THE CONFIRMING OF THE COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27

[Douggg]

Your view makes it so that they were not actually the people of the prince that was to come in the future as of the time that was written.

The Romans destroyed the temple and city. I am sure that you agree to that.

So go to Daniel 7 regarding the little horn person and ten kings. Those come out of the fourth kingdom which has teeth of iron - i.e. the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:23-25. Daniel 7:25 is time, times, half time (noted on the chart below) The little horn person and the ten kings are end times persons.

The 7 years of Daniel 9:27, Ezekiel 39:9 form the framework which all of the end times time-frames in the bible fit into.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Romans destroyed the temple and city. I am sure that you agree to that.

They are the ones who actually physically destroyed the temple and city, yes. But, that happened as punishment against the Jews who rejected Christ. So, the Jewish unbelievers destroyed the city and the sanctuary in the sense that they were the reason that the city and the sanctuary were destroyed. They were the people of the prince to come who caused the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and that prince to come in the future from the time the prophecy was given was Jesus Christ. The prince to come of Daniel 9:26 is already identified as "Messiah the Prince" in the previous verse and He was to come and "be cut off, but not for himself". The destruction of the city and sanctuary was caused by the people of Messiah the Prince (the Jews) rejecting Him.

Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”.

The Romans simply executed the punishment that the Jews brought upon themselves by their rebellion and rejection of Christ.

So go to Daniel 7 regarding the little horn person and ten kings. Those come out of the fourth kingdom which has teeth of iron - i.e. the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:23-25. Daniel 7:25 is time, times, half time (noted on the chart below) The little horn person and the ten kings are end times persons.

The 7 years of Daniel 9:27, Ezekiel 39:9 form the framework which all of the end times time-frames in the bible fit into.

Douggg, this makes about as much sense as you claiming that the woman who is "that great city" and "that great city Babylon" are not the same entity.

You can't claim that some future prince is the prince of people who have been dead for a long time now. That's complete nonsense.

 

[TribulationSigns]

They are the ones who actually physically destroyed the temple and city, yes. But, that happened as punishment against the Jews who rejected Christ.

Once again, you misunderstood about the city and the sanctuary.

And God being faithful and true, if it was, it would have been leveled even/level with the ground as prophecy described it. It wasn't... Neither the Temple, nor the city, both of whom had to be for the prophecy to come to fruition.

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."

Who are the people of the Prince who God said destroy the City and Temple (John 2:19)? ...Is it the Romans of 70 AD, or is it the people of Messiah (read in context) whom He had come to save? Both the city and the Temple were destroyed and leveled so that there was nothing left of them IF we understand the prophecy as God intended, as the spiritual Temple And City Jerusalem that was "Completely" destroyed/removed from the people, where not one stone was left standing (The people of that Temple and City). THIS is where the Temple and Holy City were rebuilt/restored, with Christ being the chief cornerstone of that rebuilding. Not rebuilt from fallen physical temple in 70AD. Selah! Read the parable, carefully

Matthew 21:33-45

• "Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
• And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
• And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
• Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
• But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
• But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
• And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
• When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
• They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
• Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
• And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
• And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them."

The Meaning of Christ's parable is clear. The city and people were destroyed completely, and Christ is the cornerstone of a rebuilding (in three days, remember?) that is kept from the eyes of the obstinate. Right at the Cross. THere as not kingdom falling and rebuilding in three days in 70AD. Hello?! It is written:

Acts 15:14-18

• "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
• And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
• After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
• That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
• Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

Did the rebuilding of the temple took place in 70AD? Humm?

So, the Jewish unbelievers destroyed the city and the sanctuary in the sense that they were the reason that the city and the sanctuary were destroyed.

So God has Romans to do it for them? LOL!!!

The Romans simply executed the punishment that the Jews brought upon themselves by their rebellion and rejection of Christ.

Totally false.

We are all aware that the literal Old Covenant Holy Temple did house the Holy place, but what we must come to understand is that 70 A.D. is not the Old Covenant dispensation. The Old Covenant types were ALREADY fulfilled at the Cross. The types, the shadows, the temple, the sacrifices, etc., they all passed away in the Old Covenant.

