Age Of The Gentiles

[Kris]

Hello friends--- looking for some help with the "Time of the Gentiles" prophecy! Unfortunately, I ran into a former Christian friend who likes to torture me with end time discussions and this topic was mentioned. According to the endtimers--- once the time of the Gentiles ends, god will turn back to the Jews. This all ties in with the rebuilding of the temple and All the other end time gobbledygook-- but I don't really know any good arguments or explanations to come back at her with. I really just want to shut her down completely so she will just leave me alone. She is convinced that once the third temple is built-- it is all over. I told her that I thought nothing would happen but didn't do a very good job of defending my position. Any help anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated. She quoted Luke 21:24 as her scriptural reference!

[sdelsolray]

Inform her as follows (use exact wording):

 

"Just not in any way you can demonstrate."

[centauri]

Hello friends--- looking for some help with the "Time of the Gentiles" prophecy! Unfortunately, I ran into a former Christian friend who likes to torture me with end time discussions and this topic was mentioned. According to the endtimers--- once the time of the Gentiles ends, god will turn back to the Jews. This all ties in with the rebuilding of the temple and All the other end time gobbledygook-- but I don't really know any good arguments or explanations to come back at her with. I really just want to shut her down completely so she will just leave me alone. She is convinced that once the third temple is built-- it is all over. I told her that I thought nothing would happen but didn't do a very good job of defending my position. Any help anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated. She quoted Luke 21:24 as her scriptural reference!

If your friend takes the time to read the context she would see this:

 

Luke 21:31-32

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

 

The message was intended for his immediate audience, those living at that time.

All was certainly not fulfilled.

It's a failed prophecy.

 

Furthermore, your friend probably isn't even aware that in the time of restoration, people will turn to Jews and not to Christians for knowledge of God.

 

Zech 8:22-23

Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

 

Anyone that adopts the same covenant that Jews observe with Yahweh will be welcome in the Lord's house.

 

Isa 56:6-7

Also the sons of the stranger(gentiles), that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 

Your friend is going to have to convert to Judaism if she wants to be accepted by God.

[mymistake]

Every graveyard in the Western world is filled with people who died believing Jesus would return during their lifetime.

 

 

It has literally been over seven hundred thousand days of "any day now".

 

 

(2013-33) * 365.25 =  723,195 days

[Kris]

Thanks for those awesome scriptures Centauri-- those we're great. I also noticed that in Luke there is a clear reference to "this generation" but you know how the fundy's are--- she will claim that this is referring to a future generation. I guess it is good that I am getting my thoughts together on this. If the Jews ever do get around to building another temple-- there will probably endtime rhetoric all over the place!!

 

One other thing that I was thinking about is that my friend wants to tie Israel going back to the sacrificial system to the end of the times of the Gentiles--- but supposedly when this discussion by Jesus was taking place-- the temple still existed and sacrifices were being made. And this went on for a number of years after he died as well--- so for at least a portion of the time of the Gentiles, Israel was worshiping the way it wanted. Why would a resumption change anything prophetically?

[Kris]

My mistake--- I know that for as long as I have been around (since 1967) I have had to hear about this crap!!! I just want to relax and watch Dance Moms without having to worry about the threat of armeggedon, you know? I try to avoid these Christian friends as much as possible just so I don't have to hear the latest theory!!

[mymistake]

My mistake--- I know that for as long as I have been around (since 1967) I have had to hear about this crap!!! I just want to relax and watch Dance Moms without having to worry about the threat of armeggedon, you know? I try to avoid these Christian friends as much as possible just so I don't have to hear the latest theory!!

 

 

If it is that bad you could always go hard line with them.  Tell them that you don't want to talk about religion at all.  When they ignore that boundary simply answer "There is no such thing as God, Jesus, angels, devils, demons, talking snakes, talking donkeys, behemoths, leviathans, sea monsters, dragons, unicorns, cherubim, seraphim, flying whirling wheeles, fiery chariots, holy spirits, familiar spirits, evil spirits, no witchcraft, no magic power, no prophesy, no healing, no miracles, no raptures . . . and so on . . . and so forth." 

