7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[precepts]

There's no way an educated world could promote a doctrine based on reading comprehension errors by accident. No way!

 

[precepts]

No way!

 

[precepts]

Signs of the times!

 

[Douggg]

Plus, I told you the little horn is Gog in Rev 20, the reason for Dan 11 moving from the context of the 3rd beast kingdom, as is Dan 8's context, to the 2nd resurrection in Dan 12.

What? The little horn is Gog?

Gog doesn't stop the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, to commit the transgression of desolation of the temple. Gog's army doesn't even make it into Jerusalem, to the temple to do such a thing in Ezekiel 38 and 39. And nothing in Revelation 20 mentioning Gog and Magog would apply to the temple.

 

[precepts]

Thanks for your opinion, Doug.

 

[Xalith]

Not sure what has happened in 33 Pages of this conversation, but I want to pop in with this little tidbit that many people seem to miss:

There are three accounts of Jesus giving Prophecy near the end of His ministry: Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Here's some verses from Luke 21:

Luke 21:1 says that Jesus was in the Temple near the Treasury when they asked Him about the Temple and Jesus replies that there won't be one stone upon another and they go "When will this happen?" and he gives this prophecy.

Luke 21:9 says that "these things will happen, but the end is not by and by".

Luke 21:12 says "But before all of these....." and then He goes on to further explain what will happen in 70AD.

So, that seems to fit with Jesus foretelling 70AD, right!? Well, yes... but... let's look at Matthew and Mark's version of this "same" (which isn't the same) teaching by Jesus:

Matthew 24:1 starts out by saying "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple:"

Well, wait. Luke said Jesus was IN the Temple, right? Matthew says He was away from the Temple.

Matthew 24:3 says that this was a private briefing (Mark 13 specifies: Peter, James, John and Andrew) with the "inner circle" of apostles.

So this is clearly a whole different event. Let's go on and see what exactly He says:

Matthew 24:15: The abomination of desolation similar to the one mentioned in Daniel (the Romans merely razed the Temple)
Matthew 24:21: " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Well, if the razing of the Temple in 70AD was "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" then we have a problem, because far worse things have happened since then (yanno, like, the holocaust?)

So these certainly can't be talking about 70AD, because none of that happened in 70AD.

Matthew 24:25: "Behold, I told you this before" (yeah, in Luke 21, when He was just down there in the Temple a few hours ago....)

Matthew 24:29-31: The Rapture, "Angels will gather the Elect..."

So obviously, Luke 21 is a completely different event than Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (which are both the same event).

That's why you have people who believe we're already in the Millenium (which is weird, because it's been 2000 years), and why people think the "Olivet Discourse" is about 70AD (even though Luke's version didn't even take place on the Mount of Olives, and as such, isn't the Olivet Discourse at all).

Cliffnotes: Jesus taught very similar sermons: one IN the Temple in Luke 21, and then He taught a similar but different sermon in Matthew 24/Mark 13 to James, Peter, John and Andrew on the Mount of Olives.

Because God loves cycles and repetitions, similar things that happened before, will happen again, only in greater magnitude.

Now, where's the 7 year peace treaty come into play?

Daniel 9:24-27:

v24: 70 weeks are allotted to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, etc.
v25: From the time the call goes out to rebuild Jerusalem, and its walls, to the time the Messiah shall come will be 69 weeks.
v26: After 62 weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, etc
v27: The "one week covenant"

v25: has already been done, from the call to rebuild Jerusalem (March 14th... 445BC? I think it was?) until April 4th 32AD is exactly 69 weeks of years (483 Jewish Years). The math works out right smack on the money.

v26: This is partly my theory, but I think Gabriel meant "62 weeks of months shall the Messiah be cut off" ... if you work out the math, 62x7 = 434. Divide that by 12 (12 months in a year), and you get 36.1-something. Most scholars will agree that Christ was born in 4BC, and if He was crucified in 32AD, that would indeed make Him 36 at the time of His death.

v27: We've used 69 of the 70 weeks, there's still 1 week left! Verse 27 speaks of that week. The "People of the prince who shall come" mentioned in v26 (Satan?), and in the middle of this week, and will commit a desolation (which fits right in with the Olivet Discourse which mentions the Abomination of Desolation, that is, setting up a statue of a pagan deity in the Holy of Holies).

The funny thing about weeks, is that you never know if it's a week of months, a week of years, a week of weeks, or a week of days. The 69 weeks for the rebuilding of Jerusalem was obviously weeks of years -- the math comes out perfect. In v26, the 62 weeks mentioned there appears to be weeks of months.

The thing is, we don't know what kind of week the last week is. Since v25 uses weeks of years (we've confirmed this), and v26 appears to use weeks of months, we cannot assume a week of years for v27! It could be a week of months (7 months) for all we know. The only thing is, is once the Peace Treaty gets signed, we can know that halfway into that, they will break the treaty and literal Hell will break loose on Earth.

 

[Goodbook]

Um. Ok.
Except theres no peace treaty and Jesus didnt say anything bout a peace treaty.

