Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unto Messiah the Prince

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

    Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    I don't disagree, I do not know to what the order or “command” to rebuild the temple applies. Some candidates are: the edict of the Persian King, Cyrus I in 538 BC, allowing the displaced tribes of Israel to return to their homeland after 70 years in Babylon; or it could be the decree of Persian King Artaxerxes I in 457 BC, allowing the restoration of local government and authority; or the warrant given to Nehemiah, who was appointed governor of Judea by Artazerxes I, to return to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in his first term in 445 BC; or in Nehemiah’s second term, between 431 to 401 BC, to restore the religious faith and temple practices.
    These will give various and for some, vague end dates. So I propose we start at the only certain date involved and work backwards to discover the original "command."
    Just a few thoughts:
    1) We should use scripture to understand what is stated.
    2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1 BOTH tell the SAME thing.
    As does Daniel 9.
    All point to the WORD of God - NOT a decree of Man.
    2) Artaxerxes Longiman - who I think you are calling Artaxerxes I did NOT issue a decree in 457 BC. The word Artaxerxes was used of other kings BEFORE this king. Read Esther to help you with this.
    3) The decree of an Artaxerxes basically mirrored that of Darius and Cyrus. It didn't add anything to the previously issued decree.
    4) Now there was a letter given to Nehemiah which brought about the rebuilding of the city and walls in 445 BC.

    Now when we recognise that the 62 weeks is connected to the rebuilding of the city walls AND streets then we don't come to some vague end date.
    We come to the time when Jesus came as Messiah. This was at His birth.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

      Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
      Daniel makes reference to two abominations being set up, both of them are associated with the end of the sacrifices in the temple. The first was temporary and the second permanent. Historically, the sacrifices did stop twice, and we know the dates of both instances.
      For the second instance, Daniel places the end of sacrifices in the middle of the last 'week', or seven year period. We can then calculate the beginning and end of the final week.
      Actually Daniel makes THREE references.
      One which was with A4E and was for a designated period of time.
      Two was not specifically about sacrifices at all but about the destruction of the city and sanctuary. This was not for a designated period of time. This occurred in 70 AD.
      Three was a yet future ending to sacrifices, which can't be fulfilled yet as sacrifices haven't restarted yet.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

        Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
        I think Daniel makes no mention of Christ's birth, I think he is referring to Christ's return.
        Christ's return can def be found in Dan 9 except it's hidden in the text.

        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.


        If this involves the beast that is cast into the LOF in Revelation 19, that requires Christ's return in order to fulfill that. In my opinion all of verse 27 involves the 70th week. IOW there is nothing in that verse that occurs outside of the 70th week. Yet another reason why I can't conclude Christ is meant anywhere in verse 27, except for His return that is hidden in the text. This part.... and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate....for sure didn't take place around the time of Christ's death and resurrection, yet this has to take place during this same 70th week.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

          Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
          I have to trust the Bible on the timeframe:

          """Some of the Israelites, including priests, Levites, musicians, gatekeepers and temple servants, also came up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes.8 Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king. """

          Artaxerxes is definitely mentioned there. Artaxerxes started his reign in 465BC, the 7th year of Artaxerxes is then 458BC.
          Had a whole thread discussing this.
          You need to understand something about the name Artaxerxes.
          It was a title and meant Great Warrior/Chief.
          When you look at the Hebrew then you find that the name is NOT Artaxerxes but Ahaseurus in Ezra 4:6.
          Further as you try to put the chronology in order it doesn't work IF you assume it is referring to Artaxerxes Longiman.
          Read Esther 1:1 you find the same name AND importantly he is differentiated from a previous Ahaseurus.
          Same word in Esther as in Ezra.
          Delve further and you realise that this present Ahaseurus refers to Xerxes (the father of Artaxerxes Longiman).
          The previous Ahaseurus refers to another earlier king who was BEFORE Darius.
          When you understand this, then the chronology and statements made in Ezra ALL connect together correctly.

          Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in July/August of 458BC and soon issued Artaxerxes decree to the local leaders.
          Nope, Ezra arrived around 523 BC. And shortly after arriving Ahaseurus (who had made the decree died.)

