Daniel's 70 weeks and the Messiah

[SteveB]

You have adopted an assumed chronology, This leads to great problems

Sounds like the problem is your assumptions.

Why then this difference of opinion?

I'd say that you have assumptions.
I'm satisfied with descriptions previously developed.

The explanation is that those who, in recent years, have turned their attention to this prophecy, have gone about the interpretation of it in the wrong way.

how do you know that your interpretation is the actual correct one, and not the assumed correct one?

They have pursued a method which cannot do other than lead to an erroneous conclusion.

convenient, isn't it.

This should be understood by the reader(and we will seek to make it quite clear) before proceeding further.

The right way of getting at the chronology of the prophecy is so simple and obvious that a child can readily comprehend it.

i kind of thought so.

All we need to do is to ascertain from the Word of God the two events specified by the angel, (1)the going forth of the “commandment” and (2) the manifestation of “Messiah the Prince.” Having definitely fixed these two events (which the Scriptures enable us to do with certainty) we know from the prophecy itself that from the one to the other is just 483 years. By this method we have no need of a system of chronology. But our expositors have proceeded in a very different way. First they have made choice of one or another ofthe various systems of chronology which have been compiled by various chronologists — as Ussher’s, Lloyd’s,Clinton’s or Marshall’s.

Not among them.

Then, having assigned the correctness of the selected chronology, they have sought first for a decree of some Persian king, and second for some event in the lifetime of Christ, which would be as near as possible to 483 years apart, according to the selected chronology.It will be clear upon the briefest consideration that, according to this method, the interpretation of the prophecy is controlled by whatever chronology the expositor may have selected; for he needs must reject every interpretation which does not agree with his assumed chronology.Now, not only is this method of procedure fundamentally wrong in that it tries to make events of Bible history fit in with a man-made chronological scheme, but the fact is that every chronological System covering the period we have to do with (i.e., from the beginning of the Persian monarchy down to Christ) is largely a matter of guesswork. All those systems, without any exception, are based upon the “canon” of Ptolemy, that is to say,a list of supposed Persian kings, with the supposed length of the reign of each, which list was compiled by Ptolemy, a heathen astronomer and writer of the second century AD But Ptolemy does not even pretend to have had any facts as to the length of the Persian period (that is to say, from Darius and Cyrus down to Alexander the Great). Ptolemy estimates or guesses this period to have been 205 years long. And this is what has caused all the trouble and uncertainty; for every one who has attempted to construct a Bible chronology has based himself on Ptolemy’s estimate. In a word then, there is no chronology in existence of the period from Cyrus to Christ except in the Bible Phillip Mauro Seventy weeks and the great tribulation

sounds like you're assuming i am in need of such complexities.

Instead allow scripture to define the 69 weeks unto an anointed one - Jesus anointing by the Holy Spirit

that encompassed the 69 week. The beginning of his public ministry and the declaration of being the anointed one.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/daniels-70-weeks-and-the-messiah.1191/post-53969

3.5 years later in the 70th week he was cutoff

Ironically, the passage states,

Dan 9:26-27 WEB 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the decreed full end, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

Who is the he that makes the covenant with the many?
The anointed/Messiah was previously cut off, AFTER the 69 weeks.
Which is exactly what I previously stated.
He entered the city on the exact date Daniel stated, and 4 days later, he was cut off.

The prince of the people who is to come hasn't arrived yet.
He hasn't made the covenant with the many yet.
The temple is not yet in existence, so he can't have committed the abomination of desolation yet.

Thanks Tom, but I'm good here.

 

[TomL]

Sounds like the problem is your assumptions.


I'd say that you have assumptions.
I'm satisfied with descriptions previously developed.

how do you know that your interpretation is the actual correct one, and not the assumed correct one?

convenient, isn't it.



i kind of thought so.


Not among them.


sounds like you're assuming i am in need of such complexities.


Ironically, the passage states,

Dan 9:26-27 WEB 26 After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end will be with a flood, and war will be even to the end. Desolations are determined. 27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate; and even to the decreed full end, wrath will be poured out on the desolate.”

Who is the he that makes the covenant with the many?
The anointed/Messiah was previously cut off, AFTER the 69 weeks.
Which is exactly what I previously stated.
He entered the city on the exact date Daniel stated, and 4 days later, he was cut off.

