Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[Danno2281]

Galatians 1

11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14 and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 So they glorified God because of me.

usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians2.htm

Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

Footnote
3 [2] A revelation: cf Gal 1:1, 12. Paul emphasizes it was God’s will, not Jerusalem authority, that led to the journey. Acts 15:2 states that the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas for the task. Those of repute: leaders of the Jerusalem church; the term, while positive, may be slightly ironic (cf Gal 1:6, 9). Run, in vain: while Paul presents a positive picture in what follows, his missionary work in Galatia would have been to no purpose if his opponents were correct that circumcision is needed for complete faith in Christ.

Note that he does not begin his mission until after spending 15 days with Peter. What happened during the 3 yrs in Arabia is undetermined, but Paul makes no mention of any praching - possibly a period of personal growth, of prayer, fasting, and mortification. When he says that he did not receive the good news (Jesus is the Christ - those he was persecuting have the truth) from men, he may be speaking about his revelation on the road ("was pleased to reveal His son to me). He did not need to conult with men (flesh and blood) about the natue of his mission because it had been revealed to him in that revelation, but he did speak at length about it with Peter before embarking upon it, because he recognized Peter’s authority, and that authority alone was good enough; he didn’t need to consult with the rest of he apostles (although he make mention of James as James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church

 

[ron77nyc]

Note that he does not begin his mission until after spending 15 days with Peter. What happened during the 3 yrs in Arabia is undetermined, but Paul makes no mention of any praching - possibly a period of personal growth, of prayer, fasting, and mortification. When he says that he did not receive the good news (Jesus is the Christ - those he was persecuting have the truth) from men, he may be speaking about his revelation on the road ("was pleased to reveal His son to me). He did not need to conult with men (flesh and blood) about the natue of his mission because it had been revealed to him in that revelation, but he did speak at length about it with Peter before embarking upon it, because he recognized Peter’s authority, and that authority alone was good enough; he didn’t need to consult with the rest of he apostles (although he make mention of James as James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church

Paul was preaching the gospel for 3 years before he checked with the Church to see if they were preaching the same message. He had to correct the Church because Peter added circumcision------ a tradition------- to the message.

 

[San_Pio]

Danno2281

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,you will not have life in you. Who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life everlasting, and I will raise him up on the last day.”(Jn:6,54,ff). Why would you not want to share in this joy?

Thank you for your post. Thinking about this now I can say that I never thought of it as joy. His dying on the cross brought Him pain, and now reading what you wrote…sounds pagan. Thank you, you have made my decision to leave the church easier. I realize I cannot ever take communion again. Thinking of Him brings me joy, I follow Him.

:tiphat: God Bless

Good Bye

That is exacatly what a lot of the people did when they heard this from Jesus. They thought it was sick. They left and did not receive his gift. If you do not consider Jesus raising you up on the last day a joy, then what would you consider it?

 

[paul_c]

Note that he does not begin his mission until after spending 15 days with Peter. What happened during the 3 yrs in Arabia is undetermined, but Paul makes no mention of any praching - possibly a period of personal growth, of prayer, fasting, and mortification. When he says that he did not receive the good news (Jesus is the Christ - those he was persecuting have the truth) from men, he may be speaking about his revelation on the road ("was pleased to reveal His son to me). He did not need to conult with men (flesh and blood) about the natue of his mission because it had been revealed to him in that revelation, but he did speak at length about it with Peter before embarking upon it, because he recognized Peter’s authority, and that authority alone was good enough; he didn’t need to consult with the rest of he apostles (although he make mention of James as James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church

Furthermore, even in your own post Ron, it says that

Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain

.
Note, that he has to verify that his gospel is the correct one with those of repute so that he was sure that he wasn’t preaching incorrectly. He is clearly recognizing the authority of the church in this statement.