[Kris]

Yes-- I would like to do that, but unfortunately it doesn't really work with people like her.

[Margee]

Hello friends--- looking for some help with the "Time of the Gentiles" prophecy! Unfortunately, I ran into a former Christian friend who likes to torture me with end time discussions

 

hi Kris. The main words that stuck out to me is 'former Christian friend'. You owe her nothing. Establish good boundaries my friend . Only you have the power to tell them: 'end of discussion'. No one has the right to 'torture you'. Agree to disagree. Send them on their way. You don't need friends like this.

 

If you need to know the answer to this question for your own sanity...that's ok.......but not to win the battle with any Christian. It's too crazy-making Kris.

 

Good luck my dear.

[Kris]

Thanks Margee-- I would like to know the answer for myself. Unfortunately, I am still surrounded by religious people who want to reconvert me. They know I struggle with prophecy so that is usually the tack they take. For some reason-- they are really pushing Israel and the temple these days so I just want to give them something to argue back with.

 

For example, she and others will say that Israel is prophetic but the reason why nothing major has happened is because Israel hasn't rebuilt the temple and started back their religious rituals. They say this because I like to argue the fact that the end tines didn't start when Israel was formed in 1948 or even in 1967 when they captured Jerusalem.

 

I have heard that some rabbis do complete sacrifices and have done so for years now but they have to do them in alternative locations. So, that is a possible argument--- and again, sacrifices went on for sometime after Jesus died so not really sure what difference it would make if they started up again. In my mind-- nothing will happen, but it just gets exhausting hearing all the rhetoric and at times I get worn down by what if thinking. Someday, there may be a temple in Israel--and I just want to be able to say-- so what and have an effective argument as to why it isn't any fulfillment of prophecy!!

[Kris]

One more thing to help with my friend's understanding. She thinks that there is currently a "secular" Israel but prophecy begins with "spiritual" Israel coming back. Again, this is likely because all other supposed prophecy related to Israel failed to this point-- but this is what I am being hit with. I am doing my best to avoid these people and their discussions but I can't always escape. I am sure that there are others in my shoes as well-- who have fundy friends and family. Sometimes you just have to fight back!

[mymistake]

Thanks Margee-- I would like to know the answer for myself. Unfortunately, I am still surrounded by religious people who want to reconvert me. They know I struggle with prophecy so that is usually the tack they take. For some reason-- they are really pushing Israel and the temple these days so I just want to give them something to argue back with.

 

For example, she and others will say that Israel is prophetic but the reason why nothing major has happened is because Israel hasn't rebuilt the temple and started back their religious rituals. They say this because I like to argue the fact that the end tines didn't start when Israel was formed in 1948 or even in 1967 when they captured Jerusalem.

 

I have heard that some rabbis do complete sacrifices and have done so for years now but they have to do them in alternative locations. So, that is a possible argument--- and again, sacrifices went on for sometime after Jesus died so not really sure what difference it would make if they started up again. In my mind-- nothing will happen, but it just gets exhausting hearing all the rhetoric and at times I get worn down by what if thinking. Someday, there may be a temple in Israel--and I just want to be able to say-- so what and have an effective argument as to why it isn't any fulfillment of prophecy!!

 

 

You are never going to change their mind.  When (whatever the current excuse is) happens and the end times don't happen they will invent a new excuse and say the Bible said the new excuse all along.  The old excuse was merely a misinterpretation.  Christians have been doing this since before you were born.  Modern Israel isn't a theocracy and it isn't a monarchy.  It's a multi-cultural democracy.  The ancient Kingdom of Israel would have viewed you as an opportunity for conquest.  God didn't love gentiles.  God wanted their stuff.  As a gentile, your land, property and money all belonged to the Jewish soldiers who kill you.  And if there are any little girls in your family God wants them spared to serve as sex slaves for the Kingdom of Israel.  Sadly your Christian friends have brainwashed themselves into believing something that is false.  They have also been trained to not listen to you because you are an outsider. 

