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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you saying Jesus never rose from the dead? That the "cut off" you interpret was the end of Jesus on the earth? Think man, think.

What is wrong with you? Seriously. There is something very wrong with you and it needs to be dealt with. You need serious help. Do you actually think I believe that Jesus never rose from the dead? Is that a serious question? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you think I'm not a Christian just because I disagree with your end times views? What have I ever said that would lead you to seriously think I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead? Nothing. Do you think I'd ever ask you a question that is basically the same as questioning your salvation and questioning if you are a Christian or not? No, I wouldn't. That is as insulting as it gets.

 

[Timtofly]

What is wrong with you? Seriously. There is something very wrong with you and it needs to be dealt with. You need serious help. Do you actually think I believe that Jesus never rose from the dead? Is that a serious question? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you think I'm not a Christian just because I disagree with your end times views? What have I ever said that would lead you to seriously think I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead? Nothing. Do you think I'd ever ask you a question that is basically the same as questioning your salvation and questioning if you are a Christian or not? No, I wouldn't. That is as insulting as it gets.

Because cut off means no longer on the earth. That is the ascension, not the Cross.

I asked a question, not that I accused you of anything.

You take everything personally, and then constantly insult other posters as if you only care about your own feelings and no one else's.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because cut off means no longer on the earth. That is the ascension, not the Cross.

I asked a question, not that I accused you of anything.

You take everything personally, and then constantly insult other posters as if you only care about your own feelings and no one else's.

Have you gotten that serious help yet that I said you needed? Oh, you just asked a question. That's all. You are so innocent. All you did was ask me if I was saying Jesus never rose from the dead, which would imply I am not a Christian if I was saying that. That's all.

Why would you even ask me a question like that? What if I asked you a question like that? You wouldn't find it to be insulting? Do you even think at all when you post on here about how you come across?

Hey Timtofly, are you saying that Jesus doesn't exist? Are you saying Jesus is the Antichrist? Are you saying that He didn't die on the cross for our sins? Are YOU saying Jesus never rose from the dead? Perfectly reasonable questions to ask you, right?

 

[Timtofly]

Have you gotten that serious help yet that I said you needed? Oh, you just asked a question. That's all. You are so innocent. All you did was ask me if I was saying Jesus never rose from the dead, which would imply I am not a Christian if I was saying that. That's all.

Why would you even ask me a question like that? What if I asked you a question like that? You wouldn't find it to be insulting? Do you even think at all when you post on here about how you come across?

Hey Timtofly, are you saying that Jesus doesn't exist? Are you saying Jesus is the Antichrist? Are you saying that He didn't die on the cross for our sins? Are YOU saying Jesus never rose from the dead? Perfectly reasonable questions to ask you, right?

As reasonable as calling all post on here, nonsense. Which you frequently do, as that is your style. I simply ask off the wall questions to get people's attention.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As reasonable as calling all post on here, nonsense. Which you frequently do, as that is your style. I simply ask off the wall questions to get people's attention.

That is very childish of you. It accomplishes nothing except showing that no one should take you seriously.

 

[Timtofly]

That is very childish of you. It accomplishes nothing except showing that no one should take you seriously.

Telling me to get help is childish and arrogant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Telling me to get help is childish and arrogant.

No, it's telling you what you need. Not taking my advice is childish and arrogant. How else can you stop saying ridiculous things and stop misrepresenting what people say all the time without getting some help to learn how to stop doing that?

 

[Truth7t7]

Not taking my advice is childish and arrogant.

Oh Sure, Real Big Smiles!

 

[Truth7t7]

Have you gotten that serious help yet that I said you needed?

Arrogance in a personal attack, childish

 

[Davidpt]

Except all are wrong. They do not allow for the Prince to come to work on the earth, in the 70 weeks either.

Jesus as both Messiah on earth and the Prince to come on earth; is the entire 70th week. Many do not consider the "to come" part.

There is a built in gap between the 7th and 8th week. Another gap between the 69th and 70th week. Then the 70th week was split in half and the last half is yet to come at the Second Coming. Jesus will be on the earth for the final years of the 70th week.

