70 AD revisited

[CadyandZoe]

then the jews had been at war since babylon first took them..

they had been slaves ever since under 4 kingdoms (babylon, Media-Peria, Greece, then Rome)

Oftentimes, in these threads, it takes effort to catch up to the discussion. But I believe you are discussing the "Gap theory" of Daniel 9. In that view, as you already know, the 70 weeks have not run continuously from start to finish. The 70 weeks have a "pause" between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. Not all of us believe in the Gap Theory, but I understand why some do.

Unfortunately for all Bible students alike, Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most difficult Hebrew passages that translators face. The fact that the original Hebrew text is difficult to understand might explain why the English rendering is a bit unclear to us.

As we read to understand the passage we face at least two decision points along the way: 1) the meaning of the word "after" in verse 26, and 2) the meaning of "He" in verse 27. I will illustrate this with a verbal matrix.

Gap Theory:
1) The term "after" indicates "the very last moment of Week 69.
2) The term "he" indicates the antichrist.

No Gap Theory:
1) The term "after" indicates the next subsequent week.
2) The term "he" indicates the Messiah.

You probably know all this but I like to get my thoughts organized and set down on "paper" so to speak. :)

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your argument appears to focus on events that remain unfulfilled. That is, there must be a gap because events associated with week 70 remain unfulfilled. Is that right? Just trying to understand your position. :)

 

[CadyandZoe]

The context of Romans 9:6-8 is the contrasting of two Israels with one being the nation of Israel

Paul uses the term "Israel" twice in that passage. He speaks about the Patriarch Jacob and his descendants. Your interpretation adds a third.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What kind of restoration is being referred to, and where in the NT do we find it confirmed?

The Apostles and the disciples anticipated the restoration of Israel.

Acts 1:6

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”​

Peter preaches that God will restore Israel.

Acts 3:19-21

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.​

times of refreshing may come
Future tense. Times of refreshing didn't exist at the time of writing, but Peter looks forward to that time.

send Jesus, the Christ
The times of refreshing will correspond to the Second Advent

about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets.
Peter is not reluctant to defer to the OT for his message and neither should we.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Does history actually show Jewish infanticide and cannibalism in 70 AD but not in WW1 or WW2?

Does history actually show Jewish mass crucifixions in 70 AD but not in WW1 or WW2?

That does not prove 70AD was worse than WW1 or WW2. This your opinion and it is wrong

I've presented evidence which controls the narrative.

You have presented a few examples of what you think makes it worse. It does not prove anything

You've presented nothing, because you can find nothing.

Oh I presented stuff. Like your Paul you ignore what I presented. and then bear false witness that I did not

Nothing from nothing leaves ...

Do you need a hint?

And here's a little gratis English lesson:

"Your" should be "You're".

"You're" welcome.

Your welcome.. You failed once again to prove your point. and in lieing about what I did or did not do. you once again show your Pride is deep

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Individual unfaithful disobedient Israelites were cut off.

Individual faithful obedient Israelites were saved.

A nation is comprised of its individuals.

God deals with individuals.

No,

Israel were cut off.

The context is israel (saved remnant and losr blinded) vs Gentile believers

God deals with Israel as a nation.. read lev 26 Read the law. The fact you do not know this worries me

 

[Eternally Grateful]

We are discussing Daniel 9 and related scriptures. You are the one who thinks Daniel 9 has something to do with the salvation of all Israel, so it is you who brought Romans 11 into the discussion, not me.

You asked the quesdtion of where the bible says Israel will repent. I showed you three passages Funny how you have yet to show me to be in error.

LOL. No, I do not. When all you can do is constantly make false claims like this the way you do, you know you have nothing to offer of substance.

lol. Where do you think the idea of Spiritual israel came from?

Come on man,

The context of Romans 9:6-8 is the contrasting of two Israels with one being the nation of Israel. Paul very specifically indicated that being part of the other Israel has absolutely nothing to do with where a person physically descended from. But, you don't want to deal with Romans 9:6-8 since it contradicts your beliefs.

Your wrong. Your not taking it into context..

I don't need your permission to believe what I want.

I never said you did. I just made a comment.

LOL. I have been discussing things with you in many posts now. But, I can't discuss anything? You are a comedian. How can I take you seriously when you say ridiculous things like this?


A few verses that completely contradict your beliefs. No wonder you want to try to minimize them.


