Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe the one who has downplayed the Scripture I quoted regarding the stones is the one who is dishonest.

I didn't downplay it at all. Another lie from you. Instead of addressing the points I made, you resort to lying instead. I guess that's all you have to offer.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I didn't downplay it at all. Another lie from you.

Like I said, the Lord Judges, and I am comfortable with that.

Gal 4:16
(16) Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But what does that have to do with the price of bananas with the fallen stones of the buildings?! The "secular history" of the Herod temple destroyed in 70AD was NOT what Christ had in mind when He prophesied about His own people (the husbandmen) who came and destroy him. Not Romans.

So, is it your opinion that what happened in 70 AD had no real significance? A large number of Jews being killed within the city and its temple buildings being destroyed was a non-event and not something worth prophesying about? That event couldn't possibly be related to God's wrath against Christ rejecting Jews?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Like I said, the Lord Judges, and I am comfortable with that.

Gal 4:16
(16) Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Why did you quote that verse when you're lying repeatedly? It doesn't fit with your approach.

 

[covenantee]

But what does that have to do with the price of bananas with the fallen stones of the buildings?! The "secular history" of the Herod temple destroyed in 70AD was NOT what Christ had in mind when He prophesied about His own people (the husbandmen) who came and destroy him. Not Romans.

A simple question:

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture.

Yes or no?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Why did you quote that verse when you're lying repeatedly? It doesn't fit with your approach.

Like I said, the Lord Judges, and I am comfortable with that.

In other words, God will judge our testimony. Especially when you falsely accused me of lying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Like I said, the Lord Judges, and I am comfortable with that.

In other words, God will judge our testimony. Especially when you falsely accused me of lying.

Do you consider it to be honest when we were talking about Jesus referencing "these great buildings" and you act as if He referenced stones instead? Spiritually speaking, the church is a building made up of many stones (believers) with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. Did Jesus say "this great building" or "these great stones"? No. He said "these great buildings". Because He was referring to the temple buildings. The church is never referred to as buildings (plural) in scripture.

 

[covenantee]

Like I said, the Lord Judges, and I am comfortable with that.

In other words, God will judge our testimony. Especially when you falsely accused me of lying.

Your refusal to answer the following simple question...:

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture.
Yes or no?

...exposes the following:

1. 1 John 4:3
   And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
   
   
2. 2 John 1:7
   For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[TribulationSigns]

A simple question:

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture.

Yes or no?

What source of secular history interpreted Scripture?

 

[covenantee]

What source of secular history interpreted Scripture?

1. 1 John 4:3
   And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
   
   
2. 2 John 1:7
   For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[covenantee]

What source of secular history interpreted Scripture?

Refusal to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh identifies
antichrist.

1. 1 John 4:3
   And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
   
   
2. 2 John 1:7
   For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Do you consider it to be honest when we were talking about Jesus referencing "these great buildings" and you act as if He referenced stones instead?

Have you read the Scripture carefully?

Mat 24:1-2
(1) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
(2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mar 13:1-2
(1) And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
(2) And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luk 21:5-6
(5) And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
(6) As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Spiritually speaking, the church is a building made up of many stones (believers) with Jesus being the chief cornerstone.

Exactly! Good job.

The New Testament Temple is that building. A spiritual temple makes of PEOPLE - the gold silver and precious stones, as well as the wood hay and stubble. LIKEWISE, the Jews of Old Testament had a SPIRITUAL Temple too. Before Christ, they did not realize they were the builders of that temple too! They are what the temple of Christ's body represented! Christ talked about them! The very people who came and destroy the temple. You also need to understand that Christ rebuilt the temple FROM THAT FALLEN TEMPLE in three days. It wasn't a physical temple. Do you have a so-called secular record of Christ building spiritual temple out of physical temple in three days according to Scripture? Yes or no?

Did Jesus say "this great building" or "these great stones"? No. He said "these great buildings". Because He was referring to the temple buildings. The church is never referred to as buildings (plural) in scripture.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Refusal to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh identifies
antichrist.

1. 1 John 4:3
   And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
   
   
2. 2 John 1:7
   For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Huh? What are you babbling about? I do not deny that Christ was born physically according to Scripture. But again what does this have to do with the "great buildings" and "stones' being discussed here?

 

[TribulationSigns]

A simple question:

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture.

Yes or no?

You are missing the point. First I do believe in Christ's birth according to Scripture. Let me explain. I'm saying is that I believe that this is the only system that interprets directly by the text itself, and thus is an interpretation from God and not from man. It doesn't promote an understanding by what "seems" right in our own eyes, but by the model that the text itself puts forth. A sound hermeneutic is the product of the Spirit giving us understanding of the text through the consistent application of its own words, similitudes, rules, designs, figures and symbols. It is not one where we guess or suppose interpretations by what "seems" to be right in our own eyes, but is right by comparing God's Word with itself.

