April 5, 2008
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
A Response to John Moesche
Normally, I do not respond to correspondence of this nature; however, the interest sparked via John Moesche’s announcements to a wide-variety of Christian/Evangelical persuasions is noteworthy – if left “uncontested” it would be a shame; therefore, this vociferous and expansive rebuttal is given (along with additional links and some graphics), for those who may find it of interest, read on—especially, since I have so blatantly entitled this response as: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.
SUMMARY – Doug Krieger (Placed before, rather than after, Michael’s enthusiasms.)
The general interest in the prophetic is not something to trifle with. John Moesche’s interest therein is commendable; however, as many within a wide swath of Christendom persist in either denying Israel’s prophetic platform or, at the opposite extreme, accord Israel’s Mosaic Covenant as a viable alternative to the promise of their New Covenant (i.e., as if the Law of Moses held any salvific significance within its declarations) presents challenges to all evangelicals. We walk a thin line between compromise and total rejection of Biblical Zionism. “What shall their fulfillment be but life from the dead!” Paul’s declarations in Romans 9-11 are as much an immediate outburst of Gentile reconciliation to God in Christ, as they are a prophetic conclusion to the Age of Grace and ultimate redemption.
The “trident” of “brethren” you have selected to excite your prophetic juices are remiss in their prophetic accreditations—to wit: James Lloyd attributes both the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ and acclaims any rebuilt Jewish Temple in modern-day Jerusalem to BE the Abomination of Desolation; Dr. Earnest L. Martin spreads his dispersions as to the archaeological site of the original Temple, and ipso facto, denies the legitimacy of the Ateret Cohanim, the Temple Mount Faithful, as well as Israeli, British and American scholars like the Asher Kauffman, the Ritmeyers and Lambert Dolphin—all of whom would vehemently disagree with Dr. Martin. In particular, Dolphin has done a commendable summation of credible research on the site of the Second Temple—none of which includes the work of Dr. Earnest L. Martin; and, finally, your coup de grâce to the future Temple, the revisionist, Michael A. Hoffman, II, the denier of the Jewish Holocaust!
The three sources of your enthusiasm are, to my understanding of the prophetic Scriptures, in the main, contrary to the intent of those matters yet future which shall announce the manifestation of the Kingdom of God on this earth, as well as in opposition to “How Shall We Then Live?” The influences of British Israelism are conflicted – on the one hand they tend toward philo-Semitism, on the other hand they, as their ancestors did through their Historicist and Amillenarian impress, bring about those eschatologies which replace or severely diminish Israel’s national role altogether, aside (perhaps) for a final tortuous climax and introduction to their true Messiah—having little or no prophetic preparatory experience toward their blessed 1,335th Day (Daniel 12:12). They may be a Valley of Dry Bones at the present – but there are radical signs of ingathering and rebirth in accordance with His divine purposes – their witness to Gentile World Powers is irrevocable.
My exposure of these serpentine eschatologies find their origins with Origen (who affirmed his belief in reincarnation) and his intensely allegorical hermeneutic, followed close by Augustine’s prophetic charades which were, in the main, adopted by traditional Roman Catholic and early Reformational Churches and subsequently expanded upon by Historicists and a plethora of Amillenarians determined to obfuscate National Israel’s prophetic proclivities, undermining both the Church’s spiritual and dominate role to principalities and powers through vibrant world evangelization, as well as Israel’s prophetic role of redemption.
At issue here is not Premillenarianism – belief in a future (literal) 1,000 year Rule and Reign on the earth – but of those eschatologies like the early Millerites, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and their offspring – who, as their forebears amongst the Catholics and early Protestants, affirmed and gladly built upon these aberrant, anti-chiliast traditions to the abrogation and even devolution of the prophetic role of the Jew. A race for the cure for these eschatological maladies and contagions was found in mainline evangelical Premillenarianism (primarily the British and championed by the Americans). These “Biblical Zionists” secured a sufficient antidote to counteract what ultimately overwhelmed Europe with “Nazi supersessionism”—and I use “supersessionism” in all its ugly and grotesque results; for what Hitler produced decidedly had the embrace of both confessions in his Reich.
Looking upon them (viz. Doug Krieger et al) who see this divine drama and its unfurling as “enemies of the cross of Christ” is disconcerting indeed; however, those of us on this side of the divine intention acclaim that as your sources denounce us, in that they assert we have done despite to the once-and-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God, we now say: Turn around is fair game. Our accusers have attributed the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ and this is far worse! The nexus of prophetic understanding in the Old Testament is Daniel 9 – and to my immediate realization, the pivot of New Testament understanding is Revelation 11—without these “two witnesses” from both testaments, one’s prophetic apprehensions will be at best deficient and at worst tortured. Please expand your understanding of these Two Witnesses via Wikipedia or on the Tribulation Network.
I see absolutely no need to wade into the waters of “Holocaust denial” – there is no reasonable debate with them who deny one of the most egregious crimes ever perpetrated upon humanity by, of all people, my very own ancestors! I find it both a shameful embarrassment that I am a direct descendant of Martin Luther, oddly enough through the Hoffman side of my family, and ironic that He deign would choose me to be a scriptural advocate on behalf of the Jews—what little input I have made. Herr Hoffman and his revisionist history—so-called—is an intellectual midget, a fanciful absurdity sailing adrift in a sea of denial and utter ignorance. Unfortunately, he’s not alone—Iran’s current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has designs for the annihilation of the Jews. Haman is alive and too well.
John, may the Lord grant you insight into the times we live through a more excellent understanding of His Word regarding the end of days and the superiority of His purposes . . .
“But you, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the Book until the time of the end. [Then] many shall run to and fro and search anxiously [through the Book], and knowledge [of God's purposes as revealed by His prophets] shall be increased and become great.” (Daniel 12:4-Amplified Version)
JUST WHERE IS THE SITE OF THE NEW THIRD TEMPLE – YET FUTURE? (Note: All subheadings are Editor’s)
(Note: John is a member and worker within the Christian Media Research (CRM) or Christian Media Network (CMN) of James Lloyd – a “survivalist” of post-tribulational background operating out of Jacksonville, Oregon, with whom we beg to differ—and “differ” is to say the least!). Lloyd is quite the character—with tongue and cheek he self-excoriates in James Lloyd Exposes Himself, but what is his true intent? His claims of exposing apostasy within the Church are, from this author’s perspective, altogether suspect! Ah, read on, and you’ll discover the “essence” of CRM big time!). Now, John Moesche’s discoveries of the future Jewish Temple?
(No “quotes” used – this is simply John Moesche’s content . . . there will, from time to time, be some editor insertions – hot links/graphics have been added to substantiate the record.):
FROM: John Moesche
And the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us.
Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer wrote, Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, in 1998, and was featured in, "Bible Archaeology Review" (Note: Biblical Archaeological Review). The book has a dozen possible sites for the original Jewish Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. The Haram esh-Sharif, or what most of the world calls the Temple Mount, is where all these locations must be, and yet, I've noticed some anomalies with this almost universal thought. In the book, the Ritmeyers wrote that:
“At the NW corner of the Temple Mount stood the Antonia Fortress, built by Herod on the site of an earlier fortress and named after Mark Anthony, the Roman commander. Josephus relates that the Antonia Fortress was built as a ‘guard to the Temple,’ manned by a Roman legion; the fortress had a tower on each of its 4 corners. The SE tower was 70 cubits high (approximately 112 feet) and so commanded a view of the whole area of the Temple.”