The prince of the people who is to come hasn't arrived yet.
He hasn't made the covenant with the many yet.
The temple is not yet in existence, so he can't have committed the abomination of desolation yet.

Thanks Tom, but I'm good here.

You have a major problem with the phrase unto messiah the prince.

You employ pagan chronologies to determine that event

if you heed scripture however it is revealed Christ is the anointed one at his baptism

We must, of course, look to the words themselves to guide us to the information we are seeking; and those words are all we need. We are accustomed to regard the term “the Messiah” as merely a name or a title, but in fact it is a descriptive Hebrew word meaning “the anointed (one)”. In Greek the word Christos has the same meaning. Therefore, we have, only to ask, when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the Anointed One? As to this we are not left in any doubt whatever, for it was an event of the greatest importance in the life of Jesus our Lord, as well as in the dealings of God with Israel, and in the history of the world, an event which is made prominent in all the four Gospels It was at His baptism in Jordan that our Lord was “anointed” for His ministry; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape its a dove. The apostle Peter bears witness that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38).This is clear and explicit to the point that, when the years of Israel’s history had unrolled to that marvelous day on which Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously manifested to the senses of men, it brought them “unto the Messiah.” There is no day in all history like that. The event is marked in a way to distinguishit most conspicuously. The Lord’s own testimony in regard to the matter is even more definite and impressive. For, after His return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, He came to Nazareth where He had beenbrought up, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, He read from the prophet Isaiah these strikingwords: “The Spirit, of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath ANOINTED Me to preach the gospel to the poor”; — and after He had closed, the book He said, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke4:16–21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be, at that time, the “Anointed” One, that is, “the Messiah”.The testimony of God the Father is to the same effect. For the Voice from heaven bore witness to Him, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved.” This declares Him to be the One of Whom David prophesied in the Second Psalm (verse 7). But that same Psalm sets Him forth as God’s “anointed” (verse 2).19But we have a special witness in John the Baptist, who was a man sent from God to bear witness of Christ,and to make Him manifest, to Israel; for John himself declared this to be his mission, saying, “that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:6–7, 31). When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been “anointed” with the Holy Ghost and had been “made manifest to Israel” by the testimony of John the Baptist, then, the words of the prophecy “unto the Anointed One” were completely fulfilled.

Phillip Mauro Seventy weeks and the great tribulation

So if at his baptism Christ was revealed as the anointed one 69 weeks into the 70 he was then cutoff 3.5 years later or in the middle of the 70th week

 

[SteveB]

You have a major problem with the phrase unto messiah the prince.

You employ pagan chronologies to determine that event

if you heed scripture however it is revealed Christ is the anointed one at his baptism

We must, of course, look to the words themselves to guide us to the information we are seeking; and those words are all we need. We are accustomed to regard the term “the Messiah” as merely a name or a title, but in fact it is a descriptive Hebrew word meaning “the anointed (one)”. In Greek the word Christos has the same meaning. Therefore, we have, only to ask, when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the Anointed One? As to this we are not left in any doubt whatever, for it was an event of the greatest importance in the life of Jesus our Lord, as well as in the dealings of God with Israel, and in the history of the world, an event which is made prominent in all the four Gospels It was at His baptism in Jordan that our Lord was “anointed” for His ministry; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape its a dove. The apostle Peter bears witness that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38).This is clear and explicit to the point that, when the years of Israel’s history had unrolled to that marvelous day on which Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously manifested to the senses of men, it brought them “unto the Messiah.” There is no day in all history like that. The event is marked in a way to distinguishit most conspicuously. The Lord’s own testimony in regard to the matter is even more definite and impressive. For, after His return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, He came to Nazareth where He had beenbrought up, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, He read from the prophet Isaiah these strikingwords: “The Spirit, of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath ANOINTED Me to preach the gospel to the poor”; — and after He had closed, the book He said, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke4:16–21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be, at that time, the “Anointed” One, that is, “the Messiah”.The testimony of God the Father is to the same effect. For the Voice from heaven bore witness to Him, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved.” This declares Him to be the One of Whom David prophesied in the Second Psalm (verse 7). But that same Psalm sets Him forth as God’s “anointed” (verse 2).19But we have a special witness in John the Baptist, who was a man sent from God to bear witness of Christ,and to make Him manifest, to Israel; for John himself declared this to be his mission, saying, “that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:6–7, 31). When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been “anointed” with the Holy Ghost and had been “made manifest to Israel” by the testimony of John the Baptist, then, the words of the prophecy “unto the Anointed One” were completely fulfilled.