Genesis 40:8

• "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

Indeed, interpretations do belong to God, thus God's Word alone is the interpreter, not secular history, consensus, man's words or opinions. Get it?

Point being, the Jewish animal sacrifices were not the offense, it was their hearts and eyes and minds that were the offending parties. God's judgment was in casting the nation down and leaving them in blindness, which He did at the cross, Not AD 70. The center point of Jewish false worship was their hearts. The temple building was just another pile of rocks after Christ died, like every other false place of worship situated around the world! Selah! It lost it's significance as the Holy Place of God long ago. His servants were not in it in AD 70. The "focal point" Christ was illustrating was to the saints to flee a "spiritual" city that is under judgment. But for Christians to keep going back the "70 AD Theory" mantra in lieu of scripture is the last resort of the monosyllabic. This one trick pony is worn out. It is the scriptures that will define "Biblical" truth, not a secular history lesson.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you read the Scripture carefully?

Yes, I sure have. Thanks for asking.

Mat 24:1-2
(1) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
(2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mar 13:1-2
(1) And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
(2) And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luk 21:5-6
(5) And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
(6) As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

How convenient of you to not put His question "Seest thou these great buildings?" in bold. The context was related to what would happen to "these great buildings". Do you have any examples in scripture of the word "buildings" (plural) being used to reference the church rather than a single building? Hmmm? Are YOU sure you're reading the scripture carefully?

Exactly! Good job.

The New Testament Temple is that building.

That's building singular. In Mark 13:1-2 Jesus referred to "these great buildings". So, buildings plural. You want to just ignore that, but you should not do that. The church is never figuratively referred to as buildings (plural) in scripture, but rather a building (singular) made up of lively stones with Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

A spiritual temple makes of PEOPLE - the gold silver and precious stones, as well as the wood hay and stubble. LIKEWISE, the Jews of Old Testament had a SPIRITUAL Temple too. Before Christ, they did not realize they were the builders of that temple too! They are what the temple of Christ's body represented! Christ talked about them! The very people who came and destroy the temple. You also need to understand that Christ rebuilt the temple FROM THAT FALLEN TEMPLE in three days. It wasn't a physical temple. Do you have a so-called secular record of Christ building spiritual temple out of physical temple in three days according to Scripture? Yes or no?

I'm not the who was talking about secular records and such, so why are you asking me that?

I don't deny that Jesus referred to His body and to the corporate body of Christ in a spiritual sense as the temple, so why do you try to make it as if I do? I'm saying He talked at different times about BOTH the spiritual temple of God and the physical temple standing at that time. You act as if the physical temple had no significance whatsoever, but it did. It didn't after Christ's death in a spiritual sense, but it had significance to the Jews after that. So, God taking it away from them by having it destroyed was a significant event because it illustrated His disgust with them for wanting to still follow the old covenant despite Jesus having ushered in the new covenant by His death and resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are missing the point. First I do believe in Christ's birth according to Scripture. Let me explain. I'm saying is that I believe that this is the only system that interprets directly by the text itself, and thus is an interpretation from God and not from man. It doesn't promote an understanding by what "seems" right in our own eyes, but by the model that the text itself puts forth. A sound hermeneutic is the product of the Spirit giving us understanding of the text through the consistent application of its own words, similitudes, rules, designs, figures and symbols. It is not one where we guess or suppose interpretations by what "seems" to be right in our own eyes, but is right by comparing God's Word with itself.

Genesis 40:8

• "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

Indeed, interpretations do belong to God, thus God's Word alone is the interpreter, not secular history, consensus, man's words or opinions. Get it?

Point being, the Jewish animal sacrifices were not the offense, it was their hearts and eyes and minds that were the offending parties. God's judgment was in casting the nation down and leaving them in blindness, which He did at the cross, Not AD 70. The center point of Jewish false worship was their hearts. The temple building was just another pile of rocks after Christ died, like every other false place of worship situated around the world! Selah! It lost it's significance as the Holy Place of God long ago. His servants were not in it in AD 70. The "focal point" Christ was illustrating was to the saints to flee a "spiritual" city that is under judgment. But for Christians to keep going back the "70 AD Theory" mantra in lieu of scripture is the last resort of the monosyllabic. This one trick pony is worn out. It is the scriptures that will define "Biblical" truth, not a secular history lesson.

It is ridiculous to think that we can't find any fulfillment of a Bible prophecy from secular sources.