Josephus tells us that the Antonia Fortress was erected on a rock 50 cubits (approximately 80 feet) high and was situated on a great precipice...although not a trace of the fortress itself has been found, one of the large buttresses was revealed in the tunneling conducted along the western wall by the Ministry of Religious Affairs." (Emphasis mine)
Add that statement to the artist’s depiction of the Temple Mount area prior to its destruction, and you'll notice that the Fortress is level with it, and in no way could it "view the whole area of the Temple." Also, when I showed several of my friends this picture, they all, but 1, thought that the fortress depicted, could hold no more than 1000 soldiers, (The 1 said it could hold 2000 men) yet, a legion contains 3000 to 6000 soldiers! It’s rather odd when Josephus mentions that it survived the destruction of 70 AD, but, "not a trace of the fortress itself has been found." Just as confusing, is that Josephus mentions that the Temple, along with Jerusalem, was utterly destroyed, with no remains to be found, and yet, we have the Temple Mount whereas we should have no trace of it either.
Another problem with Ritmeyers' book is that they say, "On the Herodian street near the southwest corner of the Temple Mount, the excavators found a large stone block with a Hebrew inscription on it. Unfortunately, the end of the inscription is not on this fragment. The piece containing the final letters of the inscription had broken off, leaving the inscription to various interpretations. The surviving part of the inscription can be vocalizes l'bet hatqia lhak..., which may be translated “to the place of trumpeting…” Various possibilities have been suggested to complete l'hak--l'ha-kohn (for the priest); l'hekal (toward the Temple); or l'hakriz (to herald [the Sabbath])." (Bold emphasis mine)
The problem is that the artist’s depiction on p. 28 shows a priest blowing a trumpet and facing away from what would be the Temple area. Clearly, the priest is standing on the southwest corner looking south.
A final red flag is that the dimensions of the Temple Mount are 1590' X 1035' X 1536' X 912', and as the Ritmeyers admit, “That is not exactly rectangular.” Yes, but, one would expect more precision in the building of God's House, wouldn't you think so?
The Ritmeyers conclude that a new Temple will be built on the Temple Mount, and I agree with them.
And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed of God before in Christ....
JAMES LLOYD – CHRISTIAN MEDIA RESEARCH - & DANIEL 9:27
With these words from Galatians 3:17, James Lloyd, who heads Christian Media, at www.ChristianMediaResearch.com, shows how, when compared to Daniel 9:27, that the "he" in Daniel, is the Messiah. Those going off into the wrong direction, say that the "he" is "the prince" (Editor’s Note: i.e., Antichrist) mentioned in verse 26, because this was the last person mentioned. However, this law of theirs can be shown to be false, by going back no further than Daniel 9:2, which says:
“In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books, the number of the years, whereof the Word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish 70 years in the desolation of Jerusalem.”
If you're using reasoning, then the “he” mentioned would have to be Jeremiah, who would have to ensure that Jerusalem would remain desolate for 70 years; even though Jeremiah was long dead and buried. No, The “he” in Dan 9:27 is the same encompassing focus of verses 24-27 (Daniel 9:24-27).
It is the same Jesus Christ who confirmed the covenant (testament) with many, at the last supper, when Jesus said to his disciples,
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
At Revelation 11:19, the same ark of the covenant is referred to as “the ark of the testament.” The new covenant made by Jesus is “a better covenant,” “the first covenant,” as well as “the everlasting covenant.”
Neither by the blood of goats, but by his own blood, Christ entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. We can never go back to the system of blood sacrifices in an earthly temple, but, because the Jews continued Temple sacrifices despite the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, God destroyed the Temple. In God's eyes, the Temple now was spreading abominations so He had to make it desolate. The destruction of the Temple confirms that the Messiah appeared prior to its destruction, and that Jesus was Who He said He was. (Editor’s Emphasis)
Without the Temple, a bloodline cannot be verified, and all genealogical records are lost permanently. Future claims of being the Messiah would be made by a pretender. The Da Vinci Code, which centers on such a false bloodline, can be proven to be in error by only one verse in the Bible; if we reason that all prophecies concerning Christ were fulfilled, and that Christ fulfilled all prophecies. (If A = B, then B = A). In Isaiah 53:8, we find: “And who shall declare His generation?” The word generation can be rendered genealogies, or descendants. The question is rhetorical. Who shall say that He had a family? No one! He was cut off in the middle of the week. He was never married and had no children.
The rebuilt Jewish Temple, Mr. Lloyd says, would remain “desolate” in the eyes of the Lord, even until the end, (consummation) and I agree with him.
“If these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”
ERNEST L. MARTIN – AMBASSADOR COLLEGE AND THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD
A further treasure house for me has been the writings of Ernest L. Martin who founded Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, (ASK), www.askelm.com. In “The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot,” Dr. Martin’s work concludes beyond any doubt, that, what the world knows as the Temple Mount, has nothing to do with a site where any past Temples were, or where any future Temple site should be. What is known in Jerusalem as the Temple Mount is actually the remains of Fort Antonia, which was a Roman City. The original site of the Temples was about a football field south of these ruins. For verification, Dr Martin first turns to the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus says, at Chapter 19:43-44:
“For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”
As a second witness, he then quotes Luke again at 21:6, where Jesus says:
“As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall be thrown down.”
The Greek word Jesus used in this prophetic context to describe the Temple and its buildings was hieron. This means the entire Temple including its exterior building and walls. When Luke wrote this narrative, Jerusalem and the Temple were already destroyed by the Romans. He could have left this out of his records if all you had to do to disprove Jesus was to open your eyes, but he didn't because; NOT A TRACE OF IT WAS LEFT! (Editor’s Note: Luke’s Gospel could have been written anywhere between 59-60 A.D., but as late as A.D. 75—Spirit-Filled Bible, p. 1381 or as late as 80-90 A.D.)
Further, consider Micah 3:12 which says:
“Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountains of the house as the high places of the forest.”
Dr Martin includes eyewitness accounts by Josephus as in Wars VII.8,6:
“And where is now that great city [Jerusalem], the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument [Fort Antonia] of it preserved, I mean the camp of those [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, which [camp] still dwells upon its ruins; some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the Temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach.”
I really cannot do Dr Martins' book any justice by trying to condense it. I'll just say that it is essential for any research on the Temple.
THE “ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION” IS A REBUILT JEWISH TEMPLE!
In Ephesians 2:6, we learn that through Christ, God “...hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” The heavenly place or “holy place” is also mentioned in Matthew 24:15 as it reads:
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation [a rebuilt Jewish Temple], stand in the holy place [in your prayer closets with Christ, spiritually in heaven]...”
Please notice, that this verse is not a fragmented description of action, as false teachers will throw at you, but rather, an order. The ones playing a satanic shell game add ing to stand to make the Bible conform to their theology. If the holy place is the Holy of Holies inside the Temple, only the High Priest would be allowed in it and see it. For everyone to see the a-bomb of desolation, it would have to be the Temple.
To further illustrate this point, I will now discuss the sister passage in which the Ritmeyers, James Lloyd, and Dr Martin don't bring up. In Mark 13:14, we have,
“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not...”
Both passages mention something similar, and yet different, wherein if both were combined, and the repetitious words were cut out, it would look like this:
“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then...”