Hebrews 10:8-10

• "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
• Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
• By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

You can't have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant all symbolizing the same thing at the same time. That is confusion. The Jewish Temple after Christ was resurrected was no more the "Holy" Temple. In it was no more the Holy Place. It was taken away that the New could be established and it already took place at the Cross (and don't forget Pentecost) so that is a Biblical impossibility because it was a shadow of Christ the Holy Temple, and now the New Covenant congregation is the Temple representation. With the fulfillment in Christ, the Old Covenant shadow passed away. Just as Passover passed away and the Lord's table was established in its place.

Hebrews 8:13

• "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Hebrews chapter 9:1-3

• "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
• For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
• And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;"

Hebrews 9:7-11

• "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
• The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
• Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
• Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
• But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"

The Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. was no more the Holy Temple as the High Priest was God's minister.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Once again, you misunderstood about the city and the sanctuary.

Your ramblings are so boring and put me to sleep.

You can't have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant all symbolizing the same thing at the same time. That is confusion.

What does that even mean? Scripture is very clear that the new covenant was established by the blood of Christ and that also made the old covenant obsolete at the same time. Do you deny this?

So God has Romans to do it for them? LOL!!!

LOL!!!! What do you mean "for them"? No, He had the Romans punish the unbelieving Jews for Him. Do you think that God can't do something like that? If so, what do you make of this...

Revelation 17:15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.

If God can use the beast and ten horns to punish the prostitute Babylon, then why couldn't He have used the Romans to punish the unbelieving Jews?

The Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. was no more the Holy Temple as the High Priest was God's minister.

I never said this. What is the name of the straw man you are arguing with? You have terrible reading comprehension skills.

 

[TribulationSigns]

View attachment 61663

Your ramblings are so boring and put me to sleep.

Go ahead and sleep if you are not interested to know the Truth.

LOL!!!!!! What do you mean "for them"? No, He had the Romans punish the unbelieving Jews for Him. Do you think that God can't do something like that? If so, what do you make of this...

Where do you find that in Scripture that God used Romans to punish the unbelieving Jews when Christ told the Jews that THEY are going to destroy the Temple themselves as a sign. He did not say anything about the Romans. LOL.

Joh 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Revelation 17: Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.

If God can use the beast and ten horns to punish the prostitute Babylon, then why couldn't He have used the Romans to punish the unbelieving Jews?

Uh-uh. You need to tell me who you think the Beast of Revelation 17 is. And who are these ten horns that burn Babylon the Great with fire? What kind of fire is it? And who exactly is Babylon the Great? Then tell me who will be responsible the fall of Babylon the Great to see if it supports your idea that someone else will destory temple for the Jews. If you have a correct understanding of these first, then you can ask me why God didn't use the Romans to punish the Jews in 70 AD.

I also noticed that you avoided answering my question about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. What happened in the three days IN 70AD when the Temple was supposed to be rebuilt...as a sign to the Jews. Hello?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Go ahead and sleep if you are not interested to know the Truth.

Oh, I'm interested in the Truth and you have proven that I can't get it from you.

Where do you find that in Scripture that God used Romans to punish the unbelieving Jews when Christ told the Jews that THEY are going to destroy the Temple themselves as a sign. He did not say anything about the Romans. LOL.

Joh 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

LOL. Sure, just ignore that the disciples talked about the temple buildings standing at that time and how Jesus told them those buildings would be destroyed. John 2:18-21 is not in the Olivet Discourse. You are trying to relate things that are not related.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Uh-uh. You need to tell me who you think the Beast of Revelation 17 is. And who are these ten horns that burn Babylon the Great with fire? What kind of fire is it? And who exactly is Babylon the Great? Then tell me who will be responsible the fall of Babylon the Great to see if it supports your idea that someone else will destory temple for the Jews. If you have a correct understanding of these first, then you can ask me why God didn't use the Romans to punish the Jews in 70 AD.

LOL. Did you even try to understand the point I was making? I showed you that God can even use evil entities to serve His purpose. So, tell me why He couldn't have used the Romans to do His will?

I also noticed that you avoided answering my question about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

LOL. I am not reading literally all of your nonsense. I can only take so much of it at once.

What happened in the three days IN 70AD when the Temple was supposed to be rebuilt...as a sign to the Jews. Hello?

