Biblicly speaking, what is beyond the Israeli invasion of Gaza?

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


I think your definitely on to something with your interpretation of Dan 9:27.
I will offer my own analysis on the subject and keep the text in context. Bear in mind I present this for discussion and debate. I'm not trying to change people's beliefs.

Dan 9:25

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

What's happened here is that Daniel has pleaded with G-d over the future of Judah and Israel. Gabriel is sent by G-d to Daniel with this message in response to Daniel's pleas.

Some believe the decree to rebuild took place in 538 BC from the Persian King Cyrus the Great. Cyrus at that time invited the Jews to return to Judah to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.

Personally, I'm not sure if his invitation equals an actual decree. Regardless, the Temple was completed by 516 BC. So the decree may of came between 538 and 516 BC.

But there is a problem with the timing. Gabriel mentions Seven Sevens and Sixty Two Sevens implying some kind of break between them. Why the break? Were also not exactly sure how long each Seven is. Some say Seven years, but is that Lunar, Solar, or something else?

We do know though that the Second Temple was mostly destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

Now the last part is who is the "He" of Daniel 9:27? Well if the "people" of the "coming prince" are the Romans, then the He is probably the coming prince.

The coming prince apparently confirms a covenant with many at the beginning of a Seven. In the middle of the Seven he puts an end to sacrifice and offering. Some think this means the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, when all sacrifices were halted, though temporarily. On the wing of a temple the coming prince sets up an abomination. This abomination will sit on the wing until the prince is punished.

Now what sits up on the wing of the Temple? The ruins of the Second Temple remained until the time of Shimon Bar Kochba who lead the Jews on their final rebellion against Rome. During his time in power Shimon was declared Prince of Israel, and sacrifices continued on the Temple Mount. The Altar had survived the Roman destruction in 70 AD. Nothing would be set upon the Temple mount until after the final Jewish rebellion.

Here is my mind blowing and radical hypothesis that I just realized while researching for my commentary and it fits frighteningly well.

What if the Anointed Prince that is cut off is someone no one has ever thought of before? Was there a Roman leader who ultimately destroyed the Temple's altar and truly stopped all sacrifices? Did this Roman leader set up an abomination upon the Temple Mount? One man whose actions would set up conflict in even modern Israel to this very day?

Now here's the real scary stuff. First the Roman leader.

I present you Emperor Hadrian

Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions. He prohibited the Torah law, the Hebrew calendar and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was ceremoniously burned on the Temple Mount. At the former Temple sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of himself. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea, he wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina, after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews; previously similar terms had been used to describe only the (smaller) former Philistine homeland to the west of Judaea. Since then, the land has been referred to as "Palestine," which supplanted earlier terms such as "Iudaea" (Judaea) and the antiquated "Canaan." Similarly, he re-established Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were forbidden from entering it.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the man who gave us the name Palestine. This is the man who gave us the Jewish Diaspora. This is the man who is the origin of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Hadrian's Covenant? Hadrian in his time expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest extent and at the same time his rule was defined by peace, except for the Second Jewish Rebellion. He established what is known as the Panhellion that was centered in Athens and was based in Greek ideal and unity.

So what was the abomination of desolation laid upon the Temple Mount by Hadrian?

Hadrian had the Temple of Venus built upon part of the Temple Mount, on a wing as the scripture says. That Temple was later chosen by Queen Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine to be the foundation the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

That Church historically was the spark of one of the greatest conflicts in human history. A conflict that to this day has not been resolved.

On October 18, 1009, under the so-called "mad" Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, orders for the complete destruction of the Church were carried out. It is believed that Al-Hakim "was aggrieved by the scale of the Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which was caused specially by the annual miracle of the Holy Fire within the Sepulchre.

en.wikipedia.org...

The destruction of this Church, resulted in one of the most important speeches ever given in human history. The proclamation by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, the call that launched the Crusades. Even though Hakim's son had the Church rebuilt, the damage was already done.