Note also your footnote makes reference to the fact that in Acts 15-2, the church commissioned the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas. Since Acts was written by Luke, who accompanied Paul on at least one of this journeys, it seems likely he got this from Paul himself…

 

[ron77nyc]

Note that he does not begin his mission until after spending 15 days with Peter. What happened during the 3 yrs in Arabia is undetermined, but Paul makes no mention of any praching - possibly a period of personal growth, of prayer, fasting, and mortification. When he says that he did not receive the good news (Jesus is the Christ - those he was persecuting have the truth) from men, he may be speaking about his revelation on the road ("was pleased to reveal His son to me). He did not need to conult with men (flesh and blood) about the natue of his mission because it had been revealed to him in that revelation, but he did speak at length about it with Peter before embarking upon it, because he recognized Peter’s authority, and that authority alone was good enough; he didn’t need to consult with the rest of he apostles (although he make mention of James as James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church

You’re right about that. I don’t know what he did for those 3 years but he did begin preaching in the synagogues several days after his encounter with Christ after he was with the disciples.

Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”

 

[ron77nyc]

Furthermore, even in your own post Ron, it says that
.
Note, that he has to verify that his gospel is the correct one with those of repute so that he was sure that he wasn’t preaching incorrectly. He is clearly recognizing the authority of the church in this statement.

Note also your footnote makes reference to the fact that in Acts 15-2, the church commissioned the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas. Since Acts was written by Luke, who accompanied Paul on at least one of this journeys, it seems likely he got this from Paul himself…

You are correct. He checked his gospel with that of the Church but he also had to correct the Church because they were adding Jewish tradition (circumcision) to the gospel.

 

[paul_c]

You are correct. He checked his gospel with that of the Church but he also had to correct the Church because they were adding Jewish tradition (circumcision) to the gospel.

I don’t think he corrected the Church leadership. He corrected the church in Galatia, which he founded. And in Galations, he says he rebuked Peter for not being consistent in his following of the Mosaic customs. But he acknowledges Peter’s authority and note, it was Peter in Acts 15 at the Council of jerusalem who makes the first statement of belief and it is James that agrees with him. Paul and Barnabas are there to describe their efforts with the Gentiles but are not defined as being leaders in the decision making process.

 

[ron77nyc]

I don’t think he corrected the Church leadership. He corrected the church in Galatia, which he founded. And in Galations, he says he rebuked Peter for not being consistent in his following of the Mosaic customs. But he acknowledges Peter’s authority and note, it was Peter in Acts 15 at the Council of jerusalem who makes the first statement of belief and it is James that agrees with him. Paul and Barnabas are there to describe their efforts with the Gentiles but are not defined as being leaders in the decision making process.

Getting back to the thread subject: Is Catholic tradition necessary for salvation or can one be saved with the gospel message only?

 

[ShellKell]

The Pope says “Yes”.

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Here is one example of Catholic tradition not being in step with Sacred Scripture.

John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me”.

 

[ron77nyc]

Here is one example of Catholic tradition not being in step with Sacred Scripture.

John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me”.

I think those who have never heard the gospel will not be held accountable but that’s just my opinion. What bothers me is that the Popes are supposed to be Vicars of Christ or Christ’s representatives on earth and they very seldom quote Christ.

 

[davidv]

Really? Did you miss this one from Feb 1, 09?
Angelus

 

[paul_c]

Getting back to the thread subject: Is Catholic tradition necessary for salvation or can one be saved with the gospel message only?

I’m not exactly what you mean by this question.

Nothing in the Catholic tradition is opposed to scripture. Generally it augments and explains scripture.

The real question is whether there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.

This can be made even more specific: Could you be saved without the Catholic Church. I think the answer to this is no.
Our view of this is that you need to be in sacramental grace which comes through Baptism. You need to know the will of God to stay in Grace (which comes from the deposit of faith in the Church). And if you happen to fall out of grace, you need the sacrament of reconciliation to be cleansed of your sin and come back to God.