What are you talking about? Show me where in the Olivet Discourse that Jesus said anything similar to what He said in John 2:18-21? Hello? Are you somehow not aware that John 2:18-21 is not part of the Olivet Discourse? You think Him talking about destroying temple buildings (plural) is the same as talking about destroying the temple building (singular) of His body? Does context mean nothing to you?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Oh, I'm interested in the Truth and you have proven that I can't get it from you.

You think you are interested in the Truth but you couldn't get it from me becasue you are spiritually deaf.

LOL. Sure, just ignore that the disciples talked about the temple buildings standing at that time and how Jesus told them those buildings would be destroyed. John 2:18-21 is not in the Olivet Discourse. You are trying to relate things that are not related.

Sounds like you are as blind as the Jews when they thought Christ was talking about physical temple and city. LOL.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Luke 21 is talking about the fall of the New Testament congregation. Not about the Jewish physical city with women and babies in it. Do you even know what does the times of the Gentiles refers to?

LOL. Did you even try to understand the point I was making?

I know what you were trying to do. But MY POINT IS you can't ask me why God didn't use the Romans to destroy the physical city for the Jews, if you do not know who is the beast, ten horns, Babylon the Great, and what fire it is that burn her and all Revelation 17 yourself. I see you also avoid answering it, too. Not surprised.

I showed you that God can even use evil entities to serve His purpose.

You think? Okay who are evil entities in Revelation 17 then? Who is the beast? Who are the ten horns? Who is responsible to burn Babylon the Great and made her naked. How? Show me what you understand in Revelation 17. I am waiting.

So, tell me why He couldn't have used the Romans to do His will?

Simple. Because it was not the Romans who God said will come and destroy the temple and the sanctuary. It was his own people, fool.

LOL. I am not reading literally all of your nonsense. I can only take so much of it at once.

I take that you can't defend your 70AD doctrine. If you believe the temple must be destroyed in 70AD - The very same temple that the Jews said it take 46 years to build, then you need ot explain how it will rebuilt in 3 days. You haven't, so you have failed.

What are you talking about? Show me where in the Olivet Discourse that Jesus said anything similar to what He said in John 2:18-21? Hello?

Hello, because Olivet Discourse was prophesied about the Jews and the physical temple in 70AD! It is for the New Testament congregation prior to Second Coming!

Are you somehow not aware that John 2:18-21 is not part of the Olivet Discourse?

Sigh. You don't seem to understand. John 2:18-21 was prophesying the fall of the Old Testament congregation (the people, not physical stones). Their kingdom representative was taken from them at the Cross, not in 70 AD. The kingdom representative had already been given to the Church when Christ rebuilt that temple (in three days, rememeber - no need to wait until 70ad to have temple physicall destoryed!) It was all about a spiritual temple/congregation, which the Old Testament temples was merely a type of. This is concerning the congregation of Israel—people under the Old Covenant and people under the New Covenant. There has always been one congregation of Israel. The Old Testament effectively ended with the death of the Messiah, the Prince, who was destroyed by the Jews (not the Romans). At the same time, the Prince confirmed a new covenant with the rebuilt temple—the New Testament congregation made up of people, not literal stones!

The Olivet Discourse is prophecy for the New Testament congregation in the future, involving the great tribulation, the abomination of desolation, and the signs in the sun, moon, and stars. It has nothing to do with first-century Jews and their physical temple. Selah!

You think Him talking about destroying temple buildings (plural) is the same as talking about destroying the temple building (singular) of His body? Does context mean nothing to you?

Christ prophesied the fall of the city and the temple. He was not interested in literal bricks and stones here. He was talking about people as the representatives of His Kingdom. They are Christ's city and the temple. Becuase of their rejection of Messiah the Prince, they have destoryed their kingdom representatives along with his death! And in three days, Christ REBUILT IT, this time includes the Gentiles stones (people).

1Pe 2:4-6
(4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Spiritually, we are the stones of the rebuilt temple, just as the Jews of the Old Testament were. They represent the stones of the spiritual temple, which their physical temple symbolizes. When Christ mentioned that the stones would fall, He was not referring to physical stones. He was speaking about the people of the Old Testament congregation who fell away, breaking off from the covenant tree, while the Gentile branches took their place. This is how the temple fell and was rebuilt!