[Overcame Faith]

Luke 21 is a pseudo prophecy.  By that I mean that it was written after an important historical event but in a way that made it appear that Jesus was prophesying about the event.  The event was not the end of our world in modern times, but the end of the Jewish world in 70 a.d. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.  The "time of the gentiles" refers to the time that the gentiles (the Romans) would be "allowed by God" to cause this destruction.  The words attributed to Jesus in Luke 21:32, "“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." did, in fact occur as written because it was that generation alive at the time those words were written (after the fact) that were, in fact, alive when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

This was no prophecy, but a pseudo, after-the-fact writing made to look like a prophecy.  None of the events refer to our modern day world, but refer only to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.  Period.  There is nothing more to it than that.

[Kris]

Thanks Overcame-- that is how I basically saw it too. Do you agree with me that if the Jews ever do get around to building some sort of temple-- it will be a giant non-event? They would do their thing while Christians do theirs? Other than for all the end time writers nobody really ever talks about the Jews and if they revert back to a sacrificial system. It really didn't seem to work so well for them in the past-- they still got conquered and plundered but now there are so many branches of Judaism. I am not even sure they could agree on how to run a new temple!!

[Overcame Faith]

Thanks Overcame-- that is how I basically saw it too. Do you agree with me that if the Jews ever do get around to building some sort of temple-- it will be a giant non-event? They would do their thing while Christians do theirs? Other than for all the end time writers nobody really ever talks about the Jews and if they revert back to a sacrificial system. It really didn't seem to work so well for them in the past-- they still got conquered and plundered but now there are so many branches of Judaism. I am not even sure they could agree on how to run a new temple!!

 

If another temple is ever built, it will potentially be an important event.  However, not because of any alleged prophecy.  Rather, it will be an important international event if they insist on building it where the Dome of the Rock now sits.  I believe the Muslims will see that as an act of war and will exact their revenge accordingly.

 

If they build a new temple and manage to leave the Dome of the Rock in place, then except for the end-timers as you already mentioned, it will still be important most especially if they re-institute the system of sacrifices.  Again, it will not be important because of any alleged prophecies, but because I believe the world will see these sacrifices as cruel to the animals being sacrificed and it will cause a great deal of outrage among many people.  Re-instituting animal sacrifices would, in my opinion, put Israel in great danger of losing support of Western powers, including the U.S.

 

From a purely "prophetical" standpoint, it would be meaningless.  In fact, there is not one Christian who can point to any Bible verse that, by its words, requires a new temple to be built.  They only read the various scriptures to infer that requirement.  But there are no straightforward words that say something to the effect that, "And in those days, Israel will rebuild their temple." 

[Kris]

I agree with everything you have said-- in all these interpretations o scriptures to try to determine when the end will be, I am reminded that this is probably how it was in the days of early Christianity. People re-.interpeting Daniel and on and on.

[Kris]

I agree with everything you have said-- in all these interpretations o scriptures to try to determine when the end will be, I am reminded that this is probably how it was in the days of early Christianity. People re-.interpeting Daniel and on and on.

[BlackCat]

If your friend takes the time to read the context she would see this:

 

Luke 21:31-32

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

 

The message was intended for his immediate audience, those living at that time.

All was certainly not fulfilled.

It's a failed prophecy.

 

 

 

Jesus was allegedly speaking around the year 30-33 AD when he supposedly predicted loads of horrible stuff happening to the generation he was speaking to.  Many of those very things ( e.g Jerusalem surrounded by armies) did literally happen forty years later in 70AD when the Romans attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple etc.  Jesus' warnings seem to tie in with the prophecy in Daniel chapter 9.  The time frame seems to run up to the year 33AD (give or take a year).  This prophecy was allegedly written hundreds of years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.  I've just skimmed over many many details that require a lot of delving into to get the overall picture.  I'm sure many of us here are familiar with Daniel's 70 weeks and how Jesus' warnings seemed to fulfil that prophecy.  I studied the preterist position quite a bit, and found their arguments very convincing regarding all those prophecies having been fulfilled prior to 70AD.   There were too many 'spanners in the works' though, regarding the preterist  position, which meant that no matter what way you looked at all the prophecies, some of them have not happened yet.  For example, when Paul is comforting those who have lost loved ones and tells them about how those who are still alive when the Lord returns which he stresses is imminent  (which would be 70 AD?) would be caught up in the air to meet the Lord.  Well as far as I know, a mass disappearance of Christians, didn't take place in 70AD.  One way to get round this problem is to have the partial preterist approach: they believe most of the prophecies have been fulfilled and some still remain for a future time e.g Rev 21 - all tears done away with, no death etc.  I tried and tried to find the key to unravel how some prophecies did seem to come true, and then others didn't happen.  Every denomination has their own version of all this, and no one seems to agree with this subject. I still find it appealing because of the Daniel prophecy and how so much did happen??  There seems to be something to all this?

