Why is there no mention of the church (Bride of Christ) during the times of the “beginnings of sorrows”, and the “time of Jacobs trouble” (Daniels entire 70th week), in the book of Revelation?

Answer: Because the Bride of Christ is not present during the 70th week of Daniel

According to Isaiah 44:28, what was Cyrus going to do, and how does this pertain to Daniel 9:25?

Answer:

(app 553 BC) Daniel 9:25 states:

“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.”

So we can conclude that someone (not named) will issue a command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, the city (including the walls and the street). Knowing this:

(app 712 BC) Isaiah 44:28 states prophetically:

***Before going further, we need to understand and focus on the decree itself not the issuer of it. Prophecy does not directly tie Cyrus and Dan. 9:25 together, we must understand it by rationalization.

However, since the command/decree to rebuild Jerusalem is the focus, the fact that it was Cyrus or one of his lineage of kings was the one to do it, was likely. Otherwise we probably would have Dan. 9:25 read something like, “that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem by Cyrus unto the Messiah” but that is just not the case.

We must also realize that the prophecy of Daniel directly naming Cyrus occurs approximately 159 years before the prophecy of the “command to restore Jerusalem”. This is also important as it isolates the decree itself as the important factor.

This is the occurrence by “Cyrus king of Persia” :

The prophecy of Jeremiah foretold of the end of the Babylonian empire. This is was accomplished by Cyrus’ defeat of the Babylonians and the first year of his reign (Jer. 25:12-13; Ezra 1:1)

There is a problem with correlating this occurrence with the prophecy foretold in Isaiah 44:28. This certain Cyrus does not give a command to restore Jerusalem, but “to build him an house at Jerusalem” (which he doesn’t complete anyhow). But Cyrus says build, not rebuild, and he does not say anything about walls or streets.

So if it was not this Cyrus, then who was it?

First, we have to understand that titles such as Cyrus, Xerxes, Artexerxes, etc. were types of titles or labels given to rulers of Medo-Persia, just as the title “Caeser” was given to rulers of Rome. Knowing this, we follow the lineage of Cyrus down to Artexerxes Longimanus.

Here we see Nehemiah beseeching the King to let him go rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and the king sending letters (decrees or commands) for him to do so. Except in this case, Nehemiah has the walls and streets specifically rebuilt, fulfilling the latter half of Dan. 9:25. “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times”

Two things also need to be understood now:

1) Artexerxes actually stopped the building of the temple decreed by Cyrus.
2) Nehemiah fulfilled his decree by Artexerxes by rebuilding Jerusalem, fulfilling not only Dan. 9:25, but Isaiah 44:28 also!

Please understand that I am not saying that the prophecy did not pertain at all to Cyrus. It began with him, but the actual fulfilling decree was not uttered until Artexerxes Longimanus.

What is the “covenant” referred to in 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,”

What is this covenant, and why would it be confirmed? For something to be confirmed it already has to have been established, with all parties familiar with it, and to make it stronger.

Webster’s has it as :

1. To make firm, or more firm; to add strength to; to strengthen; as, health is confirmed by exercise.
2. To fix more firmly; to settle or establish.
3. To make firm or certain; to give new assurance of truth or certainty; to put past doubt.

And Strong’s has it as:

to prevail, have strength, be strong, be powerful, be mighty, be great

So knowing this, what covenant has already been established that these parties, especially the Jews, are referring to?

We have an indication in the very next subject:

“: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,”

So, this covenant had to have caused something that would make the anti-christ break the covenant, that covenant being Yom Kippur under the Judaic covenant of the Day of Atonement.

We also know it has to be the anti-christ, because it says that he is the one that causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

I have heard some people say that it is Jesus who will confirm the covenant. This just cannot be so. Jesus would never restart the old ritual of sacrifice! Therefore He could not be the one to confirm this type of covenant.

It also makes sense that it would be the anti-christ, because the Jews will believe that he(the anti-christ) will be the coming Messiah.

This post was last modified: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:04 PM by Jim.

Didn’t the sacrifice and oblation cease with General Titus’ destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.?

Answer: This would be impossible as the 70th week would have to directly follow the 69th, which it simply did not. Each “week” represents 7 years. The Second Coming did not occur in 40 A.D., which it would have had to if we follow Daniels prophecy of 7 years per “week”.

So, knowing this, we have to figure that something else is going on. There can only be one of two conclusions:

• The seventieth week is actually much, much longer than it’s previous 69 counterparts, which is highly unlikely and incongruent, or
• There is a “gap” between the 69th and 70th week. This is also known as the “church age” where the Gospel of Christ goes out unto the Bride to establish the kingdom of heaven(Christianity). This is the proper answer.


Once this bride is complete, it will be raptured:

2 Thess. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

What is “taken out of the way” is the Holy Spirit, when the Bride of Christ is raptured. There will no longer be the presence of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity, as the Holy Spirit resides in Christians, and there will be none on earth at that point.

When will the 70th week begin?