Phillip Mauro Seventy weeks and the great tribulation

So if at his baptism Christ was revealed as the anointed one 69 weeks into the 70 he was then cutoff 3.5 years later or in the middle of the 70th week

I'm always amused when people tell me I'm using pagan ideas for biblical Christianity.

Never heard of Philip Mauro.
So, why would I care about what Philip says?

How do I know he's not a pagan? How do I know that his teachers weren't pagans who used pagan ideas?

 

[SteveB]

You have a major problem with the phrase unto messiah the prince.

You employ pagan chronologies to determine that event

if you heed scripture however it is revealed Christ is the anointed one at his baptism

We must, of course, look to the words themselves to guide us to the information we are seeking; and those words are all we need. We are accustomed to regard the term “the Messiah” as merely a name or a title, but in fact it is a descriptive Hebrew word meaning “the anointed (one)”. In Greek the word Christos has the same meaning. Therefore, we have, only to ask, when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the Anointed One? As to this we are not left in any doubt whatever, for it was an event of the greatest importance in the life of Jesus our Lord, as well as in the dealings of God with Israel, and in the history of the world, an event which is made prominent in all the four Gospels It was at His baptism in Jordan that our Lord was “anointed” for His ministry; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape its a dove. The apostle Peter bears witness that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38).This is clear and explicit to the point that, when the years of Israel’s history had unrolled to that marvelous day on which Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously manifested to the senses of men, it brought them “unto the Messiah.” There is no day in all history like that. The event is marked in a way to distinguishit most conspicuously. The Lord’s own testimony in regard to the matter is even more definite and impressive. For, after His return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, He came to Nazareth where He had beenbrought up, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, He read from the prophet Isaiah these strikingwords: “The Spirit, of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath ANOINTED Me to preach the gospel to the poor”; — and after He had closed, the book He said, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke4:16–21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be, at that time, the “Anointed” One, that is, “the Messiah”.The testimony of God the Father is to the same effect. For the Voice from heaven bore witness to Him, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved.” This declares Him to be the One of Whom David prophesied in the Second Psalm (verse 7). But that same Psalm sets Him forth as God’s “anointed” (verse 2).19But we have a special witness in John the Baptist, who was a man sent from God to bear witness of Christ,and to make Him manifest, to Israel; for John himself declared this to be his mission, saying, “that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:6–7, 31). When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been “anointed” with the Holy Ghost and had been “made manifest to Israel” by the testimony of John the Baptist, then, the words of the prophecy “unto the Anointed One” were completely fulfilled.

Phillip Mauro Seventy weeks and the great tribulation

So if at his baptism Christ was revealed as the anointed one 69 weeks into the 70 he was then cutoff 3.5 years later or in the middle of the 70th week

Ok. I did some digging on Mauro.
No wonder why I never heard of him before.
His books are from a century ago.

The only reason I'd heard of Sir Anderson was because the people I had heard of talked about him.

As I'm not affiliated with the Episcopalian church, I wouldn't be acquainted with him or his writings.

Using the idea that I'm using pagan chronologies to justify your beliefs, tells me that in your mindset, anyone who is not Episcopalian is a pagan.
I trust that Jesus isn't that exclusive and that anyone who places their trust in the Jesus described in the Bible is following him.

So, I'll ignore your ideas for the time being.

 

[TomL]

I'm always amused when people tell me I'm using pagan ideas for biblical Christianity.

Never heard of Philip Mauro.
So, why would I care about what Philip says?

How do I know he's not a pagan? How do I know that his teachers weren't pagans who used pagan ideas?

He bases his exposition on scripture for the starting point and for identifying the time of the anointed one.

He is not concerned with chronology that is based on pagans for the dueration of Persian rukle.co

d

Ok. I did some digging on Mauro.
No wonder why I never heard of him before.
His books are from a century ago.

The only reason I'd heard of Sir Anderson was because the people I had heard of talked about him.

As I'm not affiliated with the Episcopalian church, I wouldn't be acquainted with him or his writings.