Jesus said this:

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

So, Jesus talked here about things that would happen in the future (from the time He was speaking) and He indicated that those things would continue happening more and more frequently (just like birth pains). So, can we not look at secular historical documents that show when wars, famines and earthquakes have taken place to help us see if those things have been happening more and more frequently just as Jesus prophesied that they would? Sure, we can. Why not? Your idea that no Bible prophecy could have been fulfilled in 70 AD just because the only account of that event is from secular sources is ludicrous. That's like saying we can't make any determination regarding the fulfillment of Matthew 24:6-8 because the only records we have of those things are from secular sources.

 

[TribulationSigns]

It is ridiculous to think that we can't find any fulfillment of a Bible prophecy from secular sources.

Jesus said this:

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Interestingly, your faulty bible translation lacks "pestilences" in verse 7.

With Olivet Discourse, Christ prophesied to His New Testament Congregation of Israel, the Church. Not to the Jews in 70AD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes, I sure have. Thanks for asking.


How convenient of you to not put His question "Seest thou these great buildings?" in bold. The context was related to what would happen to "these great buildings". Do you have any examples in scripture of the word "buildings" (plural) being used to reference the church rather than a single building? Hmmm? Are YOU sure you're reading the scripture carefully?


That's building singular. In Mark 13:1-2 Jesus referred to "these great buildings". So, buildings plural. You want to just ignore that, but you should not do that. The church is never figuratively referred to as buildings (plural) in scripture, but rather a building (singular) made up of lively stones with Jesus as the chief cornerstone.

Not according to KJV. I am not interested in your modern translated Bible. The temple buildings were referred spiritually to His congregation.

I'm not the who was talking about secular records and such, so why are you asking me that?

The same mind set of the faulty preterism doctrine.

I don't deny that Jesus referred to His body and to the corporate body of Christ in a spiritual sense as the temple, so why do you try to make it as if I do? I'm saying He talked at different times about BOTH the spiritual temple of God and the physical temple standing at that time.

LOL, you can't have your cake and eat it too. According to the Word of God, there is only one congregation of Israel, starting with Old Testament and the New. One congregation has fallen and it was rebuilt. One. Not Two.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Interestingly, your faulty bible translation lacks "pestilences" in verse 7.

LOL. I use both the NIV and KJV as well as other translations. I quoted the NIV in this case because it references birth pains, which I believe accurately reflects what Jesus was intending to say there, which is that those things he mentioned would occur with increasing frequency as time went on. Neither are faulty translations. Sometimes the NIV has a better translation and sometimes the KJV is better. The Bible was not originally written in English, in case you didn't know, so no matter which translation we use, discernment is required as well as making use of good Greek and Hebrew resources.

This is all completely beside the point I was making, as I'm sure you're well aware. You are just trying to distract attention away from the point I made. You noticeably did not address it in your post.

With Olivet Discourse, Christ prophesied to His New Testament Congregation of Israel, the Church. Not to the Jews in 70AD.

He did both. Were the disciples that Jesus was talking to, who were obviously Jews, not in the church? Of course they were. So, anything relating to the destruction of the temple standing at that time would have been of interest to them. It's ridiculous to think that such a significant event as the killing of many, many Jews as punishment for their rejection of Christ and the destruction of their beloved temple buildings would not be prophesied at all in the Bible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not according to KJV.

What is not according to KJV? What I quoted was from the KJV! LOL! Again, this is how it is translated in the KJV:

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

So, again, what is not according to KJV? The KJV has Jesus referring to "these great buildings". Scripture never refers to the church as buildings (plural), but rather as a building (singular).

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I am not interested in your modern translated Bible. The temple buildings were referred spiritually to His congregation.

Give me one scripture which refers to His congregation/church/body as temple buildings. Don't try to say Mark 13:2 because that clearly refers to the physical temple buildings. Give me something else in scripture which refers to Christ's church as temple buildings.

The same mind set of the faulty preterism doctrine.

LOL. I guess this means you have the same mind set of the pre-trib dispensationalist doctrine since you agree with their interpretation of passages like Matthew 24:29-30.

LOL,

LOL

you can't have your cake and eat it too. According to the Word of God, there is only one congregation of Israel, starting with Old Testament and the New. One congregation has fallen and it was rebuilt. One. Not Two.

Why do you continue to lie and misrepresent my view? Is that the only way you can try to make your view look good? I do not claim that there are two congregations of Israel. Scripture clearly teaches that there is one body of Christ consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers. One. Not two. I've never said otherwise, but you feel the need to lie about what I believe in an effort to make your own view look better. You have no conscience about lying just like a few others on this forum. It's unbelievable.