Daniels' Seventy Sevens

[mikew]

I agree with the idea that the seventy sevens were fulfilled in the first century.
There was a good article that gave justification to the prophecy being fulfilled. The link is dead but maybe I can find the articles on my computer. Basically the idea was that the events were "determined" by the arrival, death and resurrection of Jesus rather than trying to further assume that the events were "completed" in the seventy sevens time period.

In general Daniel 9 fits so well with the explanation of salvation through Jesus that the "difficult" aspects also should fit in that same time period. We ought to justify God in His promises. It seems right to see that God was pointing to the time of Christ so clearly. This prophecy definitely applied to the Israel people,vs 11 (and Jerusalem,vs 16) as needing to repent in light of the coming of the kingdom.

(I hope this post survives. I just lost one posted on this topic.)

[RND]

I am not sure what you mean when you said "I just don't agree." Are you in disagreement about the small gap between 33-24 AD to 70 AD, or are you disagreed to my statement of "I disagree," which would make you in agreement with the small gap. Do you get what I am trying to say?

I should have been clearer. I don't agree with either the "small gap theory" nor Preterism" in general.

How are we left with "one very confused antichrist?" Antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation even once. The characteristics of antichrists are ONLY mentioned in 1st and 2nd John...and no where else in the entire Bible - Old or New Testament.[/quote]

The "anti-Christ" is indeed mentioned in the OT and in Revelation many times, just not by the name "anti-Christ." Revelation 12 and 13 are fairly specific as to who this "anti-Christ" is.

The "scapegoat" led out into the wilderness was literally a symbol for the power that would eventually lead to this "anti-Christ."

The Name "Azazel."—The testimony of many scholars of the past, both Jewish and Christian, as well as many of the present, is to this effect:

Azazel Refers to a Person

The Jewish authority Dr. M. M. Kalisch.—There can be no doubt whatever that Azazel is a personal, a superhuman, and an evil being—in fact a wicked demon. . . . It was approved of by early Christian writers who identified Azazel with Satan (Origen, C. Cels. VI. 43, p. 305 ed. Spencer; Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. 12; Epiphan. Haeres XXXIV. 11), and by many later and modern scholars.— A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 328, 329.

"International Standard Bible Encyclopedia."—By the use of the same preposition . . . in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural . . . to think of some personal being.— "Azazel," vol. 1, p. 343.

Smith and Peloubet's "A Dictionary of the Bible."—The best modern scholars agree that it designates the personal being to whom the goat was sent, probably Satan.—Page 65.

Azazel Refers to Satan.

J. Russell Howden (Church of England).—The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God's challenge to Satan. Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God's acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.

Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian).—The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.

E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran).—The manner in which the phrase "for Azazel" is contrasted with "for Jehovah," necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.

J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ?).—"And one lot for Azazel" (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that "Azazel," instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.

William Jenks (Congregationalist).—Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the "angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.

"Abingdon Bible Commentary" (Methodist).—On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.

[Mellontes]

I am not sure what you mean when you said "I just don't agree." Are you in disagreement about the small gap between 33-24 AD to 70 AD, or are you disagreed to my statement of "I disagree," which would make you in agreement with the small gap. Do you get what I am trying to say?

I should have been clearer. I don't agree with either the "small gap theory" nor Preterism" in general.

How are we left with "one very confused antichrist?" Antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation even once. The characteristics of antichrists are ONLY mentioned in 1st and 2nd John...and no where else in the entire Bible - Old or New Testament.

The "anti-Christ" is indeed mentioned in the OT and in Revelation many times, just not by the name "anti-Christ." Revelation 12 and 13 are fairly specific as to who this "anti-Christ" is.

The "scapegoat" led out into the wilderness was literally a symbol for the power that would eventually lead to this "anti-Christ."

The Name "Azazel."—The testimony of many scholars of the past, both Jewish and Christian, as well as many of the present, is to this effect:

Azazel Refers to a Person

The Jewish authority Dr. M. M. Kalisch.—There can be no doubt whatever that Azazel is a personal, a superhuman, and an evil being—in fact a wicked demon. . . . It was approved of by early Christian writers who identified Azazel with Satan (Origen, C. Cels. VI. 43, p. 305 ed. Spencer; Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. 12; Epiphan. Haeres XXXIV. 11), and by many later and modern scholars.— A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 328, 329.

"International Standard Bible Encyclopedia."—By the use of the same preposition . . . in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural . . . to think of some personal being.— "Azazel," vol. 1, p. 343.

Smith and Peloubet's "A Dictionary of the Bible."—The best modern scholars agree that it designates the personal being to whom the goat was sent, probably Satan.—Page 65.

Azazel Refers to Satan.

J. Russell Howden (Church of England).—The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God's challenge to Satan. Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God's acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.

Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian).—The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.

E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran).—The manner in which the phrase "for Azazel" is contrasted with "for Jehovah," necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.

J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ?).—"And one lot for Azazel" (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that "Azazel," instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.

William Jenks (Congregationalist).—Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the "angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.

"Abingdon Bible Commentary" (Methodist).—On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.