The events leading to the fall and reconstruction of the temple have nothing to do with the physical temple in 70 AD, as the falling and rebuilding had already occurred long before that, particularly atCross and Pentecost, when the New Testament church was empowered to spread the Gospel into the world. There is no need to wait until 70 AD to claim that a physical temple was destroyed to fulfill prophecy, especially since it was not holy at that time. The veil of the temple was already torn at the Cross, marking the definitive end of the Old Testament covenant. Period.

 

[covenantee]

The Romans simply executed the punishment that the Jews brought upon themselves by their rebellion and rejection of Christ.

Absolutely true. And not only did the Jews bear spiritual responsibility for their own annihilation, but they were also directly physically complicit with the Romans in that annihilation.

From the Jewish Virtual LIbrary:

"The highly embittered refugees who succeeded in escaping the Galilean massacres fled to the last major Jewish stronghold—Jerusalem. There, they killed anyone in the Jewish leadership who was not as radical as they. Thus, all the more moderate Jewish leaders who headed the Jewish government at the revolt's beginning in 66 were dead by 68—and not one died at the hands of a Roman. All were killed by fellow Jews."

"While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

 

[covenantee]

Luke 21 is talking about the fall of the New Testament congregation. Not about the Jewish physical city with women and babies in it. Do you even know what does the times of the Gentiles refers to?

The literal physical Judaean Christians literally physically acted upon Jesus' warnings, literally physically fled prior to 70 AD, and literally physically survived.

Thankfully none of them was afflicted by cultic gnostic futurism.

 

[Douggg]

The formula for understanding the end times is based upon two parts....

1. the development of the person who becomes the beast-king.
2. the times frames given in the bible for the end times.

The first chart addresses the development of the person to becoming the beast king.
The second chart lists all of the end times time frames.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The literal physical Judaean Christians literally physically acted upon Jesus' warnings, literally physically fled prior to 70 AD, and literally physically survived.

As I said before, you are still as blind as the Jews - - thinking Christ was talking about physical temple in 70AD.

It refers to both the elect, and the non-elect, because it's talking about the Church. Not an unholy Jewish Temple practicing sacrilege in AD 70, but the church. The church is the only physical holy place after the cross that could have abomination stand in it. Those told to flee are the elect. Those on the housetops are the elect. Those in the field (at this time) are the elect. Those with child is a "figure" of the church (I've already shown in Galatians how God illustrated in the allegory that in the New Testament era, the woman that has more children is a figure of the New Testament Church). Thus God is saying, Woe to the church! Why? Because "she" will be judged of God as the great harlot Babylon that she is. And that is why the elect are commanded to flee to the mountains, that they not be partaker with her (Revelation 18). Again, when we read it in context and comparing scripture with scripture for our interpretation, we have consistency.

You guys don't seem to have figured it out yet, but the Old Testament Church (congregation if you must) mirrors the New Testament congregation almost exactly. Just as there was a "diaspora" of the Jews out of Israel taking the gospel to all nations when the first congregation fell (not AD 70, but at the cross), so there will be a diaspora of the New Testament Jews when the New Testament congregation falls. And they (as Lot) cannot look back.

And you also don't understand the part about praying that your flight not be on the Sabbath, for example. It is not directed to the Old Testament Jews, but to the Church. Again, you don't seem to have realized the truth yet that God has cast off Old Testament Israel, thus He's not prophesying of a seventh day Sabbath for them after the cross. That's confusion. And there is no seventh day Sabbath for the Church. God is not addressing the unsaved Jews here about the Sabbath, His address is to the Apostles. You have to keep this straight in your consideration. This truth is not as insignificant as you might think. When we see who Christ is giving this instruction about the Sabbath, it blows your theory of natural Jews right out of the water. The Church should pray it's flight is not on the Sabbath (day of rest). For the sabbath is a day when no man can work because the Church's testimony is finished (Revelation 11:7). A day that Christ foretold when the candle would be put out, and sacrifice and offering would cease!

John 9:4-5

• "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

This is a Sabbath day, when all work ceases. Selah!