In other words, any future Temple built by man would be an abomination and ought not stand, but, it will be built, and it will be built on the 'Temple Mount', where as Dr Martin had demonstrated, ought to have been built, quite a distance away from the stones. When this Temple is built, expect the fit to hit the shan, as it marks the entrance through the Great Tribulation. (Editor’s Emphasis)
“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
Jesus, when He was on the cross, became our defense attorney, and pleaded with the Father, to pardon us. There are two legal terms to express, “not knowing what we do,” and they are:
NON SUI JURIES Latin: not by his own authority or legal right. Refers to those who are not legally competent to manage their own affairs as regards contracts and other causes in which this incompetence restricts exercise of sound judgment.
NON COMPOS MANTIS Latin: not having control over the mind or intellect; not of sound mind; insane. In certain circumstances its effect is lessened to mean only not legally competent.
So, in essence, when Christ was crucified, the lunatics were running the asylum, and we really don't realize that since the fall of man, the whole world has been satanic. That is why the god of this world, when tempting Jesus in the desert, offered Him all of it, because he did, in fact, have it. While we are familiar with Biblical prophecy, Satan dishes out his own brand of oracles for his minions, and, with apologies to the rock and roll group, the Moody Blues, I would like to give an example. In doing so, I will change two words in an excerpt of the lyrics of a song from the 1960s. These words sound the same as the original, and I will represent them with italics to denote the change. I will also add my own words in brackets to further illustrate my point. The song is The Story in Your Eyes.
Listen to the tide slowly turning
Wash all our heartaches away
We're part of the fire that is burning
And from the ashes we can build another day.
But I’m frightened for your children
That the life that we are living is in vain
And the Son [of God] shine we’ve been waiting for
Will turn to [the] reign [of the Antichrist].
Rebuilding from the ashes, is the Phoenix of the secret societies. The world must be destroyed to bring about the utopia of the surviving insiders, in the know. The granddaddy of these secret societies, the masons, have been around since the Tower of Babel. These bricklayers feature reverent depictions of the Temple, destroyed since 70 A.D. In its place now sits Islam's Dome of the Rock, but, the crowning objective to the Freemasons would be to re-build the Temple of Herod.
MICHAEL A. HOFFMAN II – THE DENIER OF THE HOLOCAUST
Michael A. Hoffman II wrote, in "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare” - a book available at www.powerofprophecy.com, that... “In 1988, fundamentalist ‘Judeo-Christians’ joined with Cabalistic Rabbi’s in the search for the remains of a magical cow, the so-called “Ashes of the Red Heifer” supposedly necessary to the construction of the Third Temple: [Here he quotes an article by Dr. Charles R. Taylor in “Bible Prophecy News” - June, 1988]
“Words fail to describe the intensity of the emotions of Vandal Jones and his select crew as they have followed the step-by-step instructions written 2,000 years ago in the Copper Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. At every juncture in the dig...they have found every little detail described in that 'map' of the location of the Kalil containing the ashes of the red heifer.
“The great importance of this search is in the fact that only when the actual Kalil is found, in which is contained the ashes of the last red heifer offered in sacrifice in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, will the restored priesthood in Israel be able to be sanctified by a sprinkling of these ashes...That has to be accomplished for the priests to have proper functions and sacrifices when Israel has its new Temple in Jerusalem.
“When this sacred Kalil is actually in hand, the Orthodox Jews will demand the Temple site where the Dome of the Mosley shrine now stands.
“...Vandal Jones’ last report stipulated that his team will return to the cave to finish the expedition and secure the sacred Kalil. He works closely with the Hebrew University in Israel. If Vandal is 'caught up' to glory (ruptured) with us in September, it will be the Jews themselves who will retrieve their sacred 'ashes of the red heifer' and be ready for their Temple.
“The Temple is the alchemical project in microcosm, the yin and the yang of Egypt's Hermetic Shepherd of Hermas in whose memory palace the Black and White kings have played fatal chess for centuries. Some play by the rules of boy scouts and shopping mall habitués. Others play by rules that make them pillars of the Temple of Herod. On one side of the Temple we see the support pillar marked Boaz, representing the mystical, New Age nosies which is contained in the Kabala.
“At the other extreme side of the Temple is the support pillar marked Joachim, represent-Inga the strict rules for the administrators and bureaucrats of Central Government which are contained in the Babylonian Talmud.
“It has been the mystical Cabala, with its alleged knowledge of the mechanisms related to the material world which, ironically, has provided guidance to the hyper-rational bureaucracies administering communist government in Russia and Federal government in the U.S.
“Both the New Age irrationalism of the Cabala and the hyper-rational legalism of the Talmud, though seemingly antagonistic, work hand-in-glove to support the Imperium represented by the Temple of Herod the Great. The formula of that Temple rule is an esoteric structure of bureaucrats and administrators, esoterically informed by knowledge of secret Satanic symbols, words and numbers.” (Editor’s Note: It was difficult to follow what was quoted from Charles Taylor, Hoffman or others – I have attributed ALL to Taylor.)
THE SENISTER PRETRIBULATIONISTS
In Daniel, it says that “Knowledge will increase.” Why do we think it will be godly information, especially since our government regulates us? Christian dispensationalists, who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, encourage all rebuilding efforts of the Jerusalem Temple; and for what are actually, some very sinister motives. The followers of the "Left Behind" theory know full well, that, in their best case scenario, they will be raptured before the Temple is rebuilt. Therefore, in expecting good from evil, a strange partnership exists between Christians and Jews. As funds are raised, the Jews get what they want; a renewed ability to perform animal sacrifices under the old Mosaic law, while, as the Christians (goyim) smile at them, they also give them the pie in the face, being aware that these same Jews will be left behind to go through the Great Tribulation. The jokes on them though, because they will be left behind too. No one will be raptured.
I will end this epistle with one more book recommendation. This book is also by Dr Martin of ASK. Get it. He carefully and painstakingly has researched the actual birth of Jesus in his book, The Star that Astonished the World. He shows beyond doubt, that the birth of Christ was just after sunset on September 11, 3 B.C. It's for this reason that I sense an urgency to pass along this information.
Hope to see you face to face in heaven.
Additional response from Doug Krieger:
Dear John –
Firstly, I will undoubtedly see you on that day in glory; however, prior thereto I’d like to announce that there are a number of items that I concur on in your writing and a number I vehemently do not concur with.
Your post-tribulationalism is accurate—perhaps for different reasons unbeknown to me; however, suffice it to say at this point, those who embrace a “Left Behind” eschatology are heading for a rude awakening, that’s for sure—our writings are altogether too numerous on this point; however, those of Tim Warner are outstanding and I heartily suggest everyone receiving this tome repine to his Christ-honoring Biblical Literalism.