Now Could you be saved without actually being a member of the Catholic Church. I think the answer to this is yes. You can certainly have a valid baptism in many of the Protestant denominatiions so sanctifying grace is available. Could someone stay sufficiently in Grace to be saved, doing good works, seeking God and avoiding mortal sin? Potentially. And if they did fall from grace but were very contrite in seeking reconciliation with God and were truly repentent in their heart and did sufficient penance, who is to say God would not accept this, even without it being fully sacramental. In all these possibilities, the non-Catholic is actually following the teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps without knowing it. I believe that under these circumstances, a person could be saved without being a member of the Church, yet they are actually following the teachings of the Church.

 

[bruce0224]

Bruce, your order of activity is actually incorrect:

the stoning of Steven is in Acts 6-7.
The conversion of Saul is in Acts 9
Peter’s vision of the Unclean and the subsequent acceptance of the Gentiles into the Church is in Acts 10-11
not until later in Acts 11 does Barnabas find Paul to aid him in his church appointed ministry in Antioch
Paul and Barnabas are not commissioned by the church for their first missionary journey until Acts 13.

My mistake I stand corrected.

it is clear form Acts that it was Peter and not Paul that opened up the path to the Gentiles. This is not to detract from Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, which was huge, but you will see that he got his commission to do so from the Church, of which Peter was the acknowledged leader, in Acts 13. Paul was no renegade, He had his role in the church and he knew it. And yes, he spoke up at the Council of Jerusalem and corrected Peter, but it was Peter who ultimately defined the path the church took and it was Peter who was the overall spokesman to the Gentiles. Here is Acts 15:7-12:

It is clear from Acts that Peter was the chosen vessel. Not from the testimony of Peter but from the Lord to Ananias.

Ananias Baptizes Saul Acts 9

10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”
And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Not only the Gentiles but also kings, and the children of Israel. The Lord clearly defines His mission for Paul. Your reference to Acts 15 7-12 You omit the context or why they called the council, it was over the necessity of circumcision, should the Gentiles be required to be circumcised. after much dispute Peter rose up and settled the question of Gentiles and salvation, he did not comment on the reason for the council, circumcision. After he testified that.

"My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Then after Peter spoke they listened to Paul.

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’

Now what can we safely conclude from its information. The Lords testimony to Ananias, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel".
The dispute among the church about circumcision. Where do we go to discover the conclusion of the council about circumcision? We go to Paul’s book of Romans 2:25. where we find Paul going into great detail about many things concerning the law and grace.

If you would continue to claim that Peter was the vessel that that opened up the path to the Gentiles. IMO you will have disregard Acts 9 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

Also to the topic of this tread:
Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?
And Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church.
Acts 9 15 should certainly give you pause. But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

 

[paul_c]

It is clear from Acts that Peter was the chosen vessel. Not from the testimony of Peter but from the Lord to Ananias.

Not only the Gentiles but also kings, and the children of Israel. The Lord clearly defines His mission for Paul. Your reference to Acts 15 7-12 You omit the context or why they called the council, it was over the necessity of circumcision, should the Gentiles be required to be circumcised. after much dispute Peter rose up and settled the question of Gentiles and salvation, he did not comment on the reason for the council, circumcision. After he testified that.

Then after Peter spoke they listened to Paul.

Now what can we safely conclude from its information. The Lords testimony to Ananias, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel".
The dispute among the church about circumcision. Where do we go to discover the conclusion of the council about circumcision? We go to Paul’s book of Romans 2:25. where we find Paul going into great detail about many things concerning the law and grace.

If you would continue to claim that Peter was the vessel that that opened up the path to the Gentiles. IMO you will have disregard Acts 9 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

Also to the topic of this tread:
Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?
And Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church.
Acts 9 15 should certainly give you pause. But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

Bruce, agreed that Paul is A chosen vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles. But he is not the ONLY vessel so chosen. Nor does this reading suggest that he is outside the church. Remember, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus himself. Paul, while extremely important to the faith for lots of reasons, was under Peter’s authority. It is clear from the ACTS passages already covered that Paul recognized that authority. You are trying to suggest that Paul can offer salvation outside the church, but the reality is, Paul was never outside the church from the day he regained his sight in Damascus and immediately was baptised into the Church.