[centauri]

Thanks for those awesome scriptures Centauri-- those we're great. I also noticed that in Luke there is a clear reference to "this generation" but you know how the fundy's are--- she will claim that this is referring to a future generation. I guess it is good that I am getting my thoughts together on this. If the Jews ever do get around to building another temple-- there will probably endtime rhetoric all over the place!!

Well, Jesus specifically addresses his audience as "you" not "they", so claiming the events are for a future generation is dishonest damage control.

It also includes an event that never happened in any way, shape or form.

 

Luke 21:27-28

And then shall they(the gentile nations) see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

 

Also compare Luke 21 with Matt 24.

 

Virtually the same message is given:

 

Matt 24:30,33-34

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they(the gentile nations) shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

Jesus never returned on clouds nor was he ever seen by the nations of the world.

Also see Matt 16:27-28 for a specific reference to his immediate audience, not people thousands of years in the future.

 

One other thing that I was thinking about is that my friend wants to tie Israel going back to the sacrificial system to the end of the times of the Gentiles--- but supposedly when this discussion by Jesus was taking place-- the temple still existed and sacrifices were being made. And this went on for a number of years after he died as well--- so for at least a portion of the time of the Gentiles, Israel was worshiping the way it wanted. Why would a resumption change anything prophetically?

In the promised messianic era, a king messiah would lead the people into great compliance with the law, great peace and prosperity would occur, sacrifices would be practiced, and Israel would draw the gentile nations to it.

Jesus never sat on the throne and never led people into great compliance with the law.

The New Testament Book of Hebrews trashes the Levitical priesthood, claiming that Jesus is the new high priest, something that he didn't even qualify for.

Christianity attempts to jam Jesus into a messianic fulfillment and relies on special pleading to do it.

In other words, Jesus is special so all of the rules established by God can be ignored.

As others have noted, there really isn't much point in having a dialog with Christians about these issues.

The only thing that matters to them is their doctrine and their interpretation.

[centauri]

 

 

If your friend takes the time to read the context she would see this:

 

Luke 21:31-32

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

 

The message was intended for his immediate audience, those living at that time.

All was certainly not fulfilled.

It's a failed prophecy.

 

Jesus was allegedly speaking around the year 30-33 AD when he supposedly predicted loads of horrible stuff happening to the generation he was speaking to.  Many of those very things ( e.g Jerusalem surrounded by armies) did literally happen forty years later in 70AD when the Romans attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple etc.  Jesus' warnings seem to tie in with the prophecy in Daniel chapter 9.  The time frame seems to run up to the year 33AD (give or take a year).  This prophecy was allegedly written hundreds of years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.  I've just skimmed over many many details that require a lot of delving into to get the overall picture.  I'm sure many of us here are familiar with Daniel's 70 weeks and how Jesus' warnings seemed to fulfil that prophecy.  I studied the preterist position quite a bit, and found their arguments very convincing regarding all those prophecies having been fulfilled prior to 70AD.

 

The prophecy in Dan 9 calls for a 70 week (weeks of years) timeframe where the destruction of the city and Temple occur around the end of the 69th week.

That leaves 1 week (or 7 years) of timeframe.

Jerusalem was destroyed about 35-40 years after Jesus allegedly died.

The city being destroyed missed the timeframe allowed.

The apologetic I've encountered calls for the clock to "stop" after the 69th week but that violates scriptural context.