Now, I am including excerpts from our article entitled HE WILL CONFIRM THE COVENANT…but who is he? – Part VII of the Prophetic Sequence. Furthermore, and with repeated exposure of those who would attribute the work of Antichrist to Jesus Christ over these passages and those found elsewhere in Daniel, I would strongly urge you to absorb the following articles which expose how cults and aberrant teachings have played havoc with prophetic Israel, her Temple, the Abomination of Desolation, and in particular, the sordid and twisted dispensations used to determine what the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:13-14 mean. In this respect, please read the following:
(1) JESUS CHRIST DOES THE WORK OF ANTICHRIST – SAYS WHO? –Chapter 27
(2) ISRAEL’S TEMPLE SACRIFICE AND THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION –Chapter 25
(3) ISRAEL’S PROPHETIC WITNESS –Chapter 28
(These three articles are assorted chapters in a 28-chapter e-book entitled: ANTICHRIST – REFLECTIONS ON THE DESOLATOR)
(4) PART XVII – THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Part 1)
(5) PART XVIII – THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Part 2)
(6) PART XIX – THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Part 3)
(7) PART XXII – CAN THESE BONES LIVE – Reflections on Israel’s Ingathering
(These four articles are assorted chapters in a 25-chapter e-book entitled: THE PROPHETIC SEQUENCE
In sum, the Abomination of Desolation is NOT the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple within the yet future 70th Week of Daniel. The “he” of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist, not Jesus Christ, the Messiah. The future “tribulational Temple” bespeaks of Israel’s prophetic fulfillment and shall be desecrated in the midst of the 70th Week by the Antichrist – this “desolation” or “desecration” is two-fold: (1) He will terminate the sacerdotal rites of the Jews; and (2) Satan will incarnate himself into the body (i.e., “temple”) of the Antichrist wherein he shall be entitled henceforth as THE BEAST. Both these heinous acts are sourced in the DESOLATER and are wholly his effort to thwart the purposes of the Almighty. Jews rebuilding their Temple are NOT in defiance of God’s purposes in their rebuilding of the Temple! Their Temple is NOT the Abomination of Desolation. The Abomination of Desolation is directly related to the MAN OF SIN, the SON OF PERDITION, the LAWLESS ONE, the DESPICABLE ONE, the PRINCE WHO IS TO COME, the WILLFUL KING, the DESOLATER.
Allow me to belabor the “he” of Daniel 9:27 . . .
WHO IS THE HE OF DANIEL 9:27?
At issue is the identity of the “he” (once again) as recorded in Daniel 9:27. Premillenarians (the manifestation of the earthly kingdom of Messiah is yet future) affirm that this “he” is the ultimate Antichrist who will enforce what is fast becoming an “international peace pact” in the Middle East—guaranteeing Israel’s security, while sufficing the international community (i.e., “with many”) that a “comprehensive peace” has descended upon the Middle East and the world, once and for all!
In our previous tomes we have heartily suggested that this orchestration and conclusion of the “peace process” – this ROAD MAP TO PEACE – took a detour on the ROAD TO DAMASCUS and that, specifically, the fulfillment of Isaiah 17 and Zechariah 9 will precipitate this longed-for peace by all because of the exhausting nature of the aforementioned fulfillment.
Let us first consider who this “he” is not . . . in Daniel 9:27a
The “He” in Daniel 9:27a is not the Messiah mentioned in Daniel 9:26! Now, this may seem obvious to you . . . but this belief that Christ is the “he” of Daniel 9:27a is held by a sizeable segment of believers. It is for this reason—that I must break this segment (Part VII) into two parts—first, the HE of post-tribulationist and survivalist James Lloyd . . . and then in Part VIII we will elaborate on the “He” of Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, or the pre-tribulationist fixation on the Euro-Antichrist.
The sad commentary of one, James Lloyd, of the Christian Media Network, presents this view in its convolution—but do bear with me, this is a bit tedious, though mandatory, in our immediate discussion . . .
Lloyd’s initial remarks deprecates the apparent ignorance and stupidity—even heresy—of millions of Christians who read into these passages the figure of the Antichrist, a personage Lloyd is loathe to admit exists within these passages:
“Conversely, the Antichrist is never mentioned. There is no mention of a 7-year treaty, nor a 7-year tribulation. All of those understandings have been artificially attached to the prophecy. The central message in this entire prophecy is the arrival of the Messiah, and what will happen once He arrives.”
Under the title: Who Confirmed the Covenant? Lloyd chides the “majority view” of believers (and thank God it is such) that a horrific misinterpretation of Scripture has occurred of Daniel 9:27 wherein believers attribute the work of Christ to the Antichrist … it is so severe that Lloyd asserts:
“Literally millions upon millions of believers are now similarly deceived in that the person explicitly described in the scriptures as the MESSIAH is actually seen as the Antichrist (Daniel 9:27a). Our Savior told the Pharisees that attributing the works of God to the Devil was the unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:31). The blind religious leaders of yesteryear claimed the person doing the miracles in their presence was actually a vessel of the Devil. The truth was, that person was Jesus Christ and the Jewish leaders committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in their refusal to recognize Jesus was the individual prophesied of in Daniel 9:27.” (Ibid.)
Yet, brother Lloyd (if I can get personal here) the converse can be said of you and they who so blithely read the Scriptures to attribute the works of Antichrist (the confirming and ultimate breaking of the covenant) to that of Jesus Christ—you have done precisely what you accuse millions of brethren of doing.
Throughout Lloyd’s diatribe, he does NOT mention one iota about “the people of the prince who is to come” – indeed, “the prince who is to come” – whose people destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. is mysteriously absent from his entire commentary—naturally, because Antichrist is NEVER mentioned in these passages, right?
Sir Robert Anderson’s entire dissertation, THE COMING PRINCE (i.e., “the prince who is to come”) completely destroys Lloyd’s preposterous notion that Antichrist is not mentioned in these passages—the fact that Mr. Lloyd has so cavalierly ascribed the work of Antichrist to Christ, demonstrates the nonsensical condemnation that he hurls toward the Body of Messiah:
“The very fact that most ‘believers’ will simply discard this pointed exegesis testifies that it is the organized churches that have perpetrated the great fraud that Christendom finds herself entangled in. And because of their lazy refusal to study the truth of the scriptures on a personal level — instead relying upon the false doctrines of their hireling shepherds — we will shortly see the big surprise in which so many that thought they were saved will be turned away. The scriptures will not be broken, and they tell us it is ‘for which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.’ (Colossians 3:6)”
In order to suit his infamous reckoning and attribution of the work of Antichrist to that of our Lord Jesus—Lloyd systematically destroys the chronology of the text itself. Timing is everything here—he has purposefully commenced the chronology from the time of Cyrus, king of Persia and his decree to rebuild the temple—not the decree of Artaxerxes Longitmanus, the Persia king whose edict “for the rebuilding of the city” (“from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” - Daniel 9:25a); thence, these oversights place his dates totally off: The decree under Cyrus the Great to rebuild the Temple was in 537 B.C.; the decree under Artaxerxes Longitmanus to rebuild Jerusalem was 1st of Nisan B.C. 445.
By circumventing the actual Persian royal edict to rebuild the CITY OF JERUSALEM, he has destroyed the credibility of his thesis. Allow Lloyd’s own words to condemn him . . .
“Textual evidence in the historical books of Nehemiah and Ezra suggest that it took about 49 years to rebuild the wall and the temple after the command to construct them was given by the Persian king Cyrus: ‘Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:2).
Lloyd has “blended” the rebuilding of the “wall and the temple” together—this is not the “biblical case” at all!
The actual edict to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem is at question here—NOT the decree to “build him an house at Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2).
The precision of Sir Robert Anderson’s chronology has lasted the test of time and has been enhanced (see later) by those given to the accuracy of the Word of God:
“These seventy weeks represent seventy
times seven prophetic years of 360 days, to be reckoned from the
issuing of an edict for the rebuilding of the city — ‘the street and
rampart,’ of Jerusalem.
Sir Anderson continues to hack away at Lloyd’s thesis—a thesis which has the “coming of Messiah the Prince” at the Nativity:
“After the initial building period of 49 years elapsed, the second period of 434 years went by with almost nothing occurring that was related to the messianic expectation. This second period is the period between the last book of the Old Testament (Malachi) and the coming of Jesus Christ — and it turns out to be 434 years!” (Lloyd)
But Sir Anderson’s chronology—which is vastly different and fully aligned with the precise reading of the Scripture—counters these faulty assumptions and chronologies of Lloyd:
“But the language of the prophecy is
clear: ‘From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and
threescore and two weeks.’ An era therefore of sixty-nine ‘weeks,’ or
483 prophetic years reckoned from the 14th March, B.C. 445, should
close with some event to satisfy the words, ‘unto the Messiah the
Yes, using Lloyd’s prognostications we would find that the date of the birth of Christ would have ended the sixty-nine weeks—thirty-three years before Messiah’s death!
