The ruler who came after Jesus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70ad.
And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Daniel 9:26
Here we see that a group of people shall destroy the city, with a prince coming afterwards from the same people. Who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD? They were led by a Roman general, but the soldiers were primarily Syrians or Turks. This indicates that Antichrist might be from one of those two groups.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week...
From Hebrews and Paul we know that a testament is of no effect until the death of the testator. Ergo by your reckoning the 7 year final week wouldn't even start until the crucifixion. Either way the Temple was not eradicated either 3.5 or 7 years after the crucifixion. Having the crucifixion as either the start or the middle of the final week doesn't match Daniel at all.
The clearest interpretation is that Christ came at the end of the 69th week, with the church age being a "pause button" of sorts before the final week. Keep in mind OT prophecy completely overlooks the church age, as that is the time of the Gentiles and thus not relevant to the Jews.
There is no where is scripture where it says that anyone other than God confirms a covenant.
Incorrect. Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). David made a covenant with Jonathan (1 Samuel 18). In Exodus 23 God commands Israel to not make covenants with other gods, implying that they have the physical capability to do so (there wouldn't be a point to God telling you not to sin if you couldn't commit the sin in the first place). In 2 Kings 23:3 King Josiah made a covenant before the Lord. People make covenants in the Bible all the time. There's no reason to believe that the Antichrist is incapable of making a covenant, even if purely out of wicked mockery of God's covenant with Israel.
The age to come is used almost exclusively to refer to eternity, after sin is finally defeated and we live forever with Christ. Compare Mat. 12:32, Mark 3:28-30, Mark 10:30, Luke 20:34-36, Mat. 12:24-43, Eph. 1:21, and Col. 2:14. None of these passages make sense if "this age" means pre church age and "the age to come" means the church age.
The first century Christians were still partially holding on to the law.
Only some did, the Judaizers and those who fell prey to their false doctrine. This error was corrected by the Council of Jerusalem well before 70 AD. It was never a majority position or one held to by the Apostles.
Here we see that a group of people shall destroy the city, with a prince coming afterwards from the same people. Who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD? They were led by a Roman general, but the soldiers were primarily Syrians or Turks. This indicates that Antichrist might be from one of those two groups.
From Hebrews and Paul we know that a testament is of no effect until the death of the testator. Ergo by your reckoning the 7 year final week wouldn't even start until the crucifixion. Either way the Temple was not eradicated either 3.5 or 7 years after the crucifixion. Having the crucifixion as either the start or the middle of the final week doesn't match Daniel at all.
The clearest interpretation is that Christ came at the end of the 69th week, with the church age being a "pause button" of sorts before the final week. Keep in mind OT prophecy completely overlooks the church age, as that is the time of the Gentiles and thus not relevant to the Jews.
Incorrect. Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). David made a covenant with Jonathan (1 Samuel 18). In Exodus 23 God commands Israel to not make covenants with other gods, implying that they have the physical capability to do so (there wouldn't be a point to God telling you not to sin if you couldn't commit the sin in the first place). In 2 Kings 23:3 King Josiah made a covenant before the Lord. People make covenants in the Bible all the time. There's no reason to believe that the Antichrist is incapable of making a covenant, even if purely out of wicked mockery of God's covenant with Israel.
The age to come is used almost exclusively to refer to eternity, after sin is finally defeated and we live forever with Christ. Compare Mat. 12:32, Mark 3:28-30, Mark 10:30, Luke 20:34-36, Mat. 12:24-43, Eph. 1:21, and Col. 2:14. None of these passages make sense if "this age" means pre church age and "the age to come" means the church age.
Only some did, the Judaizers and those who fell prey to their false doctrine. This error was corrected by the Council of Jerusalem well before 70 AD. It was never a majority position or one held to by the Apostles.