Using the idea that I'm using pagan chronologies to justify your beliefs, tells me that in your mindset, anyone who is not Episcopalian is a pagan.
I trust that Jesus isn't that exclusive and that anyone who places their trust in the Jesus described in the Bible is following him.

So, I'll ignore your ideas for the time being.

Hardly I have no interest in his denomination, and I am not Episcopalian. All chronologies depend on Ptolemy for the duration of the Persian kings

. First they have made choice of one or another of the various systems of chronology which have been compiled by various chronologists — as Ussher’s, Lloyd’s, Clinton’s or Marshall’s. Then, having assigned the correctness of the selected chronology, they have sought first for a decree of some Persian king, and second for some event in the lifetime of Christ, which would be as near as possible to 483 years apart, according to the selected chronology.It will be clear upon the briefest consideration that, according to this method, the interpretation of the prophecy is controlled by whatever chronology the expositor may have selected; for he needs must reject every interpretation which does not agree with his assumed chronology. Now, not only is this method of procedure fundamentally wrong in that it tries to make events of Bible history fit in with a man-made chronological scheme, but the fact is that every chronological System covering the period we have to do with (i.e., from the beginning of the Persian monarchy down to Christ) is largely a matter of guesswork. All those systems, without any exception, are based upon the “canon” of Ptolemy, that is to say,a list of supposed Persian kings, with the supposed length of the reign of each, which list was compiled byPtolemy, a heathen astronomer and writer of the second century AD But Ptolemy does not even pretend to have had any facts as to the length of the Persian period (that is to say, from Darius and Cyrus down to Alexander the Great). Ptolemy estimates or guesses this period to have been 205 years long. And this is what has caused all the trouble and uncertainty; for every one who has attempted to construct a Bible chronology has based himself on Ptolemy’s estimate. Phillip Mauro - Seventy years and the great tribulation

 

[SteveB]

He bases his exposition on scripture for the starting point and for identifying the time of the anointed one.

How ironic.
Because the people I'm acquainted with....
They too base their exposition of scripture as the starting point.
So.... i find it curious that you are opposed to those who do the same thing and get a different schedule...

He is not concerned with chronology that is based on pagans for the dueration of Persian rukle.co

d

huh? That last part makes absolutely no sense.

Hardly I have no interest in his denomination, and I am not Episcopalian.

yet you obviously trust his opinion.
why is that?
what makes you think his opinion is more valid than the opinions of others who are equally, or more educated?

All chronologies depend on Ptolemy for the duration of the Persian kings

yet you give me nothing to corroborate this.

. First they have made choice of one or another of the various systems of chronology which have been compiled by various chronologists — as Ussher’s, Lloyd’s, Clinton’s or Marshall’s.

I'm acquainted with Ussher. I have not however heard of the others.
My use of Ussher’s Annals has only ever been the 1654 years from creation to the flood. A timeline which is easily corroboratable by anyone who can count.
I've never used him for anything else.

Then, having assigned the correctness of the selected chronology, they have sought first for a decree of some Persian king, and second for some event in the lifetime of Christ, which would be as near as possible to 483 years apart, according to the selected chronology.

as near as possible...
so you're assuming that my views are utterly incorrect based on an "as near as possible..."?
there's something seriously twisted with that.

It will be clear upon the briefest consideration that, according to this method, the interpretation of the prophecy is controlled by whatever chronology the expositor may have selected; for he needs must reject every interpretation which does not agree with his assumed chronology. Now, not only is this method of procedure fundamentally wrong in that it tries to make events of Bible history fit in with a man-made chronological scheme, but the fact is that every chronological System covering the period we have to do with (i.e., from the beginning of the Persian monarchy down to Christ) is largely a matter of guesswork. All those systems, without any exception, are based upon the “canon” of Ptolemy, that is to say,a list of supposed Persian kings, with the supposed length of the reign of each, which list was compiled byPtolemy, a heathen astronomer and writer of the second century AD But Ptolemy does not even pretend to have had any facts as to the length of the Persian period (that is to say, from Darius and Cyrus down to Alexander the Great). Ptolemy estimates or guesses this period to have been 205 years long. And this is what has caused all the trouble and uncertainty; for every one who has attempted to construct a Bible chronology has based himself on Ptolemy’s estimate. Phillip Mauro - Seventy years and the great tribulation

I'm thinking that you're trying to beat a horse to death which was previously trained, and died.
What do you think you're going to achieve here Tom?