So far we have Hadrian having a hand in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the conflict between the West and Islam, but he also does things that fulfill prophecies involving the "Little Horn" of Daniel who changes the Law and the times. He outlawed the Torah and the Hebrew Calendar.

In addition to that he committed a lesser known crime, but one of the gravest crimes against the Jewish people. The hunting down and murder of the members of the Line of David. He believed that if the House of David was wiped out then no one could be called Anointed Prince or Messiah and thus no Jewish Rebellion.

Now for an even more radical idea.

The Anointed Prince who was cutoff and will have nothing.

When Hadrian laid waste to Judea the Jews had begun an open rebellion against Rome in 132 AD. A rebellion that in the beginning was victorious. Jewish armies had defeated Roman armies on the field of battle. They were lead by a seemingly miraculous leader.

The Jewish victory was so thorough, that for a couple of years the Jews had virtual autonomy in the Roman Empire. They minted their own coins, formed their own government, and over all of it was one man, proclaimed Nasi Israel, "Prince of Israel" this man was Shimon Bar Kochba.

The Romans pulled legions, half of their entire army, from all over their empire to Judea. The war was catastrophic on a scale the Romans had rarely faced. According to historians almost 600,000 Jews were killed in the fighting. The Roman casualties were so high that Hadrian when addressing the Roman Senate did not use the normal phrase, "If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and the army are in health." The entire 22nd Legion was annihilated in battle.

On the 9th of Av, the same date as the destruction of the first and second Temples, the last Jewish stronghold, Betar fell. With it's destruction on 135 AD, Shimon Bar Kochba also fell. He was said to of been captured by the Romans where the last Prince of Israel was sentenced to death by Crucifixion.

I am left disturbed and astounded. The implications of the correlating events and verses are mind blowing.

Part of me is in complete denial, but I can't ignore the facts of the matter. I think I will make a larger post later dedicated to its own thread on the subject.

reply to post by Simplynoone

Well done, Simplynoone. I too would think that any peace deal would have to come after the "arrangement" where the modern day nations of the old Persian Empire all are brought against Israel by God, and in turn destroyed by God.

And while the enemies of Israel are certainly stacking up, we're not there yet.

Considering the US is about the only ally of Israel, it is troubling that we may not be able to help the Israelis, because the purpose is to show that the only way a victory could be accomplished, was that Israel know that only God could do to their enemies what was done.

reply to post by Bombeni


7 yr peace treaty?

do you have a biblical reference for this? i suspect you have fallen for the futurist interpretation of a prophecy long since fulfilled

david

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by Bombeni

 

7 yr peace treaty?

do you have a biblical reference for this? i suspect you have fallen for the futurist interpretation of a prophecy long since fulfilled

david

Hi there David ...I suspect that you have fallen for the preterist view ..

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times refer to events which already happened in the first century after Christ's birth. Because of its claims that Israel was supplanted by the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Preterism has sometimes been identified as replacement theology. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists.


History of Preterism

Proponents of Preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church.[1][2], a claim contested by Historicists.[3] Other Preterists hold that the view was developed in the 16th century,[4] a view also held by many non-Preterists.[5][6][7]

There has historically been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.[8][9] Preterist Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's Preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[10] and Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[11]

Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the Preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[12] Among Protestants it was first accepted by Hugo Grotius, [13][14] a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[15] His first attempt to do this was entitled ‘Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist’ (1640), in which he attempted to argue that the texts relating to Antichrist had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. This was not well received by Protestants,[16] but Grotius was undeterred and in his next work ‘Commentaries On The New Testament' (1641-1650), he expanded his Preterist views to include the Olivet prophecy and Revelation.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Simplynoone



Simplynoone, which view do you prescribe to? Almost everything I read talks about the Book of Daniel, the 70 weeks, the 7 year treaty which will be thrown down after 3-1/2 years. It's all pretty complicated but so interesting. I'm not hardcore either way, I figure I'll know what to do when the time comes, but it's interesting to think about.