          God is however more interested in the spiritual restoration of Israel and Jerusalem, the more important decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem spiritually was issued in the 9th month
          ""A proclamation was then issued throughout Judah and Jerusalem for all the exiles to assemble in Jerusalem. 8 Anyone who failed to appear within three days would forfeit all his property, in accordance with the decision of the officials and elders, and would himself be expelled from the assembly of the exiles. 9 Within the three days, all the men of Judah and Benjamin had gathered in Jerusalem. And on the twentieth day of the ninth month, all the people were sitting in the square before the house of God""

          The proclamation to repent and restore Israel was issued in the 9th month, of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, November 458 BC.
          Nope this proclamation was made around 523 BC.

          483 years later Jesus starts his ministry. 3.5 years later Jesus was crucified in the spring of 30 AD
          Nope, again incorrect. However that is for reasons as much to do with Luke's accurate statements as anything else.

          Originally posted by divaD View Post
          Christ's return can def be found in Dan 9 except it's hidden in the text.

          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.


          If this involves the beast that is cast into the LOF in Revelation 19, that requires Christ's return in order to fulfill that. In my opinion all of verse 27 involves the 70th week. IOW there is nothing in that verse that occurs outside of the 70th week. Yet another reason why I can't conclude Christ is meant anywhere in verse 27, except for His return that is hidden in the text. This part.... and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate....for sure didn't take place around the time of Christ's death and resurrection, yet this has to take place during this same 70th week.
          I would say His return is the very END of the 70th week.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

            Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
            Just a few thoughts:
            1) We should use scripture to understand what is stated.
            2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1 BOTH tell the SAME thing.
            As does Daniel 9.
            All point to the WORD of God - NOT a decree of Man.
            2) Artaxerxes Longiman - who I think you are calling Artaxerxes I did NOT issue a decree in 457 BC. The word Artaxerxes was used of other kings BEFORE this king. Read Esther to help you with this.
            3) The decree of an Artaxerxes basically mirrored that of Darius and Cyrus. It didn't add anything to the previously issued decree.
            4) Now there was a letter given to Nehemiah which brought about the rebuilding of the city and walls in 445 BC.

            Now when we recognise that the 62 weeks is connected to the rebuilding of the city walls AND streets then we don't come to some vague end date.
            We come to the time when Jesus came as Messiah. This was at His birth.
            This is the point I was trying to make: we should start with a known date in time and work backward.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

              Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
              This is the point I was trying to make: we should start with a known date in time and work backward.
              See post #55...............................

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post


                I would say His return is the very END of the 70th week.
                And that was the exact point I was making, thus His return is hidden in the text, so to speak.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                  Originally posted by divaD View Post
                  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself....this obviously has His death and resurrection in focus, though not obvious to someone such as Fenris.


                  Well for starters, as has already been discussed, the Hebrew says "an anointed" not "The messiah", and he will be "cut off", which is a fate deserved for bad people, and concludes that "he will be no more" or "have nothing" and not "but not for himself". That's why it's not obvious at all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                    Originally posted by Fenris View Post


                    Well for starters, as has already been discussed, the Hebrew says "an anointed" not "The messiah", and he will be "cut off", which is a fate deserved for bad people, and concludes that "he will be no more" or "have nothing" and not "but not for himself". That's why it's not obvious at all.
                    I don't see why or how a bad person fits the text though? What in the text leads one to conclude a bad person is in view, besides what you already allege? So meaning before that part.

                    Daniel 9:25 *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.


                    Meaning this part. Why would Jerusalem need to be restored and rebuilt unto a bad person? For what reason? To accomplish exactly what?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      Actually Daniel makes THREE references.
                      One which was with A4E and was for a designated period of time.
                      Two was not specifically about sacrifices at all but about the destruction of the city and sanctuary. This was not for a designated period of time. This occurred in 70 AD.
                      Three was a yet future ending to sacrifices, which can't be fulfilled yet as sacrifices haven't restarted yet.
                      The establishment of future sacrifices in contrary to Paul, and also contradicts the limit of 70 weeks, which no matter when we start the count, it is still squarely in ancient times.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                        Had a whole thread discussing this.
                        You need to understand something about the name Artaxerxes.
                        It was a title and meant Great Warrior/Chief.
                        When you look at the Hebrew then you find that the name is NOT Artaxerxes but Ahaseurus in Ezra 4:6.
                        Further as you try to put the chronology in order it doesn't work IF you assume it is referring to Artaxerxes Longiman.
                        Read Esther 1:1 you find the same name AND importantly he is differentiated from a previous Ahaseurus.
                        Same word in Esther as in Ezra.
                        Delve further and you realise that this present Ahaseurus refers to Xerxes (the father of Artaxerxes Longiman).
                        The previous Ahaseurus refers to another earlier king who was BEFORE Darius.
                        When you understand this, then the chronology and statements made in Ezra ALL connect together correctly.