So far the only thing I'm seeing is that you are condemning me for not having a problem with my existing views, and being critical of people who cannot answer for themselves.

I've been looking at this for several decades, and have come to the conclusion that there are certain things that we're not going to see until we are in eternity. And I say this because of the manifold views held by people who are all claiming to follow Jesus.

As such, I've come to the point where I'm focusing on what we're told to focus on.

I.e., Luke 19:13, and 21:34-36.

You're more than welcome to think you have stumbled upon the final, objective, and utterly accurate view, but people who are far more educated than either of us recognize what I have...

---

Conclusion
The prophecy of the 70 weeks is complex and amazingly detailed, and much has been written about it. Of course, there are various interpretations, but what we have presented here is the dispensational, premillennial view. One thing is certain: God has a time table, and He is keeping things on schedule. He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), and we should always be looking for the triumphant return of our Lord (Revelation 22:7).

What are the seventy weeks of Daniel? | GotQuestions.org

What are the seventy (70) weeks of Daniel? Do the seventy weeks represent 490 years in God’s program? How are the seventy weeks divided?

www.gotquestions.org

I know that I can do Luke 19:13, and 21:34-36. I'm not interested in trying to answer what nobody else has for over 2 millennia.

 

[TomL]

How ironic.
Because the people I'm acquainted with....
They too base their exposition of scripture as the starting point.
So.... i find it curious that you are opposed to those who do the same thing and get a different schedule...

The point is they are using chronology to determine the events

huh? That last part makes absolutely no sense.

All established chronology schedules make use of Ptolemy's canon for the times and duration of the Persian kings

yet you obviously trust his opinion.
why is that?
what makes you think his opinion is more valid than the opinions of others who are equally, or more educated?

Scripture

Scripture tells us when Christ was revealed as the anointed

yet you give me nothing to corroborate this.

Read again Multiple scriptures were given to speak of when Christ was revealed as the anointed one (messiah)

However

We must, of course, look to the words themselves to guide us to the information we are seeking; and those words are all we need. We are accustomed to regard the term “the Messiah” as merely a name or a title, but in fact it is a descriptive Hebrew word meaning “the anointed (one)”. In Greek the word Christos has the same meaning. Therefore, we have, only to ask, when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the Anointed One? As to this we are not left in any doubt whatever, for it was an event of the greatest importance in the life of Jesus our Lord, as well as in the dealings of God with Israel, and in the history of the world, an event which is made prominent in all the four Gospels It was at His baptism in Jordan that our Lord was “anointed” for His ministry; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape its a dove. The apostle Peter bears witness that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38).This is clear and explicit to the point that, when the years of Israel’s history had unrolled to that marvelous day on which Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously manifested to the senses of men, it brought them “unto the Messiah.” There is no day in all history like that. The event is marked in a way to distinguish it most conspicuously. The Lord’s own testimony in regard to the matter is even more definite and impressive. For, after His return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, He came to Nazareth where He had been brought up, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, He read from the prophet Isaiah these striking words: “The Spirit, of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath ANOINTED Me to preach the gospel to the poor”; — and after He had closed, the book He said, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke4:16–21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be, at that time, the “Anointed” One, that is, “the Messiah”.The testimony of God the Father is to the same effect. For the Voice from heaven bore witness to Him, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved.” This declares Him to be the One of Whom David prophesied in the SecondPsalm (verse 7). But that same Psalm sets Him forth as God’s “anointed” (verse 2)
But we have a special witness in John the Baptist, who was a man sent from God to bear witness of Christ,and to make Him manifest, to Israel; for John himself declared this to be his mission, saying, “that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:6–7, 31). When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been “anointed” with the Holy Ghost and had been “made manifest to Israel” by the testimony of John the Baptist, then, the words of the prophecy “unto the Anointed One” were completely fulfilled.From that great and wonderful event down to the day of His death, He was constantly before the people in His Messianic character, fulfilling His Messianic mission, going about, doing good, healing all that were oppressed of the devil, preaching the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God, manifesting the Father’s Name, speaking the words His Father gave Him to speak, and doing the works the Father gave Him to do. Indeed, even before He announced Himself in the synagogue of Nazareth as God’s “Anointed One,” He had plainly said to the woman of Samaria (after she had spoken of “Messiah, who is called Christ”), “I that speak unto thee am He”(John 4:25–26). Moreover, to the Samaritans who came out to see Him on the woman’s report, He so fully revealed Himself that they were constrained to confess Him, saying, “We have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ (the Anointed One), the Saviour of the world” (verse 42).Furthermore, the nature, as well as the effect of John the Baptist’s public testimony to the Lord Jesus, is clearly revealed by the words of those who, on hearing his testimony, followed Jesus. It is recorded that “One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him (Jesus) was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ”(John 1:40–41)