I don't mean to be rude, for that is not my intention, but I don't base my beliefs on what other fallible men say "about" the Word of God. It becomes a majority versus minority system of differentiating truth. Same thing with the dating of Revelation...I have my ninety or so sources for the early date and others have their sources for the later date. Neither constitutes Real Truth. Neither proves anything. If the majority truly does determine truth, then Christianity, in and of itself, is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humankind! Christians are a minority faith.

To make other individuals mentioned elsewhere into THE antichrist is wrong. 1st and 2nd John clearly attribute antichrist as "characteristics"to those who deny Jesus came in the flesh, that Jesus is not the Christ, and that denies the Father and the Son. It is not referring to ONE future, religious, political figure as you have assumed/interjected/presupposed it to be.

1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

To me, it is based upon the same perpetrated myth that Lucifer is satan...
Dante's Inferno hasn't helped things much either...

[RND]

I don't mean to be rude, for that is not my intention, but I don't base my beliefs on what other fallible men say "about" the Word of God.

No sweat. Then you won't mind if we ignore your takes for the same reasons?

It becomes a majority versus minority system of differentiating truth. Same thing with the dating of Revelation...I have my ninety or so sources for the early date and others have their sources for the later date. Neither constitutes Real Truth. Neither proves anything. If the majority truly does determine truth, then Christianity, in and of itself, is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humankind! Christians are a minority faith.

Does that mean more Christians believe in Sasquatch than those that don't?

To make other individuals mentioned elsewhere into THE antichrist is wrong. 1st and 2nd John clearly attribute antichrist as "characteristics"to those who deny Jesus came in the flesh, that Jesus is not the Christ, and that denies the Father and the Son. It is not referring to ONE future, religious, political figure as you have assumed/interjected/presupposed it to be.

1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Right. So the "spirit" of anit-Christ's deny that Jesus is God, right? That can be done both individually or corporately. Governments in general are "anti-Christ" based on their behavior.

To me, it is based upon the same perpetrated myth that Lucifer is satan...

Christadelphian?

Dante's Inferno hasn't helped things much either...

I suppose that perspective would be based on who's coffers were filled as a result of Dante's view. I mean, indulgences had to come from somewhere!

[MoGrace2u]

What was clear for the prophecy given to Daniel for his people is made obscure for us because we cannot establish the exact dates looking back and trying to go forward as they did. But we don't need to because we are not looking forward to the coming of those things. And unless we can go back in time to when these markers actually occurred we will never arrive at the exact time by counting years. They could though. Which is why the expectations for Messiah was so high at the time of His arrival.

Going by what marks the prophecy however can be done by locating the cross. Jesus was not known clearly as Messiah until after His death and resurrection. Even the disciples were in some doubt until then - like John the baptist who questioned whether Jesus was the one or not.

But from the cross we can count back 1290 days and find His baptism. And going 1335 days forward from there we can find Jesus ascending back to heaven a few days before Pentecost. Which was the special blessing of Dan 12.

Which is pretty much where the book is sealed until that time arrived. Sealed to the Jews but revealed to the saints. Why our hindsight is still so confused seems odd given all these things have been fulfilled historically. Perhaps it is because we are looking at only trying to make the numbers fit rather than identifying the events themselves? Daniel if you note did not count off 70 years when he read in Jeremiah about the end of the captivity. Instead he recognized what marked the prophecy as fulfilled.

[Mellontes]

To me, it is based upon the same perpetrated myth that Lucifer is satan...

Christadelphian?

Just two things, what did you mean by saying "Christadelphian?"? What was your purpose or intent? And the second thing is do you believe Lucifer is satan? A simple yes or no should suffice...

[RND]

Just two things, what did you mean by saying "Christadelphian?"?

Nothing, I was asking a question.

What was your purpose or intent?

To find out if you are possibly a "Christadelphian."

And the second thing is do you believe Lucifer is satan? A simple yes or no should suffice...

Yes.

"Lucifer" is simply one of the many names used to describe Satan. "Day Star," "Son of the Morning," "Morning Star," or "Light Bearer" were translated using the name of a monk named Lucifer that Jerome had an axe to grind. Then again, Lucifer had been in usage for well over 300 years before Jerome, so it is possible that Lucifer was the usage by Origen and Tertullian saw as most fitting with the usage of the lexicon in their day. Who knows? Who cares?

Most everyone knows that Luficer in Isaiah 14 is a comparison with a king of Babylon in the usage of an essentially familiar old Canaanite story. So in the long run I'm OK with Lucifer in this sense. Lucifer/Satan/Red Dragon/Serpent/Azazel, et al., are all the same.

[SteveF]

"Day Star," "Son of the Morning," "Morning Star," or "Light Bearer" were translated using the name of a monk named Lucifer that Jerome had an axe to grind.

Where did you hear this? It's a little hard for me to believe since Jerome used the word "lucifer" in 2Peter in a positive light (excuse the pun)

2Pe 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

[RND]

Where did you hear this? It's a little hard for me to believe since Jerome used the word "lucifer" in 2Peter in a positive light (excuse the pun)

This is a standard "Chrisadelphian" belief.

Christadelphians

The Truth about Lucifer - The True Identify of Lucifer

[mtymousie]

Here is a link to an article of mine from years ago. (And, no, I am not, and never have been associated with the "Christadephians".)

http://www.angelfire.com/tn2/holyword/satan.html

preteristmouse