 

[Douggg]

Cliffnotes: Jesus taught very similar sermons: one IN the Temple in Luke 21, and then He taught a similar but different sermon in Matthew 24/Mark 13 to James, Peter, John and Andrew on the Mount of Olives.

The thing is, we don't know what kind of week the last week is. Since v25 uses weeks of years (we've confirmed this), and v26 appears to use weeks of months, we cannot assume a week of years for v27! It could be a week of months (7 months) for all we know. The only thing is, is once the Peace Treaty gets signed, we can know that halfway into that, they will break the treaty and literal Hell will break loose on Earth.

The last week is 7 years. The covenant is to be confirmed "for" 7 years. Not a 7 years covenant. But "for" 7 years.

Back in Deuteronomy 31, as Israel was about the enter the promised land given to them under the Mt. Sinai covenant, to be theirs forever, Moses made a law that every 7 years (the schmitah cycle) on the feast of tabernacles and from the place of God's choosing - the law is to be read to the assembly of Israel. That's the confirmation of the covenant for "7 years".

The 7 years is right in the text of Deuteronomy 31:9-13

The Mt. Sinai covenant also established the daily sacrifices. The Antichrist will oversee the reading from the temple mount - which begins the 7 years. In the middle of the 7 years, he will transgress the covenant by claiming to be God and stops the daily sacrifice.

There is no 7 year peace treaty forthcoming.

 

[precepts]

 

[Luke17:37]

Not sure what has happened in 33 Pages of this conversation, but I want to pop in with this little tidbit that many people seem to miss:

There are three accounts of Jesus giving Prophecy near the end of His ministry: Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Here's some verses from Luke 21:

Luke 21:1 says that Jesus was in the Temple near the Treasury when they asked Him about the Temple and Jesus replies that there won't be one stone upon another and they go "When will this happen?" and he gives this prophecy.

Luke 21:9 says that "these things will happen, but the end is not by and by".

Luke 21:12 says "But before all of these....." and then He goes on to further explain what will happen in 70AD.

So, that seems to fit with Jesus foretelling 70AD, right!? Well, yes... but... let's look at Matthew and Mark's version of this "same" (which isn't the same) teaching by Jesus:

Matthew 24:1 starts out by saying "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple:"

Well, wait. Luke said Jesus was IN the Temple, right? Matthew says He was away from the Temple.

Matthew 24:3 says that this was a private briefing (Mark 13 specifies: Peter, James, John and Andrew) with the "inner circle" of apostles.

So this is clearly a whole different event. Let's go on and see what exactly He says:

Matthew 24:15: The abomination of desolation similar to the one mentioned in Daniel (the Romans merely razed the Temple)
Matthew 24:21: " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Well, if the razing of the Temple in 70AD was "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" then we have a problem, because far worse things have happened since then (yanno, like, the holocaust?)

So these certainly can't be talking about 70AD, because none of that happened in 70AD.

Matthew 24:25: "Behold, I told you this before" (yeah, in Luke 21, when He was just down there in the Temple a few hours ago....)

Matthew 24:29-31: The Rapture, "Angels will gather the Elect..."

So obviously, Luke 21 is a completely different event than Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (which are both the same event).

That's why you have people who believe we're already in the Millenium (which is weird, because it's been 2000 years), and why people think the "Olivet Discourse" is about 70AD (even though Luke's version didn't even take place on the Mount of Olives, and as such, isn't the Olivet Discourse at all).

Cliffnotes: Jesus taught very similar sermons: one IN the Temple in Luke 21, and then He taught a similar but different sermon in Matthew 24/Mark 13 to James, Peter, John and Andrew on the Mount of Olives.

Because God loves cycles and repetitions, similar things that happened before, will happen again, only in greater magnitude.

Now, where's the 7 year peace treaty come into play?

Daniel 9:24-27:

v24: 70 weeks are allotted to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, etc.
v25: From the time the call goes out to rebuild Jerusalem, and its walls, to the time the Messiah shall come will be 69 weeks.
v26: After 62 weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, etc
v27: The "one week covenant"

v25: has already been done, from the call to rebuild Jerusalem (March 14th... 445BC? I think it was?) until April 4th 32AD is exactly 69 weeks of years (483 Jewish Years). The math works out right smack on the money.

v26: This is partly my theory, but I think Gabriel meant "62 weeks of months shall the Messiah be cut off" ... if you work out the math, 62x7 = 434. Divide that by 12 (12 months in a year), and you get 36.1-something. Most scholars will agree that Christ was born in 4BC, and if He was crucified in 32AD, that would indeed make Him 36 at the time of His death.

v27: We've used 69 of the 70 weeks, there's still 1 week left! Verse 27 speaks of that week. The "People of the prince who shall come" mentioned in v26 (Satan?), and in the middle of this week, and will commit a desolation (which fits right in with the Olivet Discourse which mentions the Abomination of Desolation, that is, setting up a statue of a pagan deity in the Holy of Holies).