 

[SteveB]

The point is they are using chronology to determine the events

YOU ASSUME that.
So far you haven't actually provided me with any evidence beyond what you claim.

All established chronology schedules make use of Ptolemy's canon for the times and duration of the Persian kings

Provide me evidence of this.
I'm looking for anything to corroborate this online, but can't find diddly. So, give me a good reason to believe you.

Scripture

Scripture tells us when Christ was revealed as the anointed

Yep.

Read again Multiple scriptures were given to speak of when Christ was revealed as the anointed one (messiah)

However

We must, of course, look to the words themselves to guide us to the information we are seeking; and those words are all we need. We are accustomed to regard the term “the Messiah” as merely a name or a title, but in fact it is a descriptive Hebrew word meaning “the anointed (one)”. In Greek the word Christos has the same meaning. Therefore, we have, only to ask, when was Jesus of Nazareth presented to Israel as the Anointed One? As to this we are not left in any doubt whatever, for it was an event of the greatest importance in the life of Jesus our Lord, as well as in the dealings of God with Israel, and in the history of the world, an event which is made prominent in all the four Gospels It was at His baptism in Jordan that our Lord was “anointed” for His ministry; for then it was that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily shape its a dove. The apostle Peter bears witness that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38).This is clear and explicit to the point that, when the years of Israel’s history had unrolled to that marvelous day on which Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously manifested to the senses of men, it brought them “unto the Messiah.” There is no day in all history like that. The event is marked in a way to distinguish it most conspicuously. The Lord’s own testimony in regard to the matter is even more definite and impressive. For, after His return to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, He came to Nazareth where He had been brought up, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, He read from the prophet Isaiah these striking words: “The Spirit, of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath ANOINTED Me to preach the gospel to the poor”; — and after He had closed, the book He said, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke4:16–21). Thus the Lord declared Himself to be, at that time, the “Anointed” One, that is, “the Messiah”.The testimony of God the Father is to the same effect. For the Voice from heaven bore witness to Him, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved.” This declares Him to be the One of Whom David prophesied in the SecondPsalm (verse 7). But that same Psalm sets Him forth as God’s “anointed” (verse 2)
But we have a special witness in John the Baptist, who was a man sent from God to bear witness of Christ,and to make Him manifest, to Israel; for John himself declared this to be his mission, saying, “that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:6–7, 31). When, therefore, the Lord Jesus had been “anointed” with the Holy Ghost and had been “made manifest to Israel” by the testimony of John the Baptist, then, the words of the prophecy “unto the Anointed One” were completely fulfilled.From that great and wonderful event down to the day of His death, He was constantly before the people in His Messianic character, fulfilling His Messianic mission, going about, doing good, healing all that were oppressed of the devil, preaching the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God, manifesting the Father’s Name, speaking the words His Father gave Him to speak, and doing the works the Father gave Him to do. Indeed, even before He announced Himself in the synagogue of Nazareth as God’s “Anointed One,” He had plainly said to the woman of Samaria (after she had spoken of “Messiah, who is called Christ”), “I that speak unto thee am He”(John 4:25–26). Moreover, to the Samaritans who came out to see Him on the woman’s report, He so fully revealed Himself that they were constrained to confess Him, saying, “We have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ (the Anointed One), the Saviour of the world” (verse 42).Furthermore, the nature, as well as the effect of John the Baptist’s public testimony to the Lord Jesus, is clearly revealed by the words of those who, on hearing his testimony, followed Jesus. It is recorded that “One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him (Jesus) was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ”(John 1:40–41)

You're not saying anything new.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=pretrib_arch

THE SEVENTY-WEEKS PROPHECY OF DANIEL 9:24–27 AND FIRST-CENTURY AD JEWISH MESSIANIC EXPECTATION

For Christians who interpret the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 by correlating the coming of the messiah with the arrival of Jesus Christ, the question of whether Jesus could have been identified as the predicted messiah at the time of fulfillment is theologically significant given biblical...

digitalcommons.andrews.edu

Books | Walvoord.com

Give me a good reason to believe that you actually have a valid leg to stand on.