To think that Christ was prophesying about a Old Testament day, which He fulfilled by going to the cross, as a coming future event, is confusion. Christ came as our Sabbath of rest. When He died, the Old Testament Sabbath had no more significant anymore than the Old Testament Sacrifices did, or the Old Testament Holy Days did. To think they still are valid, after the Cross, is a serious error in understanding the "shadow" nature of the seventh day Sabbath. It looked forward to Christ! Why would God then continue to prophesy of a Jewish Sabbath that he already fulfilled in His Son? It makes no sense. It's like those claiming He prophesies of a rebuilding the temple. No He didn't, He is the foundation stone of the rebuilding. It had nothing to do with a pile of bricks or physical stones upon Mount Moriah. Or of a re-institution of animal sacrifices. No, that would be a rejection of Christ and confusion of the nature of prophecy. Because He has fulfilled all those things. That's what the AD 70 crowd like you cannot seem to get straight. The types or shadows [skia] were finished or completed, not in AD 70, but when Christ died.

Thankfully none of them was afflicted by cultic gnostic futurism

...more false accusations and pointless recriminations. Please, get some rest. "You can't handle the truth."

 

[TribulationSigns]

Absolutely true. And not only did the Jews bear spiritual responsibility for their own annihilation, but they were also directly physically complicit with the Romans in that annihilation.

Nonsense.

The JEWS destroyed the City in the exact same way the City was prophesied to be destroyed. They destroyed the Sanctuary in the exact same way the Sanctuary was prophesied to be destroyed. By the people of the Prince Messiah, killing Christ. He is the only true Holy City and the only Holy Temple wherein may be found God's people. Christ "is" the City and Sanctuary by whom, and in whom all His people live and move and have their being. He is not a city made of physical wood and stone today anymore than the Lord's Holy Mountain is the elevated hill located in the Middle East called Mount Zion. He is the true city of promise versus the physical city that merely represented it before the cross! The question is, which one did the people of the Prince Messiah destroy?

Likewise, to Abraham was the promise made, and he sought the spiritual city, while the Scribes and Pharisees sought the physical. That's why they couldn't understand how Christ was not talking about a Temple that took 46 years to build, even though He had just thrown the buyers and sellers out of that Physical Temple and they were asking for a SIGN that he had power to do this. He replied, Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days. Same with them destroying the city.

Hebrews 11:8-10

• "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
• By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
• For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."

The Holy City of promise can only be established in Christ. But the stone the builders rejected is become part of another building of God. The original builders (Jews) had rejected Him as the foundation of their City and Sanctuary. So they (His people) destroyed him, and with Him the Holy City and Holy Temple. They don't have it anymore, much less saw it destroyed in AD 70! Again, it comes back to our perceiving the spiritual, versus looking for the carnal or physical fulfillment, even as Israel made the same mistake in doing. Even as some Churches are looking for a future Peace and Safety in Physical Israel. The same mistakes over and over again. There is nothing new under the sun.

Isaiah 40:1-2

• "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
• Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins."

The Israelites were always looking for a Messiah to set them free from the bondage of the Romans. They were always looking for a Messiah to establish a political physical kingdom and rule from Physical Jerusalem. They were always looking for a Messiah that would end war and establish a physical Peace and safety in the Middle East--and because they were, they totally missed the True Messiah who would free them, who would reign over the kingdom and give them real Peace and Safety. Yes, Jerusalem would have peace. But not the sin cursed city in the middle east, which was not the Jerusalem, the Holy City of prophesy wherein they would find peace and safety. The city wherein they would have warfare cease is in Christ. Not in that sin cursed city in the Middle East, but in a city whose builder and maker is God. But they summarily rejected that city. God allowed them to destroy that city which was called by His name, as well as the Temple called by His name. When they destroyed Christ, they destroyed both city and sanctuary precisely according to the prophesy of Daniel 9. Their (the people of the Prince) house was then left unto them desolate. Not in AD 70, but when they did this. Christ says so unambiguously:

Matthew 23:37-28

• "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Why does Christ speak to a City except that city be people, not buildings and stones? Is He talking to physical buildings, or to the people who would destroy Him, whom the city represented? He's talking about the same city Daniel 9:26 prophesied that they (His people) would destroy, and that desolations were determined upon. It was because they rejected Messiah the Prince and killed Him (as they had done the prophets before Him), not years later when Romans sacked the place! But when they destroyed Christ. Christ "IS" the City wherein righteousness dwells as sure as He is the Holy Temple. That's how the Holy City can come down from Heaven, because it is Christ that is our conurbation, city, habitation, metropolis, where we live and breathe and have our being.