There are also 2 anointed ones (rather than 1) in the passage, but Christians ignore this.

 

There were too many 'spanners in the works' though, regarding the preterist  position, which meant that no matter what way you looked at all the prophecies, some of them have not happened yet.

And that was a major problem back when I was being taught by pastors.

They wanted to alter scriptural stipulations to suit their doctrines.

 

For example, when Paul is comforting those who have lost loved ones and tells them about how those who are still alive when the Lord returns which he stresses is imminent  (which would be 70 AD?) would be caught up in the air to meet the Lord.  Well as far as I know, a mass disappearance of Christians, didn't take place in 70AD.  One way to get round this problem is to have the partial preterist approach: they believe most of the prophecies have been fulfilled and some still remain for a future time e.g Rev 21 - all tears done away with, no death etc.  I tried and tried to find the key to unravel how some prophecies did seem to come true, and then others didn't happen.  Every denomination has their own version of all this, and no one seems to agree with this subject. I still find it appealing because of the Daniel prophecy and how so much did happen??  There seems to be something to all this?

As noted by another, trying to force fit Jesus into Dan 9 may have occured after the city was destroyed.

Even the Book of Revelation in the opening verses states clearly that the events were to happen "soon" because the time was at hand.

"Behold, I come quickly!" is repeated in various verses as well.

For me, the whole scheme unraveled quickly once I saw how they would cherry pick and twist the scripture to achieve an "amazing right to the day" fulfillment of Dan 9 by Jesus.

[BlackCat]

Do the verses in Daniel necessarily read that the destruction of the temple will also take place within the 70 weeks?  Daniel 9:24 lays out the things that will happen within the 70 weeks, but doesn't actually mention the destruction.  That is mentioned later on, but could surely be more details added about what will happen as a result of the 70 weeks??  I found this short video that explains these points:

 

http://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/videos/7yeardeception/

 

The 'anointed one' is mentioned twice and it can be seen by the context that it is the same person being spoken about.  A 'prince' is also mentioned twice, and the context shows that these are two different rulers, otherwise if we understand the second 'prince' to be the Messiah who was cut off, then it would mean his people (the jews) invade their own country, which is silly of course.  I see no problem with there being two 'princes' or rulers mentioned close together.  Jesus was referred to as a King (King of the Jews) and Caesar was referred to as a King (we have no King but Caesar). 

 

There is support amongst Bible scholars for the book of Revelation having been written prior to the year 70 AD.  It is writing about things that will take place 'soon', as you rightly note.  It mentions the temple still being in existence. 

 

Is it the case that Jesus is being force fit into Daniel's prophecy that deals with a very specific time frame of 490 years culminating around 37AD?  Is it a coincidence that a man called Jesus (in our language) happened to be born around the time this 'anointed one' was meant to appear?  Is it a coincidence that the Jewish people, their city and their religious system came to an end very soon (33 odd years) after the timing of Daniel's prophecy about the Jewish people?  There are too many things that make me sit up and take notice.  By understanding the 70 weeks as a continuous span of time, and with all that we know supposedly happened regarding Jesus, and what we are sure happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, it seems to me that someone special was meant to show up around 30AD, and this would precede the destruction of the Jewish system of life as a theocratic nation, which of course we know did happen.   

[Kris]

I don't believe the book of Daniel originally has anything to so with Jesus. It was meant to culminate around 165bc or so and was meant for the people of that time. The anointed one was Onias and Antious Ephraine ( I know totally butchered that spelling) was the abomination. That is why the book of Daniel was "found" around that time. It was supposedly meant to be found right before the end. However, the end didn't come so people started looking again and came up with new dates for the end-- around Jesus' time. Again, this is a failure because the end didn't come. I think Daniel has a lot to do with Christianity forming in the first place and is a perfect example of how people mis-interpret and twist scripture to fit their own time.

[centauri]

 

Do the verses in Daniel necessarily read that the destruction of the temple will also take place within the 70 weeks?  Daniel 9:24 lays out the things that will happen within the 70 weeks, but doesn't actually mention the destruction.  That is mentioned later on, but could surely be more details added about what will happen as a result of the 70 weeks??  I found this short video that explains these points:

 

http://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/videos/7yeardeception/

The apologist relies on the New Testament to create a fulfillment.

