Jerusalem

I haven't read the entire proposal in detail, but I note a couple of things ...

References to Rabin and the Oslo Accords and that influence is clear in this proposal ... just as I was told last year by Dr. Robert Mawire (WRNO)

Also ... the background on the importance to the Muslims ... noting Suleiman the Magnificant's efforts in 1517 to rebuild the city walls ...

this ottoman THEN decreed the Hebrews to be allowed to rebuild the Temple (the second time) ... in 1536. (of course at that time they were still scattered from the 70 AD destruction by the Romans)

Those of you familiar, will recognize the phrase "decree to rebuild (the Temple.)"

Cyrus did it ending the Babylonian exile of Israel ...

But THIS decree marks the basis of Daniel 9:24 ... "finish transgression, end of sin.."

that means The End. The Lord's Day ... The Second Coming.

What's 490 plus 1536?

In Dan 12:11-12 ... from the time the sacrifice stops (599 BC, Babylonians destroyed Solomons Temple) ... 1290 more (years) then the 'abomination of desolation' is setup.

691 the Muslims Dome of the Rock was completed on Mount Moriah.

1335 (years) from then of waiting to attain.

What's 691 plus 1335?

Maranatha! GET READY QUICK. Things are about to change RADICALLY.
 
Hamas and PLO are flat out rejecting theplan . Shock.
Here is a timeline of rejection over last 8 decades
https://www.quora.com/How-often-have-the-Palestinians-been-offered-their-own-state
The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

  • In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
  • In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
  • In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
  • The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
  • The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
  • In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.
The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?

I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"
 
But THIS decree marks the basis of Daniel 9:24 ... "finish transgression, end of sin.."
Click to expand...

It doesn't Shark. That decree was the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the book of Nehemiah.

Starting at Artaxerxes decree, you can calculate the date when the Messiah enters into Jerusalem. I can't remember the date but it is around AD33. Daniel was the king of the magi. This is how the Magi of the East knew Messiah was going to be born in their lives. They didn't know the birth date, but they knew when to start looking for a sign. We know Daniel 9:24 refers to Messiah's first appearance because of Daniel 9:26. It describes his crucifixion, then the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Daniel 9:26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined."

Plus Jesus said no one can predict when he will come back.

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
 
Monahorns said:
That decree was the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the book of Nehemiah.
Click to expand...

that was the first decree, @Monahorns ... there was a second decree. It's a dual focus passage. It's available. No secret knowledge needed, search Suleiman the Magnificent and Jewish Temple. I simply found it interesting the "Deal of the Century" would refer to the guy who made that second decree to build the 3rd Temple.

THEREFORE ... Daniel 9:24's "490 years" has a starting point. for the end of transgression ... THE END.

Jesus said in Matthew 24 no man would know the day nor the hour, not even The Son ... but He said we could know the season vv32-34 ... just prior to your quote. He used the fig tree as an example. We can argue about the amount of actual time as we know it being an allegory based upon what we know of a fig tree's cycle ...

However, given God laid-out multiple examples (Moses/Noah/Jeremiah ... even the 40 years between Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD) of having foreknowledge of His actions to within a year, why is it impossible to be unable to learn the year of Jesus' return?
 
About the timing you mention. The decree goes out and after 7 weeks (of years) Jerusalem is rebuilt. Then another 62 weeks and Jesus enters into Jerusalem and is crucified. That is 69 weeks, not 70. So the timing of the prophecy you are stating has that mistake in it.

Then there is the fact that there is no 2nd decree. Only one is mentioned in Daniel. That doesn't mean any decree made about Jerusalem by a king is the one in Daniel. Cyrus actually made a decree regarding Jerusalem too, before Artaxerxes. Just because somebody makes a decree doesn't mean it is the one referenced by Gabriel in Daniel 9. Also, declaring a prophecy to be a dual fulfillment doesn't mean it is. There is no reason to read Daniel 9 and expect 1 decree to turn into 2. The return of Jesus in other parts of the Bible, like 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, is shown to occur after the 70th week. So His return is already there and the timeframe (part of the 70th week) is also given. We don't need to expect a dual fulfillment of the decree itself.

The other thing to understand is that to Daniel years meant lunar years. A lunar years is 354.3 days not 365 like in a solar year. That means any calculation based on Daniel 9 can't be X year + 490 years as we use them. There has to be several conversions.

The fig tree reference is talking about the tribulation in the verses prior. It isn't talking about decrees. The tribulation is described in Revelation. It hasn't occurred yet and is the only indication of when Jesus will come back. That means there is no basis to state when Jesus is returning by referring to a king's decree.

Just because God gives dates of some events doesn't mean He does for all.
 
@Monahorns

we seem to be talking passed each other ... 70 weeks is 490 years ... for the end of transgression ... . the 7 and 62 you correctly identify as the prophesy for when Christ is crucified "messiah is cutoff" two different sets of numbers for two different events.

Just because someone issues a decree ...

I've searched this very thing for the decree to rebuild the Temple after 70 AD. Suleiman's 1536 is the only one I can find ... if there's another, please help me find it. Presumably it'd need to be someone whose decree actually means something (not like my decree to set the 490 years)

I'm not into pushing bad dope ... only good news.

70th week ... at the END of it, yes. not 70th week plus some unspecified amount of time.

And I've sought clarification of the "years" too. The Gregorian calendar ... The Hebrew calendar ... or the lunar year as you address ... and those who have greater depth of study and greater spirituality than I have had to this point have affirmed the years as laps around the sun.