 

[dkdempsey]

Every religion seems to say it’s the only way, that they are right and everyone else is not. I would be more concerned about the life you are living right now, and your conduct in this life, rather than focus on what comes after.

 

[paul_c]

Every religion seems to say it’s the only way, that they are right and everyone else is not. I would be more concerned about the life you are living right now, and your conduct in this life, rather than focus on what comes after.

First of all, your actions are always shaped by your goals. If your goal is to make a lot of money, your actions will be much different than if your goal is to get to heaven. So to suggest that we not be foward looking is poor advice

Secondly, my religion (Catholicism) provide the moral basis and direction to help me reach my goal (heaven). You don’t share the same goal, so you don’t understand the benefits involved in Church membership. They are open to you, as well, if you desire them.

 

[PJM]

I might add that the timing of Stevens stoning, Peters vision of the unclean, and Pauls conversion. Took place in the order I just listed.

This coincidences with the 70 weeks of Danial.

Daniel 9:24
“ Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the 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.

Mt 18
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

The count down to the end of the Jews mission was first given to Danial, reaffirmed by Jesus, to Peter that Gods work threw the Jews was coming to an end. The seventy weeks ended 3 1/2 years after the cross. Steven was stoned and testified that He seen the Lord, "not sitting but now standing at the right hand of God. IMO marking the end of the 70 weeks. Now the time of the Jews had been completed and the word would go out to the rest of the world. Remarkable enough threw the man that held the robes of the ones that stoned Steven Paul. Many churches today are wanting for the 70th week to yet be fulfilled I believe that it started when John babtised Jesus and ended with the stoning of Stephen. But thats another apologetic topic.

I just added this to reaffirm the post above this one. About Paul being the deliver of the gospel to the gentiles.

My dear friend in Christ,

If you believe these numbers “are real” as stated, I have a Bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. It’s only been used a couple of times (your right, I’m a Christian, it’s been used a little ) and besides I can get ya a GREAT price on it?

God bless you my friend in Christ!

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Every religion seems to say it’s the only way, that they are right and everyone else is not. I would be more concerned about the life you are living right now, and your conduct in this life, rather than focus on what comes after.

I think it is precisely my belief in what comes after that determines how I live right now. Believe me, if I thought there was nothing later, I’d be living a very different life now.

 

[bruce0224]

As for the 70 weeks of Daniel, I don’t see how you are making that connection here. That typically has been attributed as 70 weeks of years, or ~500 years. This is roughly the amount of time between Daniels Prediction and Jesus’s ministry. I don’t see how it has any thing to do with Paul. And 70 weeks isn’t 3 and half years…
However,

From my original post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4791496&postcount=387

Daniel 9:24
“ Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the 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.

You can see that Gabriel tells Danial that their is a determined amount of time for the people of Danial, “Jews” Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews were in captivity. Now Gabriel lays out when the 70 weeks beginning. Red text

24 “ Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the 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.
25 “ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
26 “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
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with 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.”

As usual their are 3 historical dates “confusion” that are all within several years as to the starting date of command to rebuild Jerusalem. But from that time 69 weeks 482 years, Until Messiah the Prince, this is IMO the greatest prophesy detailing the very time of the coming Jesus. Now remember this is Gabriel speaking to Danial, The same Gabriel that appears in the Gospel of Luke 1.

One date closely indicates that 69 weeks 482 years forward form the command To restore and build Jerusalem falls as near as we can tell to the time of Jesus being baptized by John, When the Father sends the Spirit and declares

Mt 3:17

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

IMO this marks the beginning of the last week, The 70th week begins. The next verses are the very source of great contention among many, many people believe that after the 69th week God stopped the clock and it is yet to be fulfilled by the “anti christ” I dont think so. I could give you no less than 10 reasons why Danial 9:27 blue tx is Jesus and not the anti christ but one will do for now. We see that Gabrial says in 26 that in the 70th week Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; a more detailed time is given in verse 27

Dan 9:27 In the middle of the week by giving His life
“He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering”.
The Temple now was useless, the one sacrifice for all was complete.