So saying some are wrong, because the Cross was not in the 70th week is just as wrong as saying the Second Coming is not in the 70th week either.

Jesus was not cut off because of the Cross. Jesus ascended to heaven and did not rule as King. Jesus was not cut off because He could not be king. He was cut off for the fulness of the Gentiles.

The 69 weeks were over before Jesus was born. Anna and Simeon were the only two left of the generation watching for the Messiah. The birth of Jesus surprised all living in Palestine, except for Anna and Simeon.

You are making the same mistake some of these others are making. Clearly, the Messiah meant in verse 25, the same Messiah that is cut off in verse 26, He comes twice. But not twice during the 70 weeks, though. The 2nd time is at the end of the 70 weeks in order to destroy the prince that shall come during the 2nd half of the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


There are 2 princes in this verse and they are not the same prince.

A) Prince 1---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself

B) prince 2---the prince that shall come

Obviously, A) is fulfilled before B) is. Obviously, A) undeniably means that Prince already came. And not did He already come, He already left as well and doesn't even return until after the prince per B) comes first and fulfills it's 3.5 year ministry. Christ and the AC both get a 3.5 year ministry. Christ's ministry leads to God. The AC's ministry leads to perdition, the falling away of the some of the saved in the final years of this age.

Some of you just don't get it, especially those of you that deny Not Once Saved Always Saved, that this is Biblical. Even some that don't deny it, they don't get it, either. The first prince leads to God and salvation. The 2nd prince leads to taking that away, thus leads to causing many to fall away, thus NOSAS.

What is recorded in verse 26 and 27, some of it involves abominations. It is not reasonable to apply any of that to 70 AD like is typical of those that insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks. What does 70 AD have to do with abominations? Seriously? If someone says that animal sacrificing continuing after Christ died and rose, that that is the AOD meant in Matthew 24:15, well what does that passage indicate to do
since one would obviously be taking Matthew 24:15 in the literal sense if they are applying that to 70 AD?

Does it not say the very second you see the AOD stand in the holy place, to then get out of Dodge right then and there, as if a tidal wave was approaching your home, no time to pack, get out now while you still can, because a minute or two later it might be too late to flee?

Obviously then, Matthew 24:15 is not pertaining to animal sacrificing continuing after Christ died and rose, because if it was, and the fact everyone at the time could see this with their own eyes for 40 years straight, after Christ died and rose, animal sacrificing continuing, not one single person during that entire 40 years was heeding what Jesus said to do the very moment when seeing the AOD standing in the holy place, and that is fleeing to the mountains, no time to pack, get out now while you still can, every literal second then counting. That is, if you are taking these things in a literal sense.

Clearly then, there is nothing pertaining to an AOD in the holy place in 70 AD since no one was fleeing to the mountains for 40 years every time they noted animal sacrificing continued, assuming that was the AOD.

And equally, those that take the AOD to be meaning the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem to be the AOD meant is just as preposterous. And like I have mentioned numerous times already, if the AOD pertaining to some of Daniel 9:26-27 and if meaning Matthew 24:15, and that the latter is meaning 70 AD, it would no longer be a mystery as to what the AOD was in 70 AD. Duh.

Every single person would be in agreement about what it was. Except they are not all in agreement. If that doesn't raise red flags, I don't know what does?

 

[Davidpt]

And the following also undeniably proves that the AOD which involves great tribulation, that this does not belong in 70 AD, it belongs in the end of this age prior to the 2nd coming.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Some of these same ones that argue there is no gap in the 70 weeks, they argue there is a gap involving 2000 years between that of verses 15-21 and verse 30. But look what verse 29 records?

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken

How is it remotely reasonable that the tribulation of those days in verse 29 is not pertaining to great tribulation in verse 21? How can great tribulation somehow not involve the tribulation of those days, in general if nothing else, but involves something else altogether? As if it makes sense that the tribulation of those days and great tribulation, this is not meaning the same thing? And what does verse 29 indicate happens immediately after the tribulation of those days? Does it not say this immediately follows---the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken

How does it make sense to apply that immediately after 70 AD? It doesn't, yet Preterist apply it to that. As wrong as they are, at least they are being consistent by applying verse 29 to the same time period they are applying verse 21 to.