He assumes that Jesus was actually a king messiah and proceeds from there.

Jesus was never anointed as king and was not a valid sacrifice for sin according to God's regulations.

The expected king was to rule and usher in a new age of unity and prosperity in his days, not thousands of years later.

If events can be moved around to another timeline then just about anything goes when it comes to interpreting a fulfillment.

The apologist also turns Jesus into a high priest (via the Book of Hebrews), and that's a violation of God's regulations.

Jesus does not have the pedigree to be a high priest.

The apologist then states that Jesus confirmed "the covenant".

The new covenant was to be a time when the law would be infused directly into the hearts of the people, which never happened.

Jesus undermined parts of the law, something that an expected king would not do under any circumstance.

The apologist states that the messiah would cause sacrifice to cease by the sacrifice of himself.

That violates the law of God and scripture.

There are no provisions for a human to be used as a sin sacrifice in Leviticus.

Sacrifice will be active in the messianic era and the Levitial priesthood will be functioning.

 

Jer 33:17-18(ESV)

“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,

and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

 

Text of Dan 9 states:

Dan 9:25-27(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

 

Pushing the destruction of the city outside the 70 weeks is vital if one wants to place Jesus in this passage, but I see no reason such a rationaliztion should be accepted, especially when Jesus doesn't even qualify to be a king messiah.

 

The 'anointed one' is mentioned twice and it can be seen by the context that it is the same person being spoken about.

The context is for a prince to come after 49 years or 7 weeks, then after 434 more years or 62 weeks, an anointed one is cut off.

 

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

 

If it's the same person then they lived for hundreds of years.

Verse 26 then states that the people of a prince will come and destroy the city and Temple.

That's three people in total, two being princes and one simply being anointed.

A ruler and his army come and destroy the city.

The second prince is the ruler that comes with his army.

 

There are too many things that make me sit up and take notice.  By understanding the 70 weeks as a continuous span of time, and with all that we know supposedly happened regarding Jesus, and what we are sure happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, it seems to me that someone special was meant to show up around 30AD, and this would precede the destruction of the Jewish system of life as a theocratic nation, which of course we know did happen.

If the interpretations that fit Jesus into the prophecy appeal to you, then you're wise to consult Christian apologetics, as they specialize in explaining all of it and turning it into an amazing fulfillment.

[BlackCat]

I don't believe the book of Daniel originally has anything to so with Jesus. It was meant to culminate around 165bc or so and was meant for the people of that time. The anointed one was Onias and Antious Ephraine ( I know totally butchered that spelling) was the abomination. That is why the book of Daniel was "found" around that time. It was supposedly meant to be found right before the end. However, the end didn't come so people started looking again and came up with new dates for the end-- around Jesus' time. Again, this is a failure because the end didn't come. I think Daniel has a lot to do with Christianity forming in the first place and is a perfect example of how people mis-interpret and twist scripture to fit their own time.

 

These points are up for dispute.  Wikipedia covers some of the points you make as well as noting some of the counter arguments:

 

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

 

I've also found this article that covers the fragments of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

 

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/new-light-on-the-book-of-daniel-from-the-dead-sea-scrolls.aspx#Article

 

 

There is a lot of stuff to wade through and make sure of.  What strikes me for now, is that the earliest Daniel manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) date to the 2 century BC, and so even if Daniel was written this late,  we can still apply the 70 weeks timeline and still arrive around 30AD for the 69th week (give or take a few years).  I know there is some disagreement about when the 70 weeks actually began, but most differences seem to be only a few years out and still have the  69th week ending around the late 20s AD and early 30s AD.   

