be sin until we have our glorified bodies.