So when some people like you ask, "How did the Jewish People destroy the City AT THE CROSS," the answer is clear. The Holy City Called by His name and the Sanctuary of sacrifice were representations of Christ. The antitype, the true Holy dwelling place and true place of worship, which is the true Holy City and Holy Temple--if we will receive it. When they destroyed Christ, they destroyed both city and sanctuary. They had NEITHER in AD 70. Get it?! How then is a Holy City of God destroyed that wasn't Holy nor of God, and a Holy Temple that isn't Holy or of God? Makes no sense!

Selah!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You think you are interested in the Truth but you couldn't get it from me becasue you are spiritually deaf.


Sounds like you are as blind as the Jews when they thought Christ was talking about physical temple and city. LOL.


Luke 21 is talking about the fall of the New Testament congregation. Not about the Jewish physical city with women and babies in it. Do you even know what does the times of the Gentiles refers to?


I know what you were trying to do. But MY POINT IS you can't ask me why God didn't use the Romans to destroy the physical city for the Jews, if you do not know who is the beast, ten horns, Babylon the Great, and what fire it is that burn her and all Revelation 17 yourself. I see you also avoid answering it, too. Not surprised.


You think? Okay who are evil entities in Revelation 17 then? Who is the beast? Who are the ten horns? Who is responsible to burn Babylon the Great and made her naked. How? Show me what you understand in Revelation 17. I am waiting.



Simple. Because it was not the Romans who God said will come and destroy the temple and the sanctuary. It was his own people, fool.


I take that you can't defend your 70AD doctrine. If you believe the temple must be destroyed in 70AD - The very same temple that the Jews said it take 46 years to build, then you need ot explain how it will rebuilt in 3 days. You haven't, so you have failed.


Hello, because Olivet Discourse was prophesied about the Jews and the physical temple in 70AD! It is for the New Testament congregation prior to Second Coming!


Sigh. You don't seem to understand. John 2:18-21 was prophesying the fall of the Old Testament congregation (the people, not physical stones). Their kingdom representative was taken from them at the Cross, not in 70 AD. The kingdom representative had already been given to the Church when Christ rebuilt that temple (in three days, rememeber - no need to wait until 70ad to have temple physicall destoryed!) It was all about a spiritual temple/congregation, which the Old Testament temples was merely a type of. This is concerning the congregation of Israel—people under the Old Covenant and people under the New Covenant. There has always been one congregation of Israel. The Old Testament effectively ended with the death of the Messiah, the Prince, who was destroyed by the Jews (not the Romans). At the same time, the Prince confirmed a new covenant with the rebuilt temple—the New Testament congregation made up of people, not literal stones!

The Olivet Discourse is prophecy for the New Testament congregation in the future, involving the great tribulation, the abomination of desolation, and the signs in the sun, moon, and stars. It has nothing to do with first-century Jews and their physical temple. Selah!



Christ prophesied the fall of the city and the temple. He was not interested in literal bricks and stones here. He was talking about people as the representatives of His Kingdom. They are Christ's city and the temple. Becuase of their rejection of Messiah the Prince, they have destoryed their kingdom representatives along with his death! And in three days, Christ REBUILT IT, this time includes the Gentiles stones (people).

1Pe 2:4-6
(4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Spiritually, we are the stones of the rebuilt temple, just as the Jews of the Old Testament were. They represent the stones of the spiritual temple, which their physical temple symbolizes. When Christ mentioned that the stones would fall, He was not referring to physical stones. He was speaking about the people of the Old Testament congregation who fell away, breaking off from the covenant tree, while the Gentile branches took their place. This is how the temple fell and was rebuilt!

The events leading to the fall and reconstruction of the temple have nothing to do with the physical temple in 70 AD, as the falling and rebuilding had already occurred long before that, particularly atCross and Pentecost, when the New Testament church was empowered to spread the Gospel into the world. There is no need to wait until 70 AD to claim that a physical temple was destroyed to fulfill prophecy, especially since it was not holy at that time. The veil of the temple was already torn at the Cross, marking the definitive end of the Old Testament covenant. Period.