What is more nonsensical than that, and you would think no one could could get more nonsensical than that, yet some literally can, because some apply verse 21 to 70 AD then make nonsense out of verse 29 by applying that to 2000 years later in the end of this age prior to the 2nd coming. Therefore, making utter nonsense out of what 'immediately after' typically means in the real world. It never means 2000 years later, lol.

Granted, in Luke 21 since verse 20 involves 70 AD, there is a 2000 year gap between verse 20 and the coming recorded in verse 30. The same would be true in Matthew 24 as well if verses 15-21 were involving what Luke 21:20 is involving, except it isn't, the fact there is no AOD to apply to 70 AD. Therefore, Matthew 24:15-21 couldn't possibly be involving 70 AD.

And besides, verse 29 already proves it since those events have to follow immediately after the trib of those days, and that the trib of those days obviously mean verse 21, unless one would prefer to not be taken serious by insisting the tribulation of those days and great tribulation are not the same thing. Also take note that Jesus did not say the tribulations of those days, as in more than one time period. He said the tribulation of those days, where most of us take to mean it's all involving the same time period, the same tribulation.

 

[Zao is life]

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

"Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city" -- Daniel 9:24

The only holy city mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 is Jerusalem.

Where does any New Testament prophecy prophesy about Jerusalem being destroyed by a prince who is still to come? Armageddon maybe? What about Zechariah chapters 12-14 then, which speaks about people being cut off from the city, but not about the city itself being destroyed?

You cannot have the prince who is in your logic still to come destroying Jerusalem when Zechariah has the Messiah putting an end to all the nations that will come against Jerusalem.

Please tell us why such an important historic event as 70 A.D is not given one peep of a mention by Daniel in Daniel 9:26-27 which speaks about Messiah being cut off in the midst of the 70th week. Please tell us.

Please tell us why you believe that the 70 weeks prophecy states:

"70 weeks are determined for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by the people of the prince who will come."

And why you believe it says

Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME AND DESTROY THE CITY AND TEMPLE shall be 70 weeks"

"And after (the first seven plus the) threescore and two weeks (after the 69th week) shall THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME DESTROY THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY AT THE CLOSE OF THE 70TH WEEK"

Instead of,

"Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."

AND,

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince,
shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction.
"And after (the first seven plus the) threescore and two weeks (after the 69th week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself."

Please tell us why you believe that the 70 weeks prophecy is about the prince who was to come AND DESTROY THE CITY and why you believe that the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD did not fulfill this:

"The people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."

Also tell us why you believe the 70th week was not fulfilled - even though Messiah who the prophecy was about had come and been cut off in the 70th week?

Please tell us why you believe that Daniel 9:26-27 links both the Messiah + the prince who would come and destroy the city and sanctuary, to the 70th week THOUGH DANIEL 9:24-25 says nothing about the prince who would come and would destroy the city and sanctuary?

If the 70th week had to include the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the prince who was to come then why does it not say so in Daniel 9:24-25?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Because cut off means no longer on the earth. That is the ascension, not the Cross.

Being cut off by His Own People is the ascension?? That is one of the dumbest speculations I ever heard. This is not true. Being cut off from is DEATH of the Messiah so that the new covenant can be confirmed or made strengthened with His blood, Hebrews 9.

 

[Zao is life]

"He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." -- Isaiah 53:5-6.

The above is a good representation of who Rabbis refer to as "Messiah son of Joseph", the suffering servant who would die for the sins of the people (though the Rabbis do not acknowledge the above scripture represents Christ). Below is who the Rabbis refer to as "Messiah, son of David. The conquering king" who would defeat the enemies of Israel:

"I will gather all nations to battle against Jerusalem; and the city shall be taken, and the houses plundered, and the women raped. And half of the city shall go into exile, and the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. And the LORD shall go out and fight against those nations, like the day He fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall divide from its middle, from the east and to the west, a very great valley. And half of the mountain shall move toward the north, and half of it toward the south." -- Zechariah 14:2-4.