 

I also found this shorter article that covers some of the points being made about dating the book of Daniel.  It mentions some things I'm not familiar with and need to check out, but the points it makes for an earlier dating seem valid, although I'll have to check all this out:

 

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/what-evidence-do-we-have-that-the-book-of-daniel-was-written-in-the-600s-bc-and-what-evidence-is-used-for-a-later-date-of-composition-after-the-time-of-antiochus-epiphanes/

[BlackCat]

I'll comment in red so that I don't forget the points I want to make (my memory is getting bad now)

 

 

Do the verses in Daniel necessarily read that the destruction of the temple will also take place within the 70 weeks?  Daniel 9:24 lays out the things that will happen within the 70 weeks, but doesn't actually mention the destruction.  That is mentioned later on, but could surely be more details added about what will happen as a result of the 70 weeks??  I found this short video that explains these points:
 
http://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com/videos/7yeardeception/

The apologist relies on the New Testament to create a fulfillment.

It's true that we are looking after the facts and may be guilty of fitting Jesus into the Daniel stuff, but as I said above, some of the stuff that Daniel wrote was still to happen in the future (oldest manuscripts being dated as 2BC) and thus the temple's destruction within 40 years of Daniel's timeline prediction is very striking to me, and thus lends support to the Messiah having to be around prior to this destruction.  Well, I only know of one contender who seems to fit the bill.

He assumes that Jesus was actually a king messiah and proceeds from there.
Jesus was never anointed as king and was not a valid sacrifice for sin according to God's regulations.

I've heard this said before and find it a very strange thing to say.  I understand Jesus' anointing was done directly by God supposedly and was not with oil, which was a symbol, but with the holy spirit that supposedly descended on Jesus like a dove.  That far surpasses getting olive oil dripped onto you don't you think?  Obviously we have no proof that this actually happened, just as there is no proof that David was anointed or Saul.  But as far as the 'story' goes, it seems to make much sense to me.

The expected king was to rule and usher in a new age of unity and prosperity in his days, not thousands of years later.

Yes, this is evident by the disciples asking Jesus if he was restoring the Kingdom to Israel at that time.  Expectations can be wrong or rather they don't have all the information. 

If events can be moved around to another timeline then just about anything goes when it comes to interpreting a fulfillment.

Yes. I agree.  This is what is happening with the 'gap theory'. 

The apologist also turns Jesus into a high priest (via the Book of Hebrews), and that's a violation of God's regulations.
Jesus does not have the pedigree to be a high priest.

Hmm, again, I don't follow this line of reasoning.  We know (according to the story), that as well as a Levitical priesthood, there was a priesthood that preceded it: the Melchizadek priesthood.  This dude was supposedly a King and a priest.  What a mysterious fellow.  He is a perfect 'type' or foreshadow for Jesus' priesthood and Kingship, wouldn't you say?  I see no problem with Jesus' pedigree as a high priest and King. 

The apologist then states that Jesus confirmed "the covenant".
The new covenant was to be a time when the law would be infused directly into the hearts of the people, which never happened.

I  understand this as having a partial fulfilment with the first believers being baptised in the holy spirit and thus having their hearts infused directly with God's love and power.  It hasn't had a universal application yet. 
Jesus undermined parts of the law, something that an expected king would not do under any circumstance.

This is a big subject.  I understand the Law as having a temporary application but with eternal spiritual application.  E.g. circumcision must have a temporary application, as a mortal body cannot live forever.  It's spiritual counterpart of application is circumcision of the heart or one's attitude.  Jesus didn't mention this example and nor did he say that the blood of animals would no longer be acceptable.  There was never going to be an eternal slaughtering of animals, so again this part of the Law has a temporary application which was fulfilled eternally via Jesus' blood.  How can an animal's blood or life, compare to that of a human's?  So, parts of the Law have changed in their nature, but not it seems in the spiritual or eternal aspects. 

The apologist states that the messiah would cause sacrifice to cease by the sacrifice of himself.
That violates the law of God and scripture.
There are no provisions for a human to be used as a sin sacrifice in Leviticus.