" But in the middle of the week" thats 3 1/2 years that Jesus spent with the desiples and Jews doing what " CONFIRMING THE NEW COVENT, in both his life and after He rose from death.

That takes us to the next statement.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
The abomination was the rejection of Jesus at the Temple.
He told the Jews at the temple that their house “temple” was left unto them desolate. In both Mathew and Luke. Fulfilling the words given to Danial by Gabriel.

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Now to draw it together to address your statement:

As for the 70 weeks of Daniel, I don’t see how you are making that connection here.

We can now look for an ending of the 70th week ending the Jewish mission and the beginning of the Gentile age from Gods clock, given to Danial by Gabriel. IMO the stoning of Steven was exactly 7 years from the time that Johns baptized Jesus. We have the sign given by Steven himself.

Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

The position of Jesus in heaven had changed from being seated to standing, making the change. Then comes Paul’s conversion and Peters vision to take the word to the Gentiles.The point is Gods timing the official ending and beginning of the Jewish and Church age. And just as important, who was appointed to lead the way.
follow link
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4794597&postcount=402

 

[paul_c]

From my original post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4791496&postcount=387

You can see that Gabriel tells Danial that their is a determined amount of time for the people of Danial, “Jews” Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews were in captivity. Now Gabriel lays out when the 70 weeks beginning. Red text

As usual their are 3 historical dates “confusion” that are all within several years as to the starting date of command to rebuild Jerusalem. But from that time 69 weeks 482 years, Until Messiah the Prince, this is IMO the greatest prophesy detailing the very time of the coming Jesus. Now remember this is Gabriel speaking to Danial, The same Gabriel that appears in the Gospel of Luke 1.

One date closely indicates that 69 weeks 482 years forward form the command To restore and build Jerusalem falls as near as we can tell to the time of Jesus being baptized by John, When the Father sends the Spirit and declares

Mt 3:17

IMO this marks the beginning of the last week, The 70th week begins. The next verses are the very source of great contention among many, many people believe that after the 69th week God stopped the clock and it is yet to be fulfilled by the “anti christ” I dont think so. I could give you no less than 10 reasons why Danial 9:27 blue tx is Jesus and not the anti christ but one will do for now. We see that Gabrial says in 26 that in the 70th week Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; a more detailed time is given in verse 27

Dan 9:27 In the middle of the week by giving His life
“He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering”.
The Temple now was useless, the one sacrifice for all was complete.

" But in the middle of the week" thats 3 1/2 years that Jesus spent with the desiples and Jews doing what " CONFIRMING THE NEW COVENT, in both his life and after He rose from death.

That takes us to the next statement.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
The abomination was the rejection of Jesus at the Temple.
He told the Jews at the temple that their house “temple” was left unto them desolate. In both Mathew and Luke. Fulfilling the words given to Danial by Gabriel.

Now to draw it together to address your statement:

We can now look for an ending of the 70th week ending the Jewish mission and the beginning of the Gentile age from Gods clock, given to Danial by Gabriel. IMO the stoning of Steven was exactly 7 years from the time that Johns baptized Jesus. We have the sign given by Steven himself.

The position of Jesus in heaven had changed from being seated to standing, making the change. Then comes Paul’s conversion and Peters vision to take the word to the Gentiles.The point is Gods timing the official ending and beginning of the Jewish and Church age. And just as important, who was appointed to lead the way.
follow link
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4794597&postcount=402

if your theory on Daniel was correct, I would think the pivotal point would be the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile to have the Holy Spirit, not the stoning of St. Stephen. I’m not sure if the years work out… St. Stephen, by tradition, died in 35AD…