                        Nope, Ezra arrived around 523 BC. And shortly after arriving Ahaseurus (who had made the decree died.)


                        Nope this proclamation was made around 523 BC.


                        Nope, again incorrect. However that is for reasons as much to do with Luke's accurate statements as anything else.


                        I would say His return is the very END of the 70th week.
                        Is there any reason to trust you more than the Strongs dictionary?

                        אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׁתָּא ʼArtachshashtâʼ, ar-takh-shash-taw'; or אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׁתְּא ʼArtachshashtᵉʼ; or by permutation אַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא ʼArtachshaçtᵉʼ; of foreign origin; Artachshasta (or Artaxerxes), a title (rather than name) of several Persian kings:—Artaxerxes.

                        Context and the dictionary point to a king. Even the first Persian king using the title Artaxerxes existed later than your claimed dates.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                          Originally posted by divaD View Post
                          I don't see why or how a bad person fits the text though?
                          So, two things. First of all, the Hebrew term used is "Karet", which is a specific punishment for certain bad sins. The word may mean nothing to you, but the to the people for whom Hebrew was a first language, immersed in biblical culture, it meant a lot.

                          Secondly, why are you assuming the "anointed" in verse 25 is the same "anointed" in verse 26? I think the "anointed" in verse 25 is the same "anointed" in Isaiah 45:1. The "anointed" who gave the permission to restore Jerusalem. Cyrus. "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free"(Is 45:13)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                            Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
                            This is the point I was trying to make: we should start with a known date in time and work backward.
                            And my counter-point was that we should use the known date in the past.
                            Further the point of prophecy is to let you know something beforehand, not afterwards.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                              Is there any reason to trust you more than the Strongs dictionary?

                              אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׁתָּא ʼArtachshashtâʼ, ar-takh-shash-taw'; or אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׁתְּא ʼArtachshashtᵉʼ; or by permutation אַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא ʼArtachshaçtᵉʼ; of foreign origin; Artachshasta (or Artaxerxes), a title (rather than name) of several Persian kings:—Artaxerxes.

                              Context and the dictionary point to a king. Even the first Persian king using the title Artaxerxes existed later than your claimed dates.
                              I used Strongs.
                              You will note it was a title of several Persian kings.

                              I didn;t say Artaxerxes wasn't a king, I simply said you are referencing the WRONG king, and have the wrong date.

                              Originally posted by Fenris View Post
                              So, two things. First of all, the Hebrew term used is "Karet", which is a specific punishment for certain bad sins. The word may mean nothing to you, but the to the people for whom Hebrew was a first language, immersed in biblical culture, it meant a lot.

                              Secondly, why are you assuming the "anointed" in verse 25 is the same "anointed" in verse 26? I think the "anointed" in verse 25 is the same "anointed" in Isaiah 45:1. The "anointed" who gave the permission to restore Jerusalem. Cyrus. "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free"(Is 45:13)
                              I agree with you that the anointed in verse 25 was Cyrus.
                              I also see the second anointed as someone else in verse 26.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Unto Messiah the Prince

                                Originally posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
                                The establishment of future sacrifices in contrary to Paul, and also contradicts the limit of 70 weeks, which no matter when we start the count, it is still squarely in ancient times.
                                Doesn't contradict Paul. Further it doesn't contradict OT prophecies.
                                It also doesn't contradict the 70 weeks.
                                The 70 weeks are SPLIT into THREE blocks.
                                7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week. These blocks are NOT following immediately on from each other.
                                The 7 weeks ends with the coming of an anointed one.
                                The 62 weeks ends with the coming of an anointed one.
                                The 1 week also ends with the coming of an anointed one.

                                Originally posted by divaD View Post
                                And that was the exact point I was making, thus His return is hidden in the text, so to speak.
                                So I was agreeing with you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X