"After sixty-two weeks (plus the first seven weeks) Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself." -- Daniel 9:26.

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?" -- Matthew 24:3.

--- 42 days later ---
Mount of Olives:

"Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they were looking intently into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into the heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the way you have seen Him going into Heaven." -- Acts 1:6-11.

It was 40 days after Jesus was cut off, 42 days after HIs Olivet Discourse:

"This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." -- Matthew 24:14.

Jesus could not fulfill all that the Messiah was to come to accomplish and to do during the 70th week because He was cut off in the middle of the 70th week by the people. In the process He died for them, fulfilling the prophecies that speak about Him dying for the very people who handed Him over to be put to death, as well as for the Gentiles.

He was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, but He rose again from the dead, and His disciples had seen Him alive for 40 days, which was still within the 70th week, and so 40 days after Jesus was cut off His disciples were still expecting Him to complete all that was prophesied that the Messiah was going to accomplish and do.

Jesus could not fulfill the rest of what was prophesied He would accomplish and do before the close of the 70th week, because He was cut off by the people He was coming to deliver. He will fight against all the nations that will have gathered against Jerusalem when He returns. Then He will have accomplished and done all that was prophesied He was going to do.

Jews: Most of the Jews and their teachers missed the first aspect of what was prophesied Jesus would accomplish and do, believing only in the second part.

Christians: Probably most of the world's Christians and their teachers miss the second aspect of what was prophesied Jesus would accomplish and do, believing only in the first part.

It remains the case today. The Word of God is not believed in every sense by the majority in either group. They interpret it in accordance with what pleases and displeases their own sensitivities.

42 months of the 70th week was left uncompleted by the Messiah, because He was cut off in the middle of the 70th week.

God will allow 42 months to be given to the beast, for the beast to attempt to prove the kingdom is his.

Then the end will come.

But there will be no destruction of the city and temple by a prince of a people still to come - that happened in 70 A.D. The 70 weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-26a) was about the Messiah, not about that prince.​

 

[Davidpt]

"Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city" -- Daniel 9:24

The only holy city mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 is Jerusalem.

Where does any New Testament prophecy prophesy about Jerusalem being destroyed by a prince who is still to come? Armageddon maybe? What about Zechariah chapters 12-14 then, which speaks about people being cut off from the city, but not about the city itself being destroyed?

I'm sure you already know this, but not every time Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible is it meaning in the literal sense. As pertaining to verse 26, I'm not taking the city and sanctuary in the literal sense, since I see it being connected to the city and santuary mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2, and that I take none of that in the literal sense. Not to mention, 'destroy' in the OT doesn't always mean in the sense you are apparently taking it to mean in verse 26. Sometimes it means to corrupt, which is basically how it's being used elsewhere in the book of Daniel unless you can show otherwise when 'shachath' is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel. Keep in mind, I did not say elsewhere in the OT, I said elsewhere in the book of Daniel.


Granted, if the city and sanctuary mentioned in verse 26 can only be understood in one sense and one sense only, the literal sense, I would then not be arguing what I'm arguing since it couldn't fit our day and age if meaning in the literal sense. And I clearly realize that. Maybe you think I have lost it or something, as in lost touch with reality? Except I haven't since I'm not taking some of these things in the literal sense. But if I was taking the city and sanctuary in the literal sense, then applying it to our day and time, then you would have a case, that I have lost touch with reality. The ironic thing about it, a city and a sanctuary can indeed fit our day and time, but not if it is meaning literal ones.

If anyone could get on the same page with me, I would have thought you would be the one that could. Apparently, I was dead wrong about that big time.