Keep thinking that when Jesus was talking about destroying temple buildings (plural) that He was talking about the destroying of the temple building (singular) if you want. You don't seem to understand that one can believe in both. But, just continue in your ignorance if you insist.

Since you seem to think that nothing is physical, do you even believe that Jesus physically died and was bodily raised from the dead? I wonder if you even know what Easter Sunday is all about.

 

[covenantee]

As I said before, you are still as blind as the Jews - - thinking Christ was talking about physical temple in 70AD.

It refers to both the elect, and the non-elect, because it's talking about the Church. Not an unholy Jewish Temple practicing sacrilege in AD 70, but the church. The church is the only physical holy place after the cross that could have abomination stand in it. Those told to flee are the elect. Those on the housetops are the elect. Those in the field (at this time) are the elect. Those with child is a "figure" of the church (I've already shown in Galatians how God illustrated in the allegory that in the New Testament era, the woman that has more children is a figure of the New Testament Church). Thus God is saying, Woe to the church! Why? Because "she" will be judged of God as the great harlot Babylon that she is. And that is why the elect are commanded to flee to the mountains, that they not be partaker with her (Revelation 18). Again, when we read it in context and comparing scripture with scripture for our interpretation, we have consistency.

You guys don't seem to have figured it out yet, but the Old Testament Church (congregation if you must) mirrors the New Testament congregation almost exactly. Just as there was a "diaspora" of the Jews out of Israel taking the gospel to all nations when the first congregation fell (not AD 70, but at the cross), so there will be a diaspora of the New Testament Jews when the New Testament congregation falls. And they (as Lot) cannot look back.

And you also don't understand the part about praying that your flight not be on the Sabbath, for example. It is not directed to the Old Testament Jews, but to the Church. Again, you don't seem to have realized the truth yet that God has cast off Old Testament Israel, thus He's not prophesying of a seventh day Sabbath for them after the cross. That's confusion. And there is no seventh day Sabbath for the Church. God is not addressing the unsaved Jews here about the Sabbath, His address is to the Apostles. You have to keep this straight in your consideration. This truth is not as insignificant as you might think. When we see who Christ is giving this instruction about the Sabbath, it blows your theory of natural Jews right out of the water. The Church should pray it's flight is not on the Sabbath (day of rest). For the sabbath is a day when no man can work because the Church's testimony is finished (Revelation 11:7). A day that Christ foretold when the candle would be put out, and sacrifice and offering would cease!

John 9:4-5

• "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

This is a Sabbath day, when all work ceases. Selah!

To think that Christ was prophesying about a Old Testament day, which He fulfilled by going to the cross, as a coming future event, is confusion. Christ came as our Sabbath of rest. When He died, the Old Testament Sabbath had no more significant anymore than the Old Testament Sacrifices did, or the Old Testament Holy Days did. To think they still are valid, after the Cross, is a serious error in understanding the "shadow" nature of the seventh day Sabbath. It looked forward to Christ! Why would God then continue to prophesy of a Jewish Sabbath that he already fulfilled in His Son? It makes no sense. It's like those claiming He prophesies of a rebuilding the temple. No He didn't, He is the foundation stone of the rebuilding. It had nothing to do with a pile of bricks or physical stones upon Mount Moriah. Or of a re-institution of animal sacrifices. No, that would be a rejection of Christ and confusion of the nature of prophecy. Because He has fulfilled all those things. That's what the AD 70 crowd like you cannot seem to get straight. The types or shadows [skia] were finished or completed, not in AD 70, but when Christ died.



...more false accusations and pointless recriminations. Please, get some rest. "You can't handle the truth."

Thankfully the Judaean Christians were infinitely smarter than you.

Do you literally physically exist?

Evidently not.

 

[Davy]

The Romans did destroy the temple and city in 70 AD fulfilling that part of the verse.

Yeah, which is what I had said.

But Titus is not the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come is an end times person who will confirm the covenant for 7 years. Otherwise, there is no person in Daniel 9:27 to confirm the covenant for 7 years.

No, you show you don't know how to follow simple English grammar, nor how God's Word uses 'types'.

The Daniel 9:26 phrase "... the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary;" must be kept together as one subject.

