| Author | Message | ||
| Zjason Registered user Username: Zjason Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-2005 |
Here's something that I wonder about, and maybe it's been visited before, but maybe you could shed some light on this... My 4 year old boy had one of the amazing fact pamphlets in his churchbag this weekend. I glanced at it and noticed it was the one on the "Date of Judgement", regarding the 2300 year prophecy. I looked it over during sabbschool and read about the prophecy of Daniel regarding the 62 weeks in Dan.9:25. What are your thoughts on the passage in 9:27 where the "Annointed One would be cut off" in the middle of the week? and the validity of the standard adventist interpretation of this prophecy? | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 963 Registered: 7-2004 |
This was the sticky point that was the beginning of my awakening from Adventist slumber. I was trying to share the IJ with a work friend and after failing to find a real IJ reference in Dan. 8:14 I looked to find it in Dan. 9:25. I'd studied it many times in school, but this time I was reading it from a bible with references. The Anointed One is Christ. Then we have the people of the Ruler who come in and destroy the city (Rome destroyed Jerusalem, 70AD). From the rebuilding of the city to the cutting off of the Anointed One is 69 weeks. The destruction of the city is after that, but does not appear to be accounted for within the 70 weeks scenario because that destruction took place more than 70 weeks after the decree to rebuild. That does seem to give some credance to the free-floating 70th week that will be fulfulled at the end of time. The person who confirms a covenant with many for one seven sounds like an unrighteous person to me. He practices abominations on the wing of the temple. Jesus cleansed the temple of the abomination of commercialism. This person who confirms a covenant cannot be The Christ. That Christ event has taken place long ago. Antiochus Epiphenese, a very bad man, took control of the Beautiful Land during the time of the Macabbees and had to be routed. The celebration of that event is Hannukah. In Jesus' time it was referred to as the Winter Celebration. He and his disciples attended that celebration together and it is obvious that they were discussing the deposition of Antiochus because Jesus refers them back to Daniel's prophecy and says that someone of a similar ilk will be seen again on the pages of history. It is a very brief reference, and I'm bed-ridden and cannot look it up for you, but it can be found in a concordance by looking for "winter celebration." What I'm describing is NOT the standard Adventist interpretation of these verses, because they see Jesus as having been cut off mid-week. Most of Christianity will say that Jesus was crucified 31AD. Adventists will put it at 34AD, three and a half years beyond the end of the 69th week. I've probably created more mud than clarity, but I also believe that this person described by Daniel is AntiChrist and you and I need to be able to recognize when he appears on scene. I will say that I firmly believe that this mid-week cutting off action here has to do with the covenant that the AntiChrist makes with The Many. Now we need to research and see who "The Many" are. Again, I am just a pew warmer, and have no special gifts at interpretation, or knowledge of ancient languages. The above is merely gleanings over the years and may contain error. | ||
| Russkellyphd Registered user Username: Russkellyphd Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2006  |
There are two major schools of theology here. The last post explained the futurist school well and I agree with it. The SDA interpretation is generally accepted by more churches. It has the 70 weeks ending in AD 70 and the second half of 9:26 being parenthetical and taking place after verse 27. The futurists say that "he" in 9:27 refers to the "prince" in 9:26 who is the future antichrist. The other school says that "he" in 9:27 rerers to "prince" in 9:25 and is Christ. Regardless of which view you choose, the SDA error is in using 9:24, 25 as the beginning point of their longest day, 457 BC to AD 1844. First, the temple was not defiled in 457 BC. Second, the propphetic day did not last one year from 1844 to 1845. Third, the starting point of the vision is much better explained as the desolating of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC. Fourth, on the Day of Atoanement the entire sanctuary required cleansing and not merely the MHP. etc, etc etc, etc. |