 

[Davidpt]

But there will be no destruction of the city and temple by a prince of a people still to come - that happened in 70 A.D. The 70 weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-26a) was about the Messiah, not about that prince.[/JUSTIFY]

That is only true and valid if that destruction cannot be understood in any sense other than the literal sense. Everyone already knows, or should know if they don't, 'shachath' is not always meaning in the sense you are taking it to mean by applying it to 70 AD. Clearly, it can mean in that sense, so I'm not disputing that it can mean in that sense. In the book of Daniel though, when 'shachath' is used in other passages it is never meaning in the sense you are taking it to mean in Daniel 9:26, unless I overlooked a passage where it does mean in that sense. But I don't think I did since 'shachath' is not used too many times in the book of Daniel to begin with. Without looking, probably could count the number of times on both hands.

 

[Zao is life]

That is only true and valid if that destruction cannot be understood in any sense other than the literal sense. Everyone already knows, or should know if they don't, 'shachath' is not always meaning in the sense you are taking it to mean by applying it to 70 AD. Clearly, it can mean in that sense, so I'm not disputing that it can mean in that sense. In the book of Daniel though, when 'shachath' is used in other passages it is never meaning in the sense you are taking it to mean in Daniel 9:26, unless I overlooked a passage where it does mean in that sense. But I don't think I did since 'shachath' is not used too many times in the book of Daniel to begin with. Without looking, probably could count the number of times on both hands.

True, the Hebrew word shachath has two meanings: It can mean corrupted, but it can also mean destroyed. So let's have a look at the city DANIEL is talking about and the city REVELATION is talking about:

THE HOLY CITY OF DANIEL

Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon
1. thy people; and upon
2 thy holy city.

Daniel 9:26
(a) Messiah shall be cut off in the 70th week.

(b) The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy [shachath] the city and the sanctuary.

I can't see how the city mentioned in verse 26 isn't the same city mentioned in verse 24, nor can I see how the city mentioned in verse 24 isn't the city of the Jews.

Daniel was prophesying at a time when the city and the temple was still lying in ruins after having been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel was telling his readers that the city and temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians was going to be rebuilt and after that, it would be destroyed again.

I do not see how AD70 is coincidental to Daniel's prophecy, as your interpretation asserts.

THE HOLY CITY OF THE REVELATION

The Revelation itself identifies New Jerusalem as the holy city three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

The other cities Revelation mentions are 1. Babylon the Great; 2. The city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where the Lord was crucified; 3. The cities of the nations that fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out.

The Revelation was only given to the churches by Jesus AFTER Jerusalem - the city of the Jews which was identified in Daniel 9:24 - had been destroyed again in 70 AD.

So while it's true that the word "destroy" (shachath) means "corrupted" in various other places, for the life of me I cannot see how you can make Daniel 9:26-27's reference to the city that Daniel identified in Daniel 9:24 as the literal city of Jerusalem jump into New Testament times.
​

=================================​

This article in Wikipedia states the following:

"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)
​

=================================​

BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL FACTS

Not destroyed:

(i) The abomination of desolation (singular) set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, and reconsecrated to God. This took place around 236 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Daniel 8:21-25
"The rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy [shachath] wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy [shachath] the mighty and the holy people.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy [shachath] many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

IMO the above is a prophecy that fits Daniel's 4th kingdom, but did not complete it. IMO it's Daniel's 4th kingdom that Revelation says had existed by the time John received the Revelation, no longer existed, and will rise from the bottomless pit as a kingdom that would be like a leopard (Grecian kingdom), have feet like the feet of a bear (Persian kingdom) and a mouth like that of a lion (Babylon kingdom).

The Roman Empire that destroyed the city and the temple in 70 AD is not described in scripture in the above way, but the kingdom that was ruled by Antiochus IV who defiled the holy place of the 2nd temple and corrupted the worship of the Jews, incorporated all the symbols described by Revelation in Revelation 13:2.

Whatever the case may be regarding Daniel's 4th kingdom, for the life of me I cannot see how you can make Daniel 9:26-27's reference to the city that Daniel identified in Daniel 9:24 as the literal city of Jerusalem jump into New Testament times.​

 

[Timtofly]

No, it's telling you what you need. Not taking my advice is childish and arrogant. How else can you stop saying ridiculous things and stop misrepresenting what people say all the time without getting some help to learn how to stop doing that?