That's who Paul said make up spiritual Israel: the children of God. If only you actually read Romans 9:6-8 carefully, you would see that.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

I color coded this to make it easier for you to see the contrast that Paul made between the two Israels. National Israel is in blue and Spiritual Israel is in red.

National Israel are Abraham's physical descendants. Paul said they are "the children by physical descent". They are not part of the Israel of which not all who are physically descended from Israel are part.

Spiritual Israel are Abraham's spiritual descendants (children, offspring). They are reckoned through Isaac and are children of the promise, as all believers are (see Galatians 4:28). They are "God's children".

Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from seeing the contrast between the two Israels that Paul made here. Being part of spiritual Israel is not dependent whatsoever on who or where someone descends from. Instead, it requires being a child of God and of the promise. In Galatians 3:26-29 Paul makes it clear that those who belong to Christ are the children of God and of the promise and are Abraham's spiritual seed.

Your stuck in the NT and you can not even get this right. Your stuck on a few verses that seem to go you way, and completely ignore the verses which refute you.

Doctrinal bias can certainly prevent someone from seeing things. I used to believe as you do. Well at least the spiritual Israel part.

Wrong. Individual Israelites were cut off because of unbelief. There were a remnant who believed, so you can't say the entire nation was cut off. That is absolutely false.

Wrong. THEY were cut off and YOU (Gentiles) were grafted in

Unless salvation can be lost. and eternal life is not eternal. Paul would not contradict this basic truth..

Thats why it is dangerous to say God is Done with Israel and will not keep his promise to them..

Do you not understand that the word "we" is sometimes not used to refer to something that only applies to everyone collectively, but rather is used to refer to something that applies to everyone individually? We will not be cut off because of the unbelief of other Gentiles. That is nonsense! Being grafted into the olive tree is analogous to being saved. How can you not know that? If you're a Calvinist, then that would explain it since that would mean you don't think someone can lose their faith. You need to ask God for wisdom about this (James 1:5-7).

How can someone lose their faith unless they never had it before? John said they were never of us. if they were of us they never would have departed. the only people who lose faith are those who never have truly experienced the love of Christ. Because they have never been saved. Salvation is a promise of God to us not based on how good or bad we are or what we do. So it is on him..

Are you a Calvinist? Do you ignore warnings given to believers like this:

Hebrews 3:12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

In this passage Paul (I believe he wrote Hebrews) addresses his "brothers and sisters" in Christ and warns them about turning "away from the living God". The very thing that you think can't happen. Your belief makes warnings like this meaningless.


That is a lie. You did not address the scriptures I gave to support my view of Daniel 9:24 at all. You just responded by saying I should read Daniel 9:1-23 and blah blah blah. Anything but addressing those scriptures and how they relate to Daniel 9:24.


I'll do that as soon as you address the scriptures I quoted in support of my understanding of Daniel 9:24. I'm not holding my breath. One thing you should note, though. The NT sheds light on the OT, not the other way around. When you can't support your doctrine with NT scripture, other than blatantly taking it out of context like you do, then you know that your understanding of those OT scriptures has to be flawed.

That's what I figured. You not only are a person who believes God does not keep his promise to israel. but he will nto keep it for us.

Nice way to follow your catholic partners

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What kind of restoration is being referred to, and where in the NT do we find it confirmed?

You tell me:

Lev 26:
40 ‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,
41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;
if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—
42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;
I will remember the land.

Ez 37:
18 “And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?’— 19 say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.” ’ 20 And the sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes.

21 “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

Why were they in these countries?

Again we turn to lev 26:

27 ‘And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,
28 then I also will walk contrary to you in fury;
and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.

Side note. Is this not what you keep saying? This does not prove that it is great tribulation. It proves Gods wrath on the nation has come to pass

30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols;
and My soul shall abhor you.
31 I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your [h]sweet aromas.
32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.

33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you;
your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.

34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land;
then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths.
35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest—
for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.
36 ‘And as for those of you who are left, I will send faintness[i] into their hearts in the lands of their enemies;
the sound of a shaken leaf shall cause them to flee;
they shall flee as though fleeing from a sword, and they shall fall when no one pursues.
37 They shall stumble over one another, as it were before a sword, when no one pursues;
and you shall have no power to stand before your enemies.
38 You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.
39 And those of you who are left shall [j]waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands;
also in their fathers’ iniquities, which are with them, they shall waste away.

This is what happened in 70 AD. It also happened when Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom.