I know the fig tree isn't talking about decrees. It's referring to the Day of the Lord as the fruit. you''ll know the fruit is arriving when the fig tree blossoms. Some have said the blossom happened in 1967 ... when the Israelis retook control of Jerusalem, et al.

Let's avoid being ascant. All events? no of course not, but surely we can agree that the Second Coming is as important as The Flood ... the Wandering ... or the Exile. Why COULDN'T we know the year? I ask again. "so That Day will not overtake you" 1 Thess 5:4

Mark 13:23 Jesus said "behold I have told you all things in advance"

Gabriel said the information is sealed until the end ... then understanding would be provided. I've stated I do not suppose to be smarter than those who went before us ... only in the right time. Hence, understanding is being gained through the revelation.

Who gains from the chaos? disorder? doubt?

Who gains from being secure in a relationship? knowledge? ... forewarned.
 
Horn6721 said:
Hamas and PLO are flat out rejecting theplan . Shock.
Here is a timeline of rejection over last 8 decades
https://www.quora.com/How-often-have-the-Palestinians-been-offered-their-own-state
The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

  • In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
  • In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
  • In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
  • The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
  • The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
  • In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.
The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?

I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, I don't think the Palestinians will ever accept a deal that closes the door on them one day conquering all of Israel. They want that left open whether it's through developing a military designed for conquest or a right of return to demographically convert Israel into an Islamic state.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't think the Palestinians will ever accept a deal that closes the door on them one day conquering all of Israel.
Click to expand...

This is true, Deez ... but perhaps the way this gets done is that it's taken away from them by their cousins ... cause ... it's gonna happen. There WILL be a confirmed peace agreement. it likely WILL be the two-state solution based upon oslo ... just as Trump's "Deal of the Century" outlines.

Now, I didn't say the Palestinians would like it ... or that there would actually be peace ... but there will be this agreement. Just need a little more motivation. it's coming, too.

the Palestinians are true to their teaching/teacher, though. They want it all ... which is what Lucifer wanted, too.
 
ShAArk92 said:
This is true, Deez ... but perhaps the way this gets done is that it's taken away from them by their cousins ... cause ... it's gonna happen. There WILL be a confirmed peace agreement. it likely WILL be the two-state solution based upon oslo ... just as Trump's "Deal of the Century" outlines.

Now, I didn't say the Palestinians would like it ... or that there would actually be peace ... but there will be this agreement. Just need a little more motivation. it's coming, too.

the Palestinians are true to their teaching/teacher, though. They want it all ... which is what Lucifer wanted, too.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it happening. Even if Abbas personally wanted to go along, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, would undercut him. They might even kill him.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Even if Abbas personally wanted to go along, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, would undercut him. They might even kill him.
Click to expand...

that's prob true. But again ... there's a difference in having a peace agreement and having peace.

kinda like the difference in filing for bankruptcy protection ... and actually BEING bankrupt.
 
Frank’s wife has framed Playboy magazine in pic. Lulz.
playboy.jpg
 
"Frank’s wife has framed Playboy magazine in pic."

And the unemployment is still atrecord lows , wages rising for lower earners,401ks value rising, mfg jobs increasing, ,fairer to Americanstrade agreements being signed. new small biz opening in urban areas etc etc.etc


Reality sucks for Haters.
You forgot the golden showers
and the latest
Don't forget he made fun of Bloomberg and his box to stand on at debate.
 
@LongestHorn

it’s ok LH.

but for your own sake, I’d try to find some way of getting past trying to get Followers of Jesus Christ to “shut up”

perhaps seeking a blunt truth discussion with one would help ya.

it would profit you to pay attention to Jerusalem. Maybe dollars, IDK ... but definitely in your edged person.

press on.
 
Lefitst want no opposition ... because their positions cannot tolerate opposition nor can they survive opposition.

This is why they rely upon personal attacks to change the topic. They ARE very good at it. I've bitten more times than I care to admit.

They exploit the typical conservative's tendency to address everything, so they "shotgun" all sorts of irrelevant statements.
 
review the "deal of the century." top of this page is the link.

Notice the portion discussing the "gaza marine" oil fields.

Also search for "leviathan oil field."

Israel is about to become #2 in oil/gas production ... to the U.S.

reckon that will rattle a few cages?
 
This man of God, Dr. Robert Mawire, was told back in the 1990s to ‘carry a message from God to these men.’ His message was “stop dividing my land. If you will stop dividing my land, that land which I gave to my people, the Hebrews, the descendants of Isaac, I will bless you and you will remain in power.



Netanyahu, in the 90s, laughed at Dr. Mawire. Bibi was voted out. General Ariel Sharon, committed to read the Abraham Covenant, which he holds in his hand, every day and follow it. He did so for a few months and then gave away Gaza. Shortly thereafter, Sharon fell into a coma and died.



Mawire was told in 2002 to carry the same message back to Netanyahu, at a time when he was NOT in power. By this time, Bibi had “ears to hear.” He was re-elected in 2006.



The point of this post is that this PM of Israel miraculously, by way of a coronavirus effect, after 3 elections, and in what can only be considered a miraculous event, is STILL in power and will be now until the fall of 2021, one year after Rosh Hashanah 2020.



The significance of THAT is found in Daniel 9:24-25 and Daniel 12:11-12 … and confirmed in other Scripture.



Netanyahu rival ‘agrees Israel unity government’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top