Sir Anderson’s “date” – i.e., the terminus of the 69th week—and PRIOR to the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy – occurs precisely on the date of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem . . . and before “Messiah shall be cut off” (Daniel 9:26b)—NOT at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus Christ at His baptism by John the Baptist.
Sir Anderson then proceeds—and I am sure, much to the chagrin of the Lloyds of the earth—to chronologically substantiate his masterpiece by these concluding paragraphs which unequivocally confirm the precise termination of the 69th Week of Daniel’s Prophecy—not the 70th Week which Lloyd and his lot would vainly seek to subvert the truth as precisely recorded in God’s Word.
“And the date of it can be
ascertained. In accordance with the Jewish custom, the Lord went up to
Jerusalem upon the 8th Nisan, ‘six days before the Passover.’
But as the 14th, on which the Paschal Supper was eaten, fell that year
upon a Thursday, the 8th was the preceding Friday. He must have spent
the Sabbath, therefore, at Bethany; and on the evening of the 9th,
after the Sabbath had ended, the Supper took place in Martha’s house.
Upon the following day, the 10th Nisan, He entered Jerusalem as
recorded in the Gospels. 
Now, I do not wish to belabor these matters—as a math instructor, however, I find them altogether fascinating—but the persistence of Lloyd and those caught by his deception needs to be fully explored and exposed . . . Lloyd continues:
“It is at this point that the gigantic error (my emphasis to highlight the incredible arrogance of Lloyd) is made in the prophetic interpretation — and it changes the meaning of almost everything. Because the prophecy is broken up into 3 periods (49 years, 434 years, and 7 years), prophecy interpreters claim that the prophecy was ‘suspended’ after the Messiah arrived, and the last 7 year period, which they identify as the tribulation, was pushed far into the future. They then say the Antichrist will emerge and inaugurate that last 7-year period. The problem is, the text never actually says any of that, nor does it even infer a gap between the 69th and 70th week.
“The Messiah arrives after the 2nd period of 434 years (62 weeks in the text). (i.e., Messiah is birthed at the end of 69 weeks? – My comment.) There is no reason to believe the unfolding of the timeline stops at that point. Thus, the Messiah arrives at the beginning of the 70th week and it commenced when He arrived. (So, Lloyd up to this point sees literal “week years” but at this juncture dispenses with the literal “week years” and says that Jesus’ birth simply starts the 70th Week?) Remember, the focus of the prophecy is on the Messiah who must accomplish everything specified within the 70-week period.
“After the Messiah arrives, the text simply continues with the chronological description: ‘And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off….’ (Daniel 9:26) (My comment: So after approximately thirty-three and one-half years the crucifixion of Christ takes place?) This verse is simply saying that after the second period of 434 years (the 62 weeks) has gone by, the Messiah is to be ‘cut off.’ It then continues the chronological statement from the point of the ‘cutting off’ and says that at some unspecified time after the Messiah is cut off, ‘the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed.’”
What we have here are the following convolutions—mandatory in that without them, Lloyd’s whole “systematized error” collapses:
Messiah the Prince” is not the date of the triumphal entry of Jesus
into Jerusalem but the date of Jesus’ nativity.
(2) The phrase “after the sixty-two weeks” (which added to the original seven weeks would make a total of sixty-nine weeks – 7 + 62 = 69) means, according to Lloyd, after the birth of Christ or some thirty-three and one-half years, to the time of His crucifixion – simply put: after 69 week).
BACK TO THE FUTURE?
Now, at this juncture, I would pose the question to Lloyd and scores of others who hold this supercilious view: If Messiah is “cut off” – and the people of the coming prince have destroyed the city and the sanctuary (70 A.D. under Titus of Rome) – then how is it – unless we are witnessing a FLASHBACK (which Lloyd and the others of his persuasion so claim) – does the same Messiah Who has been cut off now offer the Jews a “covenant” or “treaty” for one week and in the midst of the week terminate it?
But here’s the twisted thinking that goes on in the minds of those who don’t know their math:
“In the next verse (the transverse from Daniel 9:26 to Daniel 9:27), the prophecy provides us with the details of the cutting off of the Savior. Again, the focal point of the entire prophecy is the Messiah, so after He arrives, ‘he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week….” (Daniel 9:27) (My comment: But pray tell, after Messiah arrives, and after thirty-three and one-half years is cut off, then he ‘confirms a covenant with the many for one week?’ How can He do that when He’s cut off—wouldn’t it be better (as some of Lloyd’s cohorts suggest) to have the Messiah make the ‘covenant with the many’ at the commencement of His ministry (or John’s baptism of Jesus) and then after three-and-one-half years be ‘cut off’ . . . that would make more sense?) This is precisely what would be expected as when He arrived, there would be ‘one week’ left to the 70 weeks. The obvious question should be how can the Antichrist suddenly get inserted into this prophecy and ‘confirm’ a covenant that has never been mentioned? Indeed, the Antichrist himself has never been mentioned in the entire text!
How, Mr. Lloyd? Simply put: Because of two glaring oversights you have made in your calculations:
(1) “THEN” – You simply left out this imperative chronologically significant word – if you would this mathematical STEP – and, when you do that, your solution will be erroneous to the max! In point of fact—it is from this error you have concluded your next erroneous assumption – to wit:
(2) “The obvious question should be how can the Antichrist suddenly get inserted into this prophecy and ‘confirm’ a covenant that has never been mentioned? Indeed, the Antichrist himself has never been mentioned in the entire text!” Lloyd refuses to acknowledge in Daniel 9:26 the presence of the PRINCE WHO IS TO COME—and he well knows (for a change) that this “prince” is directly connected to a people who in 70 A.D. destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary (the temple). So Lloyd’s abject denial of the presence of Antichrist in Daniel 9:26 is disingenuous!
What a tangled and twisted web we weave when once we threaten to deceive! The more I’ve gotten into Lloyd’s brain on this, the more I suspicion other doctrinal errors of major import. But first, let’s reread the pure word of Scripture (sorry for the interruptions):
“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city . . . (Daniel 9:24a)
(Now, it is here that Lloyd inserts this “Christ-centered” comment—which any believer in Jesus would have no problem in accepting . . .
“Once again, it’s crucial that we see that Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of these prophecies — and the totality of what He accomplishes is in verse 24. One may simply read through the points of verse 24 and ask WHO fulfills each and every aspect of the prophecy? The answer is JESUS CHRIST.”
At which point I would suggest to Mr. Lloyd to understand that the following comments in vs. 24 are all made FOR YOUR PEOPLE AND FOR YOUR HOLY CITY—THEY ARE MADE FOR THE JEWS! A small oversight? I don’t think so. A people who are the central subject of this verse—what would be accomplished on their behalf would be done by the Messiah.
Sorry for the intrusion . . . let us continue . . .