The funny thing about weeks, is that you never know if it's a week of months, a week of years, a week of weeks, or a week of days. The 69 weeks for the rebuilding of Jerusalem was obviously weeks of years -- the math comes out perfect. In v26, the 62 weeks mentioned there appears to be weeks of months.

The thing is, we don't know what kind of week the last week is. Since v25 uses weeks of years (we've confirmed this), and v26 appears to use weeks of months, we cannot assume a week of years for v27! It could be a week of months (7 months) for all we know. The only thing is, is once the Peace Treaty gets signed, we can know that halfway into that, they will break the treaty and literal Hell will break loose on Earth.

Does it really make sense that 69 weeks would be periods of seven years and the last week would be anything other than a period of seven years? What would it communicate if the the last week was redefined without telling us?

P.S. Sounds like you're splitting hairs separating Matthew 24/Mark 13 from Luke 21. Jesus could have started the discussion in the temple and continued as they exited and walked up the mount of Olives. The slight differences in eyewitness accounts are just because certain details are noticed and considered significant by people in various ways.

 

[Xalith]

P.S. Sounds like you're splitting hairs separating Matthew 24/Mark 13 from Luke 21. Jesus could have started the discussion in the temple and continued as they exited and walked up the mount of Olives. The slight differences in eyewitness accounts are just because certain details are noticed and considered significant by people in various ways.

Then why do Matthew 24/Mark 13 include details that Luke 21 leaves out? Why does Luke mention things that neither Matthew nor Mark include?

They are very consistent -- Matthew and Mark are very close to each other, and Luke is... way different with stark differences in the actual sermon.

EDIT: Also, this: Luke 21:37: And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

This is added on AFTER the sermon. Here, Luke is saying "He taught the sermon in the daytime and THEN went out to the Mount of Olives" whereas Matthew and Mark say "Jesus departed from the Temple and THEN Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him 'when will these things be?'" and don't forget Matthew 24:25 where He says "Behold, I told you this before".

That makes perfect sense, because Luke 21 is the account of him "telling them this before".

 

[Fusion77]

Then why do Matthew 24/Mark 13 include details that Luke 21 leaves out? Why does Luke mention things that neither Matthew nor Mark include?

They are very consistent -- Matthew and Mark are very close to each other, and Luke is... way different with stark differences in the actual sermon.

EDIT: Also, this: Luke 21:37: And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

This is added on AFTER the sermon. Here, Luke is saying "He taught the sermon in the daytime and THEN went out to the Mount of Olives" whereas Matthew and Mark say "Jesus departed from the Temple and THEN Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him 'when will these things be?'" and don't forget Matthew 24:25 where He says "Behold, I told you this before".

That makes perfect sense, because Luke 21 is the account of him "telling them this before".

I got the sense that Matthew 24:25 signifies that Jesus was forewarning them, (for our benefit). Or telling them beforehand. Really warning us, as it's directed to the end of times. So I looked up the original language and it does appear to read as such. The bold letters below...

◄ Matthew 24:25 ►
Text Analysis
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3708[e] idou ἰδοὺ Behold, V-AMA-2S
4302[e] proeirēka προείρηκα I have foretold [it] V-RIA-1S
4771[e] hymin ὑμῖν. to you. PPro-D2P
Greek Texts


A direct reading would likely be- "Behold I have foretold it to you." So Jesus wasn't repeating what He had said. But, it appears rather, foretelling what would occur.

 

[Luke17:37]

Then why do Matthew 24/Mark 13 include details that Luke 21 leaves out? Why does Luke mention things that neither Matthew nor Mark include?

They are very consistent -- Matthew and Mark are very close to each other, and Luke is... way different with stark differences in the actual sermon.

EDIT: Also, this: Luke 21:37: And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

This is added on AFTER the sermon. Here, Luke is saying "He taught the sermon in the daytime and THEN went out to the Mount of Olives" whereas Matthew and Mark say "Jesus departed from the Temple and THEN Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him 'when will these things be?'" and don't forget Matthew 24:25 where He says "Behold, I told you this before".

That makes perfect sense, because Luke 21 is the account of him "telling them this before".

The gospel accounts are all a little different. You surely don't think Jesus was crucified or resurrected more than once. They don't need include all the same details. If every single point was the same, it wouldn't be realistic.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are all about the same things - the destruction of the temple, the Tribulation, and the return of Christ. Jesus is warning them (us) not to be deceived latehspecifically by false Christs and false returns of Christ. He talks about our need to faithfully withstand persecution to the end.

 

[Goodbook]

I think if people want to fixate on whats happening or not happening in Jerusalem now they are missing the point.

Jesus is the one who brings us the peace that passeth all understanding, and its he who confirms the covenant with his blood that we remember everytime we eat and drink the Lords supper.

The new Jerusalem is promised to all believers, both jew and gentile. There is no temple building there. The temple is not made with human hands..see hebrews. See Romans. See book of revelation. We, the called out believers, the church, are the temple of the holy spirit. Church encompasses all who believe as all are one in Christ.