Daniel's 70th week

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Whereas the 40 years after the Cross appear to be a time of extended pardon giving Judeans time to repent.

In Numb 14, God was going to destroy Israel immediately, but Moses interceded and asked for pardon. They got 40 years to continue living.

At the Cross, Jesus asked for pardon for His crucifiers. They got 40 years until the city was destroyed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In Numb 14, God was going to destroy Israel immediately, but Moses interceded and asked for pardon. They got 40 years to continue living.

At the Cross, Jesus asked for pardon for His crucifiers. They got 40 years until the city was destroyed.

If Jesus died in 33 AD, the time to the destruction of Jerusalem is 37.5 years (rounded to 38, it was in the 38th year that Jerusalem fell). The wilderness wanderings may have included parts of 2 years, for a TOTAL ACTUAL time of 38 years, but rounded to 40 (partial years reckoned as full years). HOWEVER, there is no way I can see how to take the 37.5 actual years to AD 70, rounded to 38 (partial year reckoned as full year), and THEN round AGAIN to get 40 years.

BUT THEN I SAW THIS:

From what I can tell, the FIRST siege of Jerusalem by Babylon lasted 30 months to the fall of the city. The Roman siege lasted about 5 months to the fall of the city. The DIFFERENCE between the two is 2.5 years, which added to the 37.5 years from the cross comes to 40 years.

Not sure if that means much, but I can't help but suspect it is significant.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If Jesus died in 33 AD, the time to the destruction of Jerusalem is 37.5 years (rounded to 38, it was in the 38th year that Jerusalem fell). The wilderness wanderings may have included parts of 2 years, for a TOTAL ACTUAL time of 38 years, but rounded to 40 (partial years reckoned as full years). HOWEVER, there is no way I can see how to take the 37.5 actual years to AD 70, rounded to 38 (partial year reckoned as full year), and THEN round AGAIN to get 40 years.

BUT THEN I SAW THIS:

From what I can tell, the FIRST siege of Jerusalem by Babylon lasted 30 months to the fall of the city. The Roman siege lasted about 5 months to the fall of the city. The DIFFERENCE between the two is 2.5 years, which added to the 37.5 years from the cross comes to 40 years.

Not sure if that means much, but I can't help but suspect it is significant.

Which means the time of Jerusalem's Roman siege was shortened compared to the first Babylonian siege. Now the questions are "is there any reason why the two time frames should be correlated producing an expectation of similar time frames?" and "does this have anything to do with Jesus saying the days would be shortened for the elect's sake?"

[Esaias]

Okay, my head is hurting from the math. I'll let some of y'all take a crack at this stuff for awhile.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If Jesus died in 33 AD, the time to the destruction of Jerusalem is 37.5 years (rounded to 38, it was in the 38th year that Jerusalem fell). The wilderness wanderings may have included parts of 2 years, for a TOTAL ACTUAL time of 38 years, but rounded to 40 (partial years reckoned as full years). HOWEVER, there is no way I can see how to take the 37.5 actual years to AD 70, rounded to 38 (partial year reckoned as full year), and THEN round AGAIN to get 40 years.

BUT THEN I SAW THIS:

From what I can tell, the FIRST siege of Jerusalem by Babylon lasted 30 months to the fall of the city. The Roman siege lasted about 5 months to the fall of the city. The DIFFERENCE between the two is 2.5 years, which added to the 37.5 years from the cross comes to 40 years.

Not sure if that means much, but I can't help but suspect it is significant.

Read this again, I need to clarify something.

The first siege was 30 months, or 2.5 years. The Roman siege was about half a year. The time from resurrection to destruction of Jerusalem was 37.5 years. Adding the time of the first siege of Jerusalem (2.5 years) gives a full 40 years.

So the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians may (speculating here) be a part of the forty years probationary period allotted to Jerusalem. Or, maybe under another perspective, the time of it's first siege was subtracted from the 40 years as "time already served". Either way, it implies the first siege is part of the post resurrection forty year probationary period.

How so?

In the parable Jesus gave explaining the 70x7 times pardon, the debt owed at the beginning was exacted at the end. So, in a sense, the debt exacted in Jerusalem's first siege was part of what would have been exacted in AD 70, but because it was already exacted it was subtracted from the AD 70 exaction of vengeance.

God is a master CPA, apparently.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Read this again, I need to clarify something.

The first siege was 30 months, or 2.5 years. The Roman siege was about half a year. The time from resurrection to destruction of Jerusalem was 37.5 years. Adding the time of the first siege of Jerusalem (2.5 years) gives a full 40 years.

So the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians may (speculating here) be a part of the forty years probationary period allotted to Jerusalem. Or, maybe under another perspective, the time of it's first siege was subtracted from the 40 years as "time already served". Either way, it implies the first siege is part of the post resurrection forty year probationary period.

How so?

In the parable Jesus gave explaining the 70x7 times pardon, the debt owed at the beginning was exacted at the end. So, in a sense, the debt exacted in Jerusalem's first siege was part of what would have been exacted in AD 70, but because it was already exacted it was subtracted from the AD 70 exaction of vengeance.

God is a master CPA, apparently.

Bro, do you have more of your own writings on this?
Is there an audio? (reasons why I ask for audios is because I play them at the job)

Nero declares war against Judea during the 12th year of his rule. What I personally believe is that Nero wanted to initially sack the Jerusalem temple. Since the great Roman fire had destroyed 3/4s of the city, he needed monies to rebuild. Temples around the occupation needed to be emptied to help build Rome. I believe Nero also ended the great Roman Temple (which was loaded) and took the tithes of tribute and spoils of Rome. 66-73 includes the mass suicide at Masada

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, do you have more of your own writings on this?
Is there an audio? (reasons why I ask for audios is because I play them at the job)

Nero declares war against Judea during the 12th year of his rule. What I personally believe is that Nero wanted to initially sack the Jerusalem temple. Since the great Roman fire had destroyed 3/4s of the city, he needed monies to rebuild. Temples around the occupation needed to be emptied to help build Rome. I believe Nero also ended the great Roman Temple (which was loaded) and took the tithes of tribute and spoils of Rome. 66-73 includes the mass suicide at Masada

No writing or audio on this, I was just going off the top of my head here lately. I'm gonna have to maybe weave some of this into my book that I can't seem to get finished. Perhaps as an appendix on "The Seventy Weeks" or something.

I've tried to steer clear of timetables because that way is fraught with dangers galore.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No writing or audio on this, I was just going off the top of my head here lately. I'm gonna have to maybe weave some of this into my book that I can't seem to get finished. Perhaps as an appendix on "The Seventy Weeks" or something.

I've tried to steer clear of timetables because that way is fraught with dangers galore.

Still awaiting my copy!