“. . . to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24)
I will let the erudite commentary of Dwight Pentecost disclose the past and future of these proclamations:
“The six promised blessings are related to the two works of the Messiah: His death and His reign. The first three have special reference to the sacrifice of the Messiah, which anticipate the removal of sin from the nation. The second three have special reference to the sovereignty of the Messiah, which anticipate the establishment of His reign. The ‘everlasting righteousness’ can only refer to the millennial kingdom promised Israel. This was the goal and expectation of all the covenants and promises given to Israel and in its institution prophecy will be fulfilled. This kingdom can only be established when the Holy One or the Holy Place in the millennial temple is anointed. The millennium will witness the reception of the Messiah by Israel and will also witness the return of the Shekinah to the Holy of Holies. Thus we see the prophecy anticipates the whole work of the Messiah for Israel: He will redeem and He will reign at the expiration of time stipulated in the prophecy.” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 241-2).
We continue . . .
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25a) (NOTE: “build Jerusalem” – this was NOT the decree of Cyrus the Great, but that decree dealing specifically with the Persian King Artaxerxes Longitmanus.) . . . and at this juncture, the outstanding work of Thomas Ice (who on this issue is right on the mark) is presented:
“The next element of Daniel 9:25 is clear. The countdown of time will begin with ‘a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.’ The Hebrew word for decree is the common word ‘dâbâr’ which means ‘thing,’ ‘speak,’ ‘word,’ or ‘instruction.’ In this context, it has the force of an urgent and assertive statement or decree.
“The text is specific that the countdown will start with ‘a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.’ The decree involves the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, not the Temple. This is important since earlier edicts were issued in relation to the Temple (see 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; 5:3-17; 6:3-5). There are at least three different decrees that are considered in an attempt to ‘know and discern’ the beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel.
“First, there was the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-5), issued in 537 B.C., which I will call decree one. Second, the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) given in 458 B.C., (decree two). Third, a second decree from Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:5-8, 17, 18) given in 444 B.C. (i.e., 445 B.C. as per Anderson—but 444 B.C. is the most accurate calculation) at the time of Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem, (decree three). I want to note at the outset of the examination of these possibilities that the third decree is the only one that literally fits the exact words of Daniel 9:25, as we shall see. Leon Wood notes that the ‘first stressed rebuilding the Temple; the second, the establishment and practice of the proper services at the Temple; and the third, the rebuilding of the walls, when, long before, most of the city had been rebuilt.’
“Non-literal interpreters of the 490 years of the seventy weeks of Daniel are vague and non-precise in their overall handling of the numbers. If they try to establish a terminus a quo, it is rarely, if ever, the one given to Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2:1-8. For example, preterist, Gary DeMar, is fuzzy, at best, in explaining his beginning point for the prophecy. In a lengthy quote of J. Barton Payne, DeMar appears, at first, to favor our view when he says: ‘The beginning point would be indicated by the commandment to restore Jerusalem (v. 25), an event that was accomplished, a century after Daniel, in the reign of the Persian, Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.), under Nehemiah (444 B.C..).’ He then proceeds to say that he favors the second view noted above, of Artaxerxes’ first decree (Ezra 7:11-26) which was issued in 458 B.C. DeMar declares that ‘from 458 B.C. this brings one to A.D. 26, the very time which many would accept for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus Christ and the commencement of His incarnate ministry.’ (Note: This “theory” of DeMar lends credibility to the “cutting off of Messiah” in the “midst” of the 70th Week.)
“Like DeMar, fellow preterist, Kenneth Gentry, is likewise vague, perhaps on purpose, as to the start of the 490 years. Like DeMar, Gentry also references J. Barton Payne, but without specifically stating his terminus a quo. Also, like DeMar, Gentry holds that the 483-year period comes to its end at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, ‘sometime around A.D. 26.’ Gentry’s support for his view does not come from providing biblical data to persuade. Instead, he says, ‘This interpretation is quite widely agreed upon by conservative scholars, being virtually ‘universal among Christian exegetes’—excluding dispensationalists.’ In contrast to Gentry and DeMar, I will present reasons from the biblical text for holding that the correct starting point is the decree from Artaxerxes given in 444 B.C. as recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8.” (Note: Ice then goes out to make substantial arguments supporting, ostensibly, the chronology of Sir Robert Anderson, with minor modifications to enhance the chronology.)
Now, back to the Scripture:
“ . . . until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (i.e., 69 weeks); the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times” (Daniel 9:25b).
“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come (Note: This portion of the passage is completely obfuscated by Lloyd.) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war (Daniel 9:26) (Note: “The War” has been covered by this author and refers to the incessant Arab-Israeli conflict which shall end prior to vs. 27 and concludes with the Oracle of Damascus.)
It is at this point – 70 A.D. – that Lloyd and his compatriots will insist that the prophet Daniel “goes into detail” – a sort of FLASHBACK in time – wherein he attempts to avoid a sequential or chronological and logical progression of the text. Prior to the introduction of Daniel 9:27 we find the following have occurred in Daniel 9:25-26—sequentially:
(1) THE DECREE TO REBUILD JERUSALEM
The decree to rebuild the CITY of Jerusalem is given under the THIRD DEGREE of Artaxerxes on 14th March, B.C. 445 (Daniel 9:25: “That from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem”)
(2) THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY OF JESUS INTO JERUSALEM
Messiah the Prince is introduced to Israel at His TRIUMPHAL ENTRY into Jerusalem precisely on 6th April, A.D. 32; the 10th of Nissan (Daniel 9:25: “Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks”).
(Note: From 14 March B.C. 445 until 6 April A.D. 32 there are—using the Bible’s use of the 360-day “prophetic year”) precisely 173,880 days or: 173,880/360=483 Years=483/7=69 Weeks (Note: The precise dates of both 14 March B.C. 445 and 6 April A.D. 32 are substantiated, as Sir Robert Anderson has so masterfully presented, by BOTH biblical and secular archaeological discoveries and recordation)
(Note: The additional work of Harold Hoehner does not subtract from the precision of Sir Robert Anderson’s initial disclosures—it only enhances them in so far as the commencement and terminus of the 69 weeks concerns; notwithstanding, we do applaud the enhancements made by Hoehner and encourage your visitation of them on the Tom Ice Collection: The 70th Week of Daniel, Part VI)
(3) THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS
The Crucifixion of Jesus has taken place (Daniel 9:26a: “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself”).
(Note: The time which elapses between the TRIUMPHAL ENTRY of Jesus into Jerusalem (“Messiah the Prince) and the CRUCIFIXION (Messiah shall be cut off”)) is not at issue here . . . “There can be no honest difference of opinion about that: the cutting off of Messiah is after the sixty-two weeks. It is not the concluding event of the series of sixty-two weeks. Neither is it said to be the opening event of the seventieth. It is simply after the seven plus sixty-two weeks.” (Robert Duncan Culver)
(4) THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND HER TEMPLE
Again – PRIOR to Daniel 9:27 (and the confirmation of the FALSE PEACE by Antichrist) – and, AFTER, the crucifixion of Christ (i.e., “Messiah shall be cut off) – there is the destruction of the city (of Jerusalem) and its sanctuary (the Temple of the Jews) (Daniel 9:26: “And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”)
(Note: Virtually all concur—even Lloyd—that Jerusalem and her temple were destroyed in 70 A.D. under Titus of Rome – it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. under the leadership of Titus; however, Titus is NOT “the prince who is to come” – at best he may “prefigure” “the prince who is to come” – though he is closely associated with this dark, yet future, figure whose “people—the Roman legions” physically destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple—and, most assuredly, this “prince who is to come” is NOT our Lord Jesus Christ—for it was not He who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. nor desecrated its temple—BUT THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME did this awful deed! Furthermore, the “people” who destroyed Jerusalem (i.e., the Roman legions) and “the prince who is to come” (the Antichrist) are intrinsically connected—i.e., the ancient Roman legions are superimposed upon that future figure; therefore, it is the conclusion of this author, that Sir Anderson’s THE COMING PRINCE bears the marks of Western Leadership – the same West which destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It is the supreme LEADERSHIP OF THE WEST—i.e., the PRINCE—who shall “confirm a covenant with the many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering” – Daniel 9:27a).