As for the nt? Romans 11 is a great place to start

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

Israel is blinded in part. there will come a time when this blindness will be lifted. isreal will repent. and they will all be saved.

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

God made a promise to Israel. It is irrevocable. To say God is done with Israel is to say God does not keep his promise and his covenants.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oftentimes, in these threads, it takes effort to catch up to the discussion. But I believe you are discussing the "Gap theory" of Daniel 9. In that view, as you already know, the 70 weeks have not run continuously from start to finish. The 70 weeks have a "pause" between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. Not all of us believe in the Gap Theory, but I understand why some do.

Unfortunately for all Bible students alike, Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most difficult Hebrew passages that translators face. The fact that the original Hebrew text is difficult to understand might explain why the English rendering is a bit unclear to us.

As we read to understand the passage we face at least two decision points along the way: 1) the meaning of the word "after" in verse 26, and 2) the meaning of "He" in verse 27. I will illustrate this with a verbal matrix.

Gap Theory:
1) The term "after" indicates "the very last moment of Week 69.
2) The term "he" indicates the antichrist.

No Gap Theory:
1) The term "after" indicates the next subsequent week.
2) The term "he" indicates the Messiah.

You probably know all this but I like to get my thoughts organized and set down on "paper" so to speak. :)

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Your argument appears to focus on events that remain unfulfilled. That is, there must be a gap because events associated with week 70 remain unfulfilled. Is that right? Just trying to understand your position. :)

if we look at the hebrew word. The word after means immediately following, or the next in step.

The event which took place was the messiah was "cut off" (in Hebrew it means he was killed or murdered)

so at this point. Messiah is removed.

the next event, we have 40 years later the people of the PRINCE who is to COME destroyed the city and sanctuary and leaving them desolate. This desolation will go on for a determined time. (only the father knows this time)

The next event is we have "and he confirms a covenant with many for 1 week)

who is he?

Christ? What covenant did he confirm which would last only 7 years?

The prince of the people who is to come?

the same one who commits the abomination of desolation. The antichrist, the beast? the one who stands in the holy place and declares himself to be God?

This is what I see anyway, Yes I see the gap because of the above statements

 

[CadyandZoe]

if we look at the hebrew word. The word after means immediately following, or the next in step.

The event which took place was the messiah was "cut off" (in Hebrew it means he was killed or murdered)

so at this point. Messiah is removed.

Yes. I see your point. What you say is possible. What if the "next step" is the following week? Is that a possible interpretation?

the next event, we have 40 years later the people of the PRINCE who is to COME destroyed the city and sanctuary and leaving them desolate. This desolation will go on for a determined time. (only the father knows this time)

If the death of the messiah takes place in week 69, what you say would be the most logical way to understand it.

Question: Did the sacrifices end 40 years later? Seems like they did. Wouldn't 70AD remain a possible candidate for an event that took place in week 70? Or maybe Jesus put an end to the raison d'etre of the sacrifices at his crucifixion. Could that event be a possible candidate for Gabriel's word that "He would put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering?"

The next event is we have "and he confirms a covenant with many for 1 week)

who is he?

Christ? What covenant did he confirm which would last only 7 years?

Well, you found another interpretive decision point I think. :) Did Gabriel mean to say that the covenant would be in effect for one week as you seem to suggest, or did Gabriel mean to say that the process of confirming the covenant would take a week? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just making an observation for the sake of discussion.

The prince of the people who is to come?

Well, Jesus and Titus were both "a prince." So which one? That's another good question. Titus was a prince and his people destroyed the city. So Titus is a good candidate. Jesus was a prince and his people also destroyed the city.

the same one who commits the abomination of desolation. The antichrist, the beast? the one who stands in the holy place and declares himself to be God?

If I may, I would like to offer my own interpretation of Daniel 9:27. For the time being, my focus will be on one phrase and not the entire verse. See if this might be helpful.

Daniel 9:27

27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”​

Here Gabriel says much in a concise way, but I would like to restrict my comments to the phrase I highlighted in bold. I don't have scholarly support for what I am about to say, but I think it makes good sense of the rest of the verse. I suspect that the term "on the wing" is an idiomatic expression indicating a particular limit. If I am right, the phrase "on the wing" indicates the point, edge, or line beyond which the abominations will no longer be allowed to continue. Thus, the phrase "on the wing of abominations" indicates a moment when God will no longer tolerate the abominations taking place in Jerusalem. And after the abominations have reached an unacceptable limit, God will bring the one who makes desolate.