You are the only one who complains that, about all those who disagree with you.

 

[Timtofly]

You are making the same mistake some of these others are making. Clearly, the Messiah meant in verse 25, the same Messiah that is cut off in verse 26, He comes twice. But not twice during the 70 weeks, though. The 2nd time is at the end of the 70 weeks in order to destroy the prince that shall come during the 2nd half of the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


There are 2 princes in this verse and they are not the same prince.

A) Prince 1---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself

B) prince 2---the prince that shall come

Obviously, A) is fulfilled before B) is. Obviously, A) undeniably means that Prince already came. And not did He already come, He already left as well and doesn't even return until after the prince per B) comes first and fulfills it's 3.5 year ministry. Christ and the AC both get a 3.5 year ministry. Christ's ministry leads to God. The AC's ministry leads to perdition, the falling away of the some of the saved in the final years of this age.

Some of you just don't get it, especially those of you that deny Not Once Saved Always Saved, that this is Biblical. Even some that don't deny it, they don't get it, either. The first prince leads to God and salvation. The 2nd prince leads to taking that away, thus leads to causing many to fall away, thus NOSAS.

What is recorded in verse 26 and 27, some of it involves abominations. It is not reasonable to apply any of that to 70 AD like is typical of those that insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks. What does 70 AD have to do with abominations? Seriously? If someone says that animal sacrificing continuing after Christ died and rose, that that is the AOD meant in Matthew 24:15, well what does that passage indicate to do
since one would obviously be taking Matthew 24:15 in the literal sense if they are applying that to 70 AD?

Does it not say the very second you see the AOD stand in the holy place, to then get out of Dodge right then and there, as if a tidal wave was approaching your home, no time to pack, get out now while you still can, because a minute or two later it might be too late to flee?

Obviously then, Matthew 24:15 is not pertaining to animal sacrificing continuing after Christ died and rose, because if it was, and the fact everyone at the time could see this with their own eyes for 40 years straight, after Christ died and rose, animal sacrificing continuing, not one single person during that entire 40 years was heeding what Jesus said to do the very moment when seeing the AOD standing in the holy place, and that is fleeing to the mountains, no time to pack, get out now while you still can, every literal second then counting. That is, if you are taking these things in a literal sense.

Clearly then, there is nothing pertaining to an AOD in the holy place in 70 AD since no one was fleeing to the mountains for 40 years every time they noted animal sacrificing continued, assuming that was the AOD.

And equally, those that take the AOD to be meaning the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem to be the AOD meant is just as preposterous. And like I have mentioned numerous times already, if the AOD pertaining to some of Daniel 9:26-27 and if meaning Matthew 24:15, and that the latter is meaning 70 AD, it would no longer be a mystery as to what the AOD was in 70 AD. Duh.

Every single person would be in agreement about what it was. Except they are not all in agreement. If that doesn't raise red flags, I don't know what does?

There is nothing in Daniel 9 that implies one Prince destroys another Prince to come.

The point of Messiah being cut off is still explicitly pointing to Messiah as the Prince to come. Jesus is both Messiah and Prince, the 70th week.

Yes, people are supposed to stay clear of Satan, so as to not be deceived by Satan when he sets up the AoD.

The only thing Daniel 9 has to say about 70AD is that Jerusalem is destroyed. There was no AoD in 70AD. Probably no Satan either, unless those religious leaders who started the Civil War were fighting over who could impress Satan the most.

The reason Jesus is the 70th week is because the 3.5 years as King over Israel is still in the future, and the 70th week will be declared over at the 7th Trumpet.

There should never be NOSAS. There is OSAS. Those who deny that, don't need their own anacronym (acronym). Just saying.

 

[Timtofly]

Being cut off by His Own People is the ascension?? That is one of the dumbest speculations I ever heard. This is not true. Being cut off from is DEATH of the Messiah so that the new covenant can be confirmed or made strengthened with His blood, Hebrews 9.

And if Jesus had become King then, you would not even exist. Jesus left so you could be part of existence.