There's a lot to say about this so I can't do it justice in this short reply.  The sacrificial system in the OT is purely dealing with animals.  Humans were not killed by the priests to atone for people's sins.  That idea is abhorrent and similar to the kinds of human sacrifices that other peoples had (I'm thinking of the film Apocalypto.  Did God need  a human to be killed to appease his anger?  Or is Jesus' sacrifice like that of a soldier who gives his life in the line of duty to save others?  Jesus was murdered by the Romans (and the Jewish religious leaders).   He knew his enemies would kill him but chose to continue in his mission.  I'm struggling to convey the difference between the kind of sacrifice that is conjured up in Apocalypto, and Jesus' death.   The animals that were killed all those hundreds of years prior to Jesus, were symbols.  If you take the example of the Passover Lamb that had to be taken into the family home and loved and petted for several days before Passover.  The family would have felt torn at having to kill this innocent lamb.  I can see how the issues of life and death, innocence, suffering, all these things were crudely 'covered' by the animals, but if God provides a Lamb whose blood is shed and thus ends the vicious cycle of animal sacrifices and ultimately sin and death, then I don't see a violation of the Law but a change or fulfilment. 

Sacrifice will be active in the messianic era and the Levitial priesthood will be functioning.
 

 

Jer 33:17-18(ESV)
“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

This verse does not say that these things will last 'forever', but 'continually'.  The Hebrew word that is usually translated 'forever' (Olam), doesn't necessarily mean 'without end'.  It can mean for a length of time that is not determined.  Some Christians believe that these kind of verses are showing that there will be a temporary reintroduction of some aspects of the Levitical priesthood system and that even animals will be killed to focus people on Jesus' sacrifice.  This is because sin is still present during the 1000 year reign.  I don't know about any of that.  The NT seems to teach that all believers are priests now, and so these verses have would make more sense from a spiritual perspective and not literally.  I'm not sure.  What I am sure about, as far as the story goes, is that one day there will be no more tears, pain or death.  If animals are to be eternally sacrificed, this would make a mockery of that part of the story. 

Text of Dan 9 states:
Dan 9:25-27(ESV)
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Pushing the destruction of the city outside the 70 weeks is vital if one wants to place Jesus in this passage, but I see no reason such a rationaliztion should be accepted, especially when Jesus doesn't even qualify to be a king messiah.

It's true, that the destruction is outside of the 70 weeks by about 33 years and I still think it very feasible to view the destruction as not having to occur within the 70 weeks but be a result of the other things that happen within the 70 weeks.   I believe the story of Jesus makes him the only valid and legally qualified contender to this 'anointed one' mentioned in Daniel who comes on the scene very soon before this destruction of the city.  Surely you can see how the story of Jesus seems to fit very well to Daniel's prophecy.  There is no other contenders who lived at that time, who could claim to be that 'anointed one' of Daniel.  There are no writings or stories that have survived, that claim someone else as this 'Messiah'.   Daniel was right about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - so was he right about the Messiah? 

 

The 'anointed one' is mentioned twice and it can be seen by the context that it is the same person being spoken about.

The context is for a prince to come after 49 years or 7 weeks, then after 434 more years or 62 weeks, an anointed one is cut off.

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

If it's the same person then they lived for hundreds of years.
Verse 26 then states that the people of a prince will come and destroy the city and Temple.
That's three people in total, two being princes and one simply being anointed.
A ruler and his army come and destroy the city.
The second prince is the ruler that comes with his army.
 

I've only had a quick look at this so I could be wrong, but if you check this verses in the Hebrew interlinear:

http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/9-25.htm

 

your Bible version that you quote from, seems to not convey the meaning correctly.  The correct translation should read:

''Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.''  King James version.
 

There are too many things that make me sit up and take notice.  By understanding the 70 weeks as a continuous span of time, and with all that we know supposedly happened regarding Jesus, and what we are sure happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, it seems to me that someone special was meant to show up around 30AD, and this would precede the destruction of the Jewish system of life as a theocratic nation, which of course we know did happen.

If the interpretations that fit Jesus into the prophecy appeal to you, then you're wise to consult Christian apologetics, as they specialize in explaining all of it and turning it into an amazing fulfillment.

 

I'm trying to look at this objectively.  Did the temple and city get destroyed within the time frame predicted by Daniel and in the manner predicted by Daniel?  Yes, it would certainly seem so.  Therefore, it's a no brainer to seriously consider Jesus to be 'the anointed one' that is also mentioned by Daniel.