 

[SteveB]

So far the only discussion I'm finding about Ptolemy is a guy named Jordan, out of Florida.
Never heard of him before 10 minutes ago.
He's a Presbyterian theologian, with a reform view.

Looking at the Jewish Virtual Library they mention nothing about Ptolemy.
They do however have a simple commentary on Daniel and for chapter 9 they state,

CHAPTER 9.
The apocalypse, dated in the first year of Darius the Mede, is neither a symbolic dream nor a symbolic vision. The angel Gabriel visits Daniel and communicates a "word" to him (9:21–24). As it happens, the designation angelus interpres would not be a misnomer if applied to Gabriel in this case, for if he does not interpret symbols, he does interpret Scripture. The occasion of his coming is Daniel's prayer for enlightenment on the meaning of Jeremiah's prediction (Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10) that "the ruins of Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:2) would endure 70 years. The interpretation is as follows: a period of 70 weeks of years was decreed for the expiation of the national guilt. At the end of the seventh week, an "anointed prince" (probably a high priest) will function again; at the end of another 62 weeks, an "anointed one" will be cut off. The remaining week will be one of religious persecution, and for the duration of its second half, sacrifice and oblation will be abolished and "an abomination of desolation" (called "offense" in 8:12) will occupy their "stand" (reading kannam for kenaf in 9:27).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/daniel-book-of

 

[TomL]

YOU ASSUME that.
So far you haven't actually provided me with any evidence beyond what you claim.


Provide me evidence of this.
I'm looking for anything to corroborate this online, but can't find diddly. So, give me a good reason to believe you.

Yep.


You're not saying anything new.

Er so how does the data not show that the 69 weeks expired at Christ's anointing.

At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anoited one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=pretrib_arch

THE SEVENTY-WEEKS PROPHECY OF DANIEL 9:24–27 AND FIRST-CENTURY AD JEWISH MESSIANIC EXPECTATION

For Christians who interpret the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 by correlating the coming of the messiah with the arrival of Jesus Christ, the question of whether Jesus could have been identified as the predicted messiah at the time of fulfillment is theologically significant given biblical...

digitalcommons.andrews.edu

Books | Walvoord.com

Give me a good reason to believe that you actually have a valid leg to stand on.

see above

 

[SteveB]

Er so how does the data not show that the 69 weeks expired at Christ's anointing.

At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anoited one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be





see above

Ok. You keep ignoring my requests for information that corroborates your claims.
As such, this can't continue.
Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[TomL]

Ok. You keep ignoring my requests for information that corroborates your claims.
As such, this can't continue.
Have fun talking to yourself.

Excuse me but this looks like evidence

Er so how does the data not show that the 69 weeks expired at Christ's anointing.

Scripture contradicts your chronology which lists the event as Christ's entrance to Jerusalem

So should we use a non inspired chronology or the words of the bible to establish the event denoted unto Messiah (the anointed one), the prince


At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anoited one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the end of the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be

Definitely looks like evidence to me.

 

[SteveB]

Excuse me but this looks like evidence

Er so how does the data not show that the 69 weeks expired at Christ's anointing.

Scripture contradicts your chronology which lists the event as Christ's entrance to Jerusalem

So should we use a non inspired chronology or the words of the bible to establish the event denoted unto Messiah (the anointed one), the prince


At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anoited one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the end of the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be

Definitely looks like evidence to me.

Source articles, research, previously developed Bible studies from the people you claim are YOUR SOURCES....

People whose credentials I can verify from independent sources.

 

[TomL]

ps

This important matter of the defective character of all existing chronologies is fully discussed, and thefacts clearly set forth, in Martin Anstey’s Bible Chronology, published in 1913, to which we must refer such of our readers as wish to study the matter exhaustively. Mr. Anstey’s work commands our confidence and respect because he disregards all heathen sources, and all guesswork, and derives his information solely from the Scriptures. Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy’s table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: “They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years.” And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy’s chronology, or any system based upon it(as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy. This single fact makes many modern books on Daniel utterly worthless, so far as their chronology is concerned; and the chronology is the main thing.