Answer: Something has to occur before the 70th week of Daniel can begin.

We read:

When will he(the anti-christ) confirm this covenant? We do not know. What we do know is that the rapture must occur first:

The bride of Christ must be removed from the picture (the removal of the Holy Spirit/he who now letteth), then the anti-Christ will be revealed(2 Thess. 2:8 )

After this, we do not know how long it will be before the anti-christ will confirm the covenant with Israel.

Could the Pope be the anti-christ?

Answer: Nobody at this point in prophecy knows who the anti-christ is, or will be. It very well could be, but it could be anyone. All we know is that he will not be revealed until the after the rapture.

Many people try to make the correlation of 2 Thess. 2:4 to the pope sitting on his throne, but this cannot be, as this verse specifically refers to the anti-christ sitting inside the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, which has yet to be rebuilt.

"rebuilt temple" is your word Jim, not the scripture's, I'm sorry to say.

2 Corr 6: 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

You will see that the temple of the Living God is the Church, and the Pope has usurped Christ's place in what he call the Church, and calls himself the "Vicar of Christ", ie, the Antichrist.

The Pope also exhalts himself above all that is called God, when he sits enthroned on the high altar, above what they call god, -- the host. Some years ago, Ian Paisley at the Oxford Union, held up the Roman wafer and said "This is the Roman Catholic God." You can get this lecture on Sermona Audio.

Again, Your words Jim. Daniel doesn't mention Antichrist, you have put words into his prophecy which are just not there.

Again, Jim, your words. Your assumptions on what you have been taught, we know of no such thing. Scripture gives no suggestion of this.

This is a very shallow interpretation of something. Let's use your own words here.

You are obviously correlating this statement, knowing this verse:

2 Thess. 2:4
Who 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.

Now, let's think rationally. You just basically said, by your argument, that the temple referred to here is the body of believers. Now, since you have already stated that you believe that temple of the Holy SPirit (body of believers) will be here during the 70th week, how can both reside in it?

That is exactly what you have just stated. You claim the pope (your assertion that he is the anti-christ) can reside in this "temple"(body of believers), and also the Holy Spirit can too?

This just doesn't make any sense at all how you say the temple is the believers, then you say this is how the "pope" resides there?

That seems to me a very dangerous position to take.

Of course you are using the terminology that the pope "calls" himself things, so maybe you are allowing a way out......but then again then that would refute what you just stated, so this really doesn't make any sense at all.

And by the way, what would you call a structure that is rebuilt? The term trinity is not God's Word either, do you call it something else?

If you are going to base your opinions on whether you see exact terminology in scripture supporting ones argument, then your arguments are not going to make it anywhere either.

I will address your other statements soon.

Jim

The bible makes it very clear in Daniel 9:26,27 that it is referring to the anti-christ.

1) You state it is referring to Jesus confirming the covenant, which is blasphemous, and:

2) You say you know that the pope is the anti-christ, which the bible never says anything about....

Notice the complete and utter subject change after the colon? The subject changes from Jesus Christ (I know it doesn't actually say Jesus Christ, but that is in fact who it is speaking of there, just in case you wanted to point that out) to the anti-christ (prince that shall come). When a subject changes like that, it always stays o nthat subject, it never changes back to Christ, so there is your answer.

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 12:03 PM by Jim.

Here we go again with the "what I have been taught" syndrome.

As I have always said, and you have never listened to, "My conclusions are from the bible itself, not with any secular supplemental materials out there."

If it is, as you say, "what i have been taught" then your accusation states that the Holy Spirit is wrong.

Either way, you have given absolutely no scripture to the contrary of my studies to prove, or even support that you may be correct in anything that you have stated.

In Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 12:04 PM by Jim.

Sorry Jim

If what you say is from the Bible, why do you keep saying things that the Bible dosesn't?
Love in Christ

Do you have any idea how rediculous that sounds?

I know it would be wonderful, but I don't think it would be rational to walk around all day communicating to each other in scripture would it? I wonder how one would tell someone else they were getting a new job paying more each year, using scripture?

When are you going to address scripture? Everything I have shown has had scripture to back it up.

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 12:05 PM by Jim.

And David,

Let's please stick to the subject at hand, just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative is not very pleasant.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Jim, I stopped answering you regarding this subject some time ago, when you said that you were taught by the Hloy Spirit. That finishes any discussion. Like most Charismatics I come accross.

On another Forum, I disagree just as much with an a millenialist who is also just as sure as you regarding his stance from scripture.

But I love you both in the Lord.

I am neither a-millennialist nor charasmatic.

But your inability to defend whatever your viewpoint is(this remains to be seen) on eschatology, is enough in itself is it not?

My principals are that if a person disagrees with something, then either give a solution, or give proof to why it would be otherwise. So far, you have done neither.

I love you too. It looks as if we agree on the fundamentals, but as it still stands I have no idea what your stance or defense of your viewpoint on eschatology is.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 12:05 PM by Jim.