Specifically, “the people of the prince” – i.e., the Roman Legions under Titus, slayed upwards of 115,000 (1.l million is also given as an historical figure) and . . .
“During the four years of war, the Romans had taken 97,000 prisoners. Thousands of them were forced to become gladiators and were killed in the arena, fighting wild animals or fellow gladiators. Some, who were known as criminals, were burned alive . . . But most of these prisoners were brought to Rome, where they were forced to build the Forum of Peace (a park in the heart of Rome) and the Coliseum. The Menorah and the Table were exhibited in the temple of Peace.)” (Wars Between the Jews and the Romans, 70 C.E.)
(5) THE JEWISH DISPERSION – THE DIASPORA
“The end of it shall be with a flood . . .”(Daniel 9:26c)
Without equivocation – the destruction of Jerusalem – and subsequent events leading up to the “rebellion” under the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132-135 C.E.) led to the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire an mass.
It was, nevertheless, a “scattering” prophesied by the Hebrew seers (Genesis 28:10-15; Deuteronomy 4:25-27, 30; 28:64, 65-67; Ezekiel 22:14-15; Hosea 9:17). Its allusion is given graphic illustration through the use of “a flood” – “a flood” which, I believe, the Apostle John depicts in Revelation 12:15:
“So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman (who, the Jewish people, gave birth to the Man Child), that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood . . . but the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth” (Revelation 12:15-16).
I am well aware of the multitude of interpretations of these Revelation 12:15-16 verses; however, I cannot separate the spiritually intuitive signals between the flood in Daniel 9:26 and that which is spoken of in Revelation 12:15-16—their similarities are overwhelming.
(6) AND TILL THE END OF THE WAR DESOLATIONS ARE DETERMINED -
It is here, prior to the confirmation of the “Treaty with Death and Hell” (Isaiah 28:15, 18) that the afflictions of the diasporic Jew will persist—nigh their ingathering, Valley of Dry Bones, resurrection, and ultimate “reconciliation for iniquity” (Daniel 9:24). These desolations shall seemingly conclude “till the end of the war” – and that WAR we have concluded is the on-going Arab-Israeli and/or Moslem-Israeli confrontation which has persisted ever since the first Zionist in the late 1890s stepped upon their ancient homeland; and will terminate at the Oracle of Damascus.
It was in the 1880s – long prior to Israel’s regathering, that Sir Robert Anderson uttered this prophetic inspiration:
“Much there is in Holy Writ which unbelief may value and revere, while utterly refusing to accept it as Divine; but prophecy admits of no half-faith. The prediction of the ‘seventy weeks’ was either a gross and impious imposture, or else it was in the fullest and strictest sense God-breathed. It may be that in days to come, when Judah’s great home-bringing shall restore to Jerusalem the rightful owners of its soil, the Jews themselves shall yet rake up from deep beneath its ruins the records of the great king’s decree and of the Nazarene’s rejection, and they for whom the prophecy was given will thus be confronted with proofs of its fulfillment. Meanwhile what judgment shall be passed on it by fair and thoughtful men? To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to nothing more than happy coincidences involves a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who accepts the book of Daniel as Divine. There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind in refusing truth must needs take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity.” (Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince)
Yes, all of the above (Items (1) through (6)) occur before this word:
THEN . . . and it is here purposefully so emphasized!
“Then he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate (i.e., lit., “the desolator”) (Daniel 9:27).
The unmistakable identity of “the prince who is to come” is immediately recognizable—except by folks like Lloyd and others . . . whose peculiar agenda (at this juncture) mystifies the immediate contextual, sequential, nature of this entire passage . . . so what is his/their agenda . . . what “doctrine” or “systematized error” lurks beneath the seeming “Centrality of Christ” that he presents to us?
“The Christian Media ministry is deeply involved in the Remnant Christian and Patriot sectors of America that have quietly emerged in recent years. In this arena, there are quite a few commercial organizations that have developed by servicing the needs of the populace in these areas. (Note: Lloyd is “into” selling survivalist paraphernalia—check out his site for confirmation.)
“Although many true Patriots and Remnant Christians disagree on vast numbers of issues, most recognize the dreadful conditions that are threatening to overwhelm the world in general, and America in particular. While the Bible refers to the Tribulation, parallel traditions describe the immediate future in similar terms. Thus, many people are engaged in accumulating preparedness related items that run the gamut from stored food, to gold and silver.
“Christian Media believes the overwhelming majority of organized ministries have all become part of the great Falling Away, prophesied of in the New Testament.”
At this point one begins to move into conspiracy, big time . . . behind it all, the United Nations!
As a Christian survivalist, Lloyd’s post-tribulationalism is an embarrassment and an affront to the Body of Christ, and worse yet, manifests an elitism that bespeaks of a divisive spirit wholly separate from the Spirit of Christ:
“James Lloyd’s act of calling pre-trib brethren morons and saying that ‘there is no co-existence with the Rapture Cult’ and that that pre-tribbers are lost is not ministering grace to post-trib hearers--or to any pre-tribbers who might have tuned in to his radio broadcast. Instead, his example serves to encourage post-trib Christians to despise and abandon the part of the body of Christ that will be in the most need of spiritual and physical help when the New World Order takeover begins. Who stands to benefit from this kind of teaching?” (Liberty to the Captives, June, 2001).
Finally, the “doctrinal distortions” of Lloyd, regarding the role of Israel in the “End of the Days” makes it perfectly clear that in spite of his insightful libertarian provocations (some of which are excellent—though he be a survivalist), he is, nevertheless, hamstrung by a vicious “replacement theology” which distorts his Biblicism and drives his conspiratorial prophetic projections—and, when the dust clears, the residue of a virulent anti-Semitism abides (and that is the insidious truth of the matter).
“Conversely, it is not consistent with the preponderance of New Testament doctrine to think he is saying all the Jews will be saved, when there is no such promise, prophecy, or explicit statement anywhere in Scripture. The lack of Scripture promising that ‘all’ of physical Israel will be saved doesn’t even account for the last two thousand years of history – to say nothing of the fact that every indication we have is that the modern Israeli nation is up to their eyeballs in the present apostasy. (Note: We do not deny that Israel is a “Valley of Dry Bones” – however, their regathering to their ancient homeland is not predicated upon anything but God’s eternal faithfulness to His original promises.)
“Without the assumption that the Christians, utilizing the shell of the ‘church,’ are a separate group from Israel, the entire system of Dispensationalism collapses under the weight of its own preposterous suppositions. The total body of New Testament teaching, particularly Paul’s writings in this very book and this very chapter (Romans 9-11), categorically testify that the Old Testament order of salvation based upon one’s physical lineage is now forever done away with in Christ.
"The ‘strong delusion’ that has overtaken the church in terms of the great deception of Dispensationalism has brought some to the point of saying that Christians that claim their birthright as the ‘chosen generation’ and the ‘peculiar people’ that Peter told us about (I Peter 2:9), have somehow become anti-Semitic! This lie is so monstrous that it manifests the profound nature of the verse in I John that bluntly informs us that ‘who is a liar but Antichrist?’ (I John 2:22).