 

[SteveB]

ps

This important matter of the defective character of all existing chronologies is fully discussed, and thefacts clearly set forth, in Martin Anstey’s Bible Chronology, published in 1913, to which we must refer such of our readers as wish to study the matter exhaustively. Mr. Anstey’s work commands our confidence and respect because he disregards all heathen sources, and all guesswork, and derives his information solely from the Scriptures. Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy’s table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: “They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years.” And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy’s chronology, or any system based upon it(as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy. This single fact makes many modern books on Daniel utterly worthless, so far as their chronology is concerned; and the chronology is the main thing.

I have no idea who Martin Antsley is.

Do you have links?
Another thing that comes to mind with the names you drop....
The fact that they're from 100 + years ago, it's pretty clear that whatever their views, they're pre-1948 when Israel is restored to the land of Israel.
Thus, I find myself wondering if they're "replacement theology" people.

Israel is part of YHVH's time clock. They always have been.

Daniel 9, and the 70 weeks are entirely about Israel.

When you can provide me with links, papers, and book links, which I can corroborate, then this can continue.

You're really not helping yourself here.


Acts 17:11, and 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

 

[TomL]

Source articles, research, previously developed Bible studies from the people you claim are YOUR SOURCES....

People whose credentials I can verify from independent sources.

Why the concern for the calculations of man when you have the word of God

Scripture identifies the revealing of the anointed one to be at the baptism of Christ when he was anointed with the Spirit. It was at this time Christ proclaimed himself the anointed one

Scripture contradicts your chronology which lists the event as Christ's entrance to Jerusalem (see scripture given previously)

So should we use a non inspired chronology or the words of the bible to establish the event denoted unto Messiah (the anointed one), the prince


At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anointed one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the end of the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be

Biblically, I do not see that the idea that the anointed one is revealed at Christs entrance into Jerusalem and that there is a gap between the 69 and 70 week has a leg to stand on.

 

[SteveB]

Why the concern for the calculations of man when you have the word of God

Easy.
I'm using the Bible, but you've been claiming I'm using pagan sources.
So, I want the materials that you have based your interpretation of the prophecy on.

Scripture identifies the revealing of the anointed one to be at the baptism of Christ when he was anointed with the Spirit. It was at this time Christ proclaimed himself the anointed one

Scripture contradicts your chronology which lists the event as Christ's entrance to Jerusalem (see scripture given previously)

So should we use a non inspired chronology or the words of the bible to establish the event denoted unto Messiah (the anointed one), the prince


At this point not one of the things listed in verse 24 are accomplished

Daniel 9:24 (KJV 1900) — 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

after the 69 week messiah the anointed one is cut off

this has to be the 70 week in which we have Christ's ministry and sacrifice

insert a gap at the end of the 69 week what you have is some future week when all those things in verse 24 have to be accomplished by other than the sacrifice of Christ. It can never be

Biblically, I do not see that the idea that the anointed one is revealed at Christs entrance into Jerusalem and that there is a gap between the 69 and 70 week has a leg to stand on.

 

[TomL]

Easy.
I'm using the Bible, but you've been claiming I'm using pagan sources.
So, I want the materials that you have based your interpretation of the prophecy on.

If you are using a particular chronology to measure out the 69 weeks you are not using the bible, but the calendar of man of which there are multiple conflicting calculations

 

[SteveB]

If you are using a particular chronology to measure out the 69 weeks you are not using the bible, but the calendar of man of which there are multiple conflicting calculations

Such as?

 

[TomL]

Such as?

Such as

Are you not using a calculation of man to determine the period unto the messiah the prince

you wrote

Ever read Sir Robert Anderson's
The Coming Prince
?
in it he describes this idea.
he uses the 69 weeks/sevens, a 360 day year, and gets 173880 days, which brings him into the Sunday that Jesus enters the city of Jerusalem on a donkey.
So, in fact, if he died a few days later, on the passover, then he began his ministry in the 69th week, somewhere just after the middle of the week/sevens.

A misidentification here invalidates any understanding of the prophecy