If I am right, then Gabriel speaks about more than one abomination. He speaks of many abominations, which will eventually culminate in the judgment of God. If that is true, then Gabriel is speaking about something different than the Abomination of Desolation mentioned in Daniel 11.

That's it for now. Let's keep the conversation open.

This is what I see anyway, Yes I see the gap because of the above statements

Yes. I see and understand what you mean.

 

[covenantee]

No,

Israel were cut off.

The context is israel (saved remnant and losr blinded) vs Gentile believers

God deals with Israel as a nation.. read lev 26 Read the law. The fact you do not know this worries me

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

So when God dealt with Israel as a nation, He slew the entire nation.

He didn't stop at 24,000.

You didn't know that?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes. I see your point. What you say is possible. What if the "next step" is the following week? Is that a possible interpretation?

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

there is a problem I see with that,

the events which come after are the messiah being killed. then the destruction of the city.

The cross occurred a liter 7 days after. the city was destroyed almost 40 years later.

the next event is the confirmation of a covenant with many for 1 week., which happens after the city is destroyed and left desolate

so the final week occurs after those events. which at the least is 40 years post the death of the messiah?

If the death of the messiah takes place in week 69, what you say would be the most logical way to understand it.

I do not see this no, The death takes place after the 69th week.
Messiah the prince being revealed ends the 69th week.

“Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,

This says there will be 69 weeks from the command until Messiah.

this occurred when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey as prophesied.

he died after this happened. which is after the 69th week

Question: Did the sacrifices end 40 years later? Seems like they did. Wouldn't 70AD remain a possible candidate for an event that took place in week 70? Or maybe Jesus put an end to the raison d'etre of the sacrifices at his crucifixion. Could that event be a possible candidate for Gabriel's word that "He would put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering?"

the sacrifices and offering are stopped because of the abomination of desolation. We have an example of this from antiochus epipanis. who slaughter a pig in the most holy and stopped sacrifice and burnt offering

Yes in 70 AD sacrifices in the temple ceased. that is because there was no temple. That is not what Gabriels says caused the sacrifices to stop though

Well, you found another interpretive decision point I think. :) Did Gabriel mean to say that the covenant would be in effect for one week as you seem to suggest, or did Gabriel mean to say that the process of confirming the covenant would take a week? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just making an observation for the sake of discussion.

he will confirm a covenant with many for one week.

I am not sure i see any possibility it saying it took him 7 years to confirm the covenant

Well, Jesus and Titus were both "a prince." So which one? That's another good question. Titus was a prince and his people destroyed the city. So Titus is a good candidate. Jesus was a prince and his people also destroyed the city.

Titus is the one who destroyed the city.. He was a considered a prince who would come. He was already a prince..

The prince who would come would be later.

If I may, I would like to offer my own interpretation of Daniel 9:27. For the time being, my focus will be on one phrase and not the entire verse. See if this might be helpful.

Daniel 9:27

27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”​

Here Gabriel says much in a concise way, but I would like to restrict my comments to the phrase I highlighted in bold. I don't have scholarly support for what I am about to say, but I think it makes good sense of the rest of the verse. I suspect that the term "on the wing" is an idiomatic expression indicating a particular limit. If I am right, the phrase "on the wing" indicates the point, edge, or line beyond which the abominations will no longer be allowed to continue. Thus, the phrase "on the wing of abominations" indicates a moment when God will no longer tolerate the abominations taking place in Jerusalem. And after the abominations have reached an unacceptable limit, God will bring the one who makes desolate.

If I am right, then Gabriel speaks about more than one abomination. He speaks of many abominations, which will eventually culminate in the judgment of God. If that is true, then Gabriel is speaking about something different than the Abomination of Desolation mentioned in Daniel 11.

That's it for now. Let's keep the conversation open.

in the hebrew,

Abomination as written is an idol, or unclean thing.

Desolate is a word which means to make uninhabitable. or desolate

Wing - I see this as the wing of the temple. or the most holy place.

the hebrew words are siqqus masomem, and are actually the same words used in Dan 11.. where it says that the prince will take away the daily sacrifices and place THERE the abomination of desolation.

the only difference is one says on the wind, the other says there. I believe they are both the same place. The wing of the temple or most Holy place

thank you for the open conversation, it is refreshing

Yes. I see and understand what you mean.

thank you

 

[covenantee]

You tell me:

Scripture does that superbly.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

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.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

If you deny that God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things, you declare God to be a liar.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But notice:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

So when God dealt with Israel as a nation, He slew the entire nation.