“The Jewish leaders of the generation that saw Jesus walk among them also claimed an irrevocable birthright when they claimed they were of their father Abraham. Jesus set them straight as to who their real father was. So too, those of this “evil and adulterous generation” that have constructed ‘another gospel’ (Galatians 1:6). The Rapture Cult shall find themselves ‘accursed’ because ‘they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved’ (II Thessalonians 2:10). Soon, the false prophets of pre-tribulationism ‘shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames’ (Isaiah 13:8).
The denials and rationalizations of Lloyd to justify his “form of anti-Semitism” is not new—for these “brethren” wholeheartedly affirm Israel’s rejection as part and parcel of the Church triumphant. Lloyd’s accusation regards the “dispensational lie” as “so monstrous” that it manifests the very lie of the Antichrist himself! And, what does he foresee in the phrases of Isaiah 13:8 . . . “the false prophets of pre-tribulationism ‘shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames’ (Isaiah 13:8)?
This conversation started out to disclose who is not the HE in Daniel 9:27a (“Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week . . .”)—it ends with a complete rejection of Israel, and the Jew. Don’t be surprised—ultimately all Premillenarians will be called THE CULT by those who have rejected the prophetic Scriptures regarding the “seed of Abraham.” It starts by an estranged hatred and jealousy; then it is cloaked in doctrinal purity; and, finally, it becomes aggressive, rejectionist, and wholly given over to “systematized error.”
“I'll say this again. Dispensationalism is a completely false doctrine, and the attempt to place national Israel into a pre-eminent position in God’s plan is Antichrist through and through. At the risk of redundancy, I’ll restate this another way. The doctrine of national Israel as the ‘chosen people’ is Satan’s gambit designed to lure evangelical Christianity into an Israel-first millennialism that will ultimately enthrone the religious syncretism that will vault the Antichrist to power in Jerusalem.” (James Lloyd)
ERNEST MARTIN -
“During 1955 Ernest Martin became a supporter of the ministry of Herbert W. Armstrong and the Radio Church of God (later known as the Worldwide Church of God). He attended Ambassador College at Pasadena, California in 1958 and later transferred to the campus in England. He was ordained as a minister of the Radio Church of God in 1959 and continued with his studies at Ambassador College to finally earn an unaccredited PhD in education during 1966. From 1960 to 1972 he taught history, theology and elementary meteorology at the Ambassador College campus in Bricket Wood, England where he became Dean of Faculty.
Dr. Martin’s accomplishments are extensive – whether or not his research on the actual site of the Herodian and/or Solomonic Temple is accurate or has scholarly merit will have to be determined by the Jews themselves. It seems a bit incongruous for anyone who deems the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple as the Abomination of Desolation (as John Moesche does) to have any interest in the rebuilding of such a Temple due to the fact it is an Abomination—am I missing something here?
Below is a montage of information from Wikipedia regarding Michael A. Hoffman II – which after a cursory reading, it becomes altogether apparent, the man is anti-Semitic – a pattern of identification with these three men – all of whom in one form or another are very much into “replacement theology” of some sort – be it British Israelism, out-and-out anti-Semitism a la Hoffman II, or the peculiarities of James Lloyd.
Views on cryptocracy:
Hoffman's self-described vocation is "researching the occult cryptocracy's orchestration of American history." He believes that this cryptocracy runs American history, controlling culture and thought via ritualistic psychodramas and killing sprees. A detailed explanation of this hypothesis is found in Hoffman's Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. Examples of such "psychodramas," in Hoffman's view, include Route 66 (which connects various centers of Satanic importance), and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in which Hoffman sees ritualistic elements..
Hoffman also argues that the gnosis of this ruling cabal are slowly being revealed through movies such as They Live and The Matrix and other forms of symbolic and subliminal communication which Hoffman terms twilight language.
Views on Jews and Judaism
In his book Judaism's Strange Gods (2000) Hoffman argues that modern-day Jewish Orthodoxy has little to no relation to the Tanakh (the Jewish sacred texts that also form the basis of the Christian Old Testament), but on the Talmud and the Mishnah. Hoffman cites the Karaites, a Jewish sect who reject the Talmud, as "a group which, historically, has been most hated and severely persecuted by orthodox Jewish rabbinate."
Hoffman also contends that the British Empire might have achieved its power via a pact John Dee made with Kabbalistic Judaism . He has characterized Jews as "Khazars" and "Edomite parasites" and Ashkenazi (Central and Eastern European Jews) as "Ash-ken-nazi". 
Views on the Holocaust
Hoffman doubts that execution gas chambers existed in the Nazi camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, and claims that the term "Holocaust" is Orwellian Newspeak  imposed beginning circa 1978 in order to confuse and distract from debates about the numbers of Jewish deaths that can be attributed to Nazis. Hoffman doubts that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and asserts that most of the Jewish deaths in WWII were from typhus, malnutrition and shootings perpetrated by some units of the SS on the Eastern front.
Hoffman believes that Hitler did indeed have as a goal, at least philosophically, the extermination (ausrottung) of the Jewish people, but Hoffman also argues that the primary means of extermination -- the execution gas chambers of Auschwitz -- have not been scientifically proved to have existed or been operable, and that "eyewitness" testimony failed under cross-examination at the 1985 "Great Holocaust Trial" of Ernst Zündel in Toronto.
Hoffman points to German eyewitnesses such as Thies Christophersen who maintained there were no execution gas chambers in Auschwitz. Hoffman has been influenced by the research of Charles D. Provan, Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf  and Brian Renk.
Hoffman rejects the label "Holocaust denier," and argues that the label is applied unfairly, and with an emotional rather than empirical basis, to those who research controversial issues related to WWII and Judaism -- according to Hoffman, applying the same partisan logic, those who doubt the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would be stigmatized by journalists and academics as "Immaculate Conception deniers."
Political scientist Michael Barkun has characterized Hoffman as a "Holocaust denier and proponent of multiple conspiracy theories", while Mattias Gardell contends that Hoffman is "one of the counterculture's more original conspiracy researchers" Robert Jan Van Pelt calls Hoffman a Holocaust "negationist."
All such criticisms, allegations and labels should not automatically imply wrongdoing, (although holocaust denial is a criminal offence in 13 countries), but are generally perceived as such. Natural confusion between 'historical revisionism' (which tends to be reasonable re-evaluation based on newly-discovered facts) and 'historic negationism' (whereby logical fallacies and ignoring, denying or downplaying undesired facts are employed in distorting history rather than re-assessing it) only adds to this confusion. Indeed, some individuals, topics and critiques can drift alarmingly between the two extremes.
Furthermore, the label 'conspiracy theorist' has become a shorthand insult implying ONLY inaccurate or fanciful beliefs, conflating all theories which take a contrary position to received research, wisdom or 'fact' with the fringe-elements who believe the unsubstantiated and unlikely. Some so-called "conspiracy theories" are later - via historical revisionism - shown to have some basis in reality, just as others are soundly shown to be wholly fabricated. Moreover, even amongst those labeled 'revisionist theorists', 'conspiracy theorists' and other critics of academic belief there is little consensus. Academic critique is sometimes said to be mere absurdist criticism, and while some critiques are more valid than others, some allegations made against such critiques (e.g. "Holocaust denial", "Conspiracy Theory") can be used to make implications that are designed to stir up emotions rather than stimulate reasoned debate. (Wikipedia)