You cannot just leave out that "shall destroy the city and sanctuary" connected with that "people of the prince that shall come." You can't just chop it up like you are doing. That means we must... ask, WHEN was that city and sanctuary destroyed, and by whom? Simple, it was by the Roman army of general Titus in 70 A.D. That is when the 2nd temple was destroyed, and the city of Jerusalem destroyed.

Furthermore, that Hebrew word nagid for "prince" does not include the word "Messiah" like the Daniel 9:25 verse does. This means the Daniel 9:26 "prince" MUST be understood to mean a ruler, or commander, which nagid (OT:5057) can mean. It does NOT mean Christ.

There is NO Bible prophecy written in God's Word for the 'end' of this world about Jerusalem being destroyed by the coming Antichrist or false-Messiah. Instead, the coming Antichrist at the end is going to use future Jerusalem as his ruling headquarters over all nations, as he is to sit in the temple of God built at the end in Jerusalem, showing himself that he is God, like Apostle Paul taught.

 

[Douggg]

Yeah, which is what I had said.



No, you show you don't know how to follow simple English grammar, nor how God's Word uses 'types'.

The Daniel 9:26 phrase "... the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary;" must be kept together as one subject.

You cannot just leave out that "shall destroy the city and sanctuary" connected with that "people of the prince that shall come." You can't just chop it up like you are doing. That means we must... ask, WHEN was that city and sanctuary destroyed, and by whom? Simple, it was by the Roman army of general Titus in 70 A.D. That is when the 2nd temple was destroyed, and the city of Jerusalem destroyed.

Furthermore, that Hebrew word nagid for "prince" does not include the word "Messiah" like the Daniel 9:25 verse does. This means the Daniel 9:26 "prince" MUST be understood to mean a ruler, or commander, which nagid (OT:5057) can mean. It does NOT mean Christ.

There is NO Bible prophecy written in God's Word for the 'end' of this world about Jerusalem being destroyed by the coming Antichrist or false-Messiah. Instead, the coming Antichrist at the end is going to use future Jerusalem as his ruling headquarters over all nations, as he is to sit in the temple of God built at the end in Jerusalem, showing himself that he is God, like Apostle Paul taught.

In Daniel 9:27, who is the "he" ?

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Douggg]

There is NO Bible prophecy written in God's Word for the 'end' of this world about Jerusalem being destroyed by the coming Antichrist or false-Messiah. Instead, the coming Antichrist at the end is going to use future Jerusalem as his ruling headquarters over all nations, as he is to sit in the temple of God built at the end in Jerusalem, showing himself that he is God, like Apostle Paul taught.

The destruction of the city and sanctuary of Daniel 9:26 was in 70 AD by the Romans.

The Antichrist is end times. And does not destroy Jerusalem, but sets his headquarters there. I don't disagree.

The prince that shall come will become the Antichrist. As the Antichrist, he will be thought by the Jews for a while to be their long awaited messiah. As such, he will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years - the period specified by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

In the middle of the 7 years, the Antichrist will reveal himself to be the man of sin, then killed, then brought back to life as the beast-king. And a statue image made of him and placed on the temple mount as the abomination of desolation.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Thankfully the Judaean Christians were infinitely smarter than you.

Smarter than the Word of God? Not really. Many Christians have already gone into neighboring countries after the Cross long before 70AD. Have you read the part about Saul chased after some that are already in Damascus. They are New Testament Christians representing Christ's kingdom. No need to wait for physical temple to fall in 70AD. LOL

Do you literally physically exist?

Evidently not.

If that is true, why are you discussing it with me?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Keep thinking that when Jesus was talking about destroying temple buildings (plural) that He was talking about the destroying of the temple building (singular) if you want. You don't seem to understand that one can believe in both. But, just continue in your ignorance if you insist.

Nope. You are saying things because you are in denial of the Truth.

Since you seem to think that nothing is physical

Assumption is the mother of all errors. I never said that everything in Scripture is supposed to be understood spiritually. Grow up.

, do you even believe that Jesus physically died and was bodily raised from the dead? I wonder if you even know what Easter Sunday is all about.

What do you think, "Spiritual" Israelite? LOL. Have you read my posts that I ever denied that Christ died physically? Again, grow up.