He didn't stop at 24,000.

You didn't know that?

so how you twist and turn everything?

That;s why we can't have any conversation..

let see how you pull passages out of context to try to control the narrative

Numbers 25:
4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the Lord, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”

He did not punish ISRAEL. He punished the GUILTY for those who sinned against God and the nation so that Gods wrath could be turned from Israel.

You should know better by now not to try to get something past me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Scripture does that superbly.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

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.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

If you deny that God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things, you declare God to be a liar.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But notice:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

typical of the replacement theology person. They try to take the eternal salvation covenant, which can only come through Christ. And reject the covenant between God and Israel.

God said in his promise to abraham Isaac and Jacob that he gave the plot of land to them and their descendents as an ETERNAL gift. forever throughout all those generations.


what Part in the NT did Christ do to keep this promise?

What part of this covenant is no longer valid? (when did eternal end?)

 

[covenantee]

He did not punish ISRAEL. He punished the GUILTY for those who sinned against God and the nation so that Gods wrath could be turned from Israel.

Once God had dealt with the guilty individuals, His justice was satisfied.

Glad you agree.

Real tough to say that word "individuals", isn't it.

 

[covenantee]

typical of the replacement theology person. They try to take the eternal salvation covenant, which can only come through Christ. And reject the covenant between God and Israel.

God said in his promise to abraham Isaac and Jacob that he gave the plot of land to them and their descendents as an ETERNAL gift. forever throughout all those generations.


what Part in the NT did Christ do to keep this promise?

What part of this covenant is no longer valid? (when did eternal end?)

If you have any Scriptures which disprove those which I've presented, please present yours.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If you have any Scriptures which disprove those which I've presented, please present yours.

I have presented so many I lost count.

 

[covenantee]

I have presented so many I lost count.

Just one will do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

there is a problem I see wi

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

there is a problem I see with that,

the events which come after are the messiah being killed. then the destruction of the city.

Yes, I see the problem. Since Daniel seems to locate the temple's destruction in week 70 and the destruction comes 40 years after the crucifixion, a gap is necessary to square the prophecy with reality.

Here we have another interpretation choice.
Either
1) Daniel locates the temples' destruction in week 70, and there is a gap between week 69 and week 70 is necessary. Or,
2) Daniel doesn't actually locate the temple's destruction in week 70. Therefore, no gap is required.

For the longest time, I had difficulty with Daniel 9:27 because I needed help understanding how to locate the temples' destruction in week 70 without a gap. After many years and much discussion, I examined the passage again to see if my conclusion was justified. Was I wrong to understand that the temple was to be destroyed during week 70? Maybe. But the idea of the Gap was very persistent in my thinking. I wasn't going to give up that idea quickly.

Nevertheless, the Gap Theory was like a pebble in my shoe: I couldn't eliminate it even though it made me uncomfortable. Other than the logical necessity of the Gap, I had no textual justification for the Gap. Gabriel needs to give us a verbal clue about the existence of a gap. But he doesn't do that. And that made me uncomfortable. Was I inserting an idea into the text that Gabriel didn't intend?

So I set about to understand Gabriel's prediction without assuming there was a gap. And I did that. And I can show you what I believe now, but before I do that, I need to say that I strongly believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (as I'm sure you do too.) And if Gabriel intended a Gap between weeks 69 and 70, I'm okay with that. I believe the scriptures no matter what they say. My primary concern is whether or not I have correctly understood what was being said. And if your interpretation is correct, I accept that.

I worked out an interpretation that accounted for all the facts, except the 40-year delay was a problem for me. Why the 40-year delay? One day I was sitting down for coffee with my Bible teacher friend, and he suggested something to me that made the entire account come together for me.

God could have destroyed the temple after Jesus' ascension if he chose to do that—no forensic reason to delay judgment, nothing to stop him. So why did he delay? Mercy. The delay of judgment is always a sign of God's patience and forbearance. God used the 40-year Gap to demonstrate his forbearance.

I think I want to stop at this point for your reaction, but I look forward to discussing your other thoughts also.

Talk soon.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Just one will do.

Go back and read my many posts. you will find them, I am not doing your work for you.

You want to be a slanderer. thats on you. Your sin will find you out