THE CONFIRMING OF THE COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27

[Davy]

I am not SDA and don't know what you are talking about.

Doesn't really matter, but they are one of the main pushers of the false doctrine you espouse about Daniel 9:27.

Dan 9:26 is future, as is 9:27.

The Dan 12:7 'man in linen' is not Jesus, it is the Daniel 7 Little Horn, the 'Lucifer / Morningstar' of Isaiah 14. This 'man in linen' is the Revelation 10 Mighty Angel, the 'dragon' that deceives the world (Rev 12:9).

The Daniel 8 Little Horn is attacking the Dan 9:26 'city & sanctuary'. His 'forces that rise up' (Dan 11:31) are the 'locusts' (Joel 1:4-9) of the 5th Trumpet that place the abomination of desolation at the 6th Trumpet.

At the end of the wars (Dan 11:40), it is the 'man in linen' (the Dan 7 Little Horn) who confirms the Dan 9:27 covenant which ends the great tribulation at this particular time.

At the 7th Trumpet, this covenant is broken, the Dan 7 4th Beast is killed, and the 'lion, bear, leopard' are given an extension (Dan 7:11-12) (which is the Beast from the sea's Leopard, Bear, and Lion.)

Daniel 9:26 is future? Now that is ludicrous.

The Daniel 9:27 events are what is still future to us, and is for the very end of this world for the coming time of "great tribulation". That I have already shown by the Scriptures of God's Word, so I don't have time to listen to personal opinions that do not follow the actual written Bible Scripture.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Did I seem like I wasn't sure of what I was saying? LOL at you. It says there would be 69 weeks unto Messiah the Prince. I believe that refers to there being 69 weeks passing until Messiah the Prince is revealed as the Messiah. It does not say it would be 69 weeks unto the Messiah being cut off. It says He would be cut off some time after the 69 weeks ended, but that does not mean He had to be cut off immediately after the 69th week ended.

No, you are incorrect. The Messiah the Prince shall come (appear) within the 69th week. And yes, it was 69 weeks unto the Messiah being cut off because, pay attention to this, that was when he confirm a covenant for ONE WEEK (70th week). That was the beginning of the week, which you admitted was done with the blood of the Cross! LOL. The blood of the Cross began the final week! That means Christ the Prince, has appeared before the final week! It's not rocket science.

It does not state that at all! Only in your mind. It states that the covenant, which we both understand to be the new covenant, would be confirmed during the 70th week.

Wrong. The final week (the 70th week) started with the confirmation of the New Convenant, with Christ's blood.

And it was confirmed and established in the midst of the 70th week when the Messiah was cut off and shed His blood of the new covenant.

LOL!!!!!

How can you claim that the covenant was confirmed in the middle of the week when verse 27 clearly stated that Christ confirmed a covenant FOR a week. Not in the midst of the week! The midst of the week is the cessation of sacrifice and the obligation. Not a confirmation of a covenant. Silly you.

Hello? Wake up. I'm not saying the covenant was confirmed yet at that time, but that was the beginning of the week during which it would be confirmed. It was confirmed in the midst of the 70th week when He was cut off which made the old covenant sacrifices obsolete and put the new covenant into effect. Hello? Reading comprehension is not a strength of yours, I see.

Not at all. You are interpreting Scripture in a way that aligns with your perspective, suggesting that the covenant will be confirmed in the middle of the week, following the appearance of the Messiah the Prince about three and a half years earlier. This interpretation is quite confusing and does not accurately reflect what the Bible says.

LOL. Are you not reading anything I'm saying? I've already said that multiple times now. Wake up.

I said multiple times that I believe Jesus was cut off in the midst of the week and that confirmed the new covenant while AT THE SAME TIME making the old covenant and its sacrifices obsolete. So, I'm saying the new covenant was confirmed by the blood of Christ. Hello? Is anyone awake in there? Hello, McFly!

It is you who needs to wake up from spiritual delusion. Your perspective is what the problem is.

Dan 9:27a
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week"

See? Christ confirmed the covenant for one week (not half or middle or midst), which proves it occurred at the BEGINNING of the week. Not in the midst of the week. Then we read:

Dan 9:27b
"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"

The cessation of sacrifices and oblations occurs AFTER the confirmation of the covenant. The question is: WHAT sacrifice and oblation is the Lord referring to here? You might insist that it pertains to the Old Covenant sacrifice system, but I disagree. Christ confirmed a covenant with the New Testament congregation, and He did this through the sacrifice He made on our behalf during the New Testament.

The sacrifice and oblation that will cease are tied to the sealing of all Israel (Christians). After this sealing, there will be no further sacrifices for those desiring salvation at that time. This is what the Lord refers to as the apostasy and desolation of the Church in verse 27. It has nothing to do with the idea of ending animal sacrifices at the cross or the destruction of the physical temple in 70 AD. Both of these events already took place at the cross, along with the fall of the Old Testament congregation of Israel SPIRITUALLY, —not PHYSICALLY in 70 AD, as Preterists would have you believe.

The blood of the cross, of course.

Hallajujah! The blood of the Cross was what started the Covenant Week! Therefore, the 62 weeks, including His appearance (birth, baptism, ministry) ended here!

No, YOU think carefully.

You never answered my question about the duration of the first 69 weeks. You said the weeks do not represent 7 years. So, how long do you think each of the first 69 weeks lasted?

I am not going to waste my time explaining the length of first 69 weeks that may take pages, To save my time, here is the article that echoes my position.

The 70 Weeks of Daniel, Chapter 9:24-27

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Daniel 9:26 is future? Now that is ludicrous.

The Daniel 9:27 events are what is still future to us, and is for the very end of this world for the coming time of "great tribulation". That I have already shown by the Scriptures of God's Word, so I don't have time to listen to personal opinions that do not follow the actual written Bible Scripture.

I agree that it's ludicrous to believe that Daniel 9:26 is future, but it's also ludicrous to think that Daniel 9:27 is future because it relates directly to Daniel 9:26. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26 is related directly to the desolation described in verse 27.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Can't just use the 26th verse about Jesus being cut off "after" the 69th week as being part of the 70th week. This because of the CONTEXT of the acts stated in Daniel 9:27...

Huh? Sigh...

Dan 9:25
(25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. "

This verse explains that the appearance or coming of Messiah the Prince took place during the 69 weeks. Then...
Dan 9:26
(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.
God divided the 70 weeks into three periods: 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week. Here, becasue Christ obviously appeared during the 62 weeks, it ended with His cut off and the desolation upon the Old Testament congregation which his body represented.
Dan 9:27
(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.

According to Hebrews 9, Christ had to die so that his blood could confirm a covenant which offically began the final covenant week! Therefore, BOTH the 62 weeks that ended and the final week began on the same day when Christ died. Period!

Dan 9:27
27 The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him."
Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

A Treaty? His terribe Deeds? Set up a sacrilegious object?
New Living Translation?! LOL. It is a fake bible full of translators' opinions, not the real Bible!

Those events of Daniel 9:27 have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Romans destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D.

Good. I never taught it. Your point is?

That is also often used as a deception by those who try to claim Jesus' Ministry extended into the 70th week of Daniel 9:27.

Sounds like a doctrine of someone I know. yeah...

According to the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), the Romans never placed an "abomination of desolation" at the 2nd temple in 70 A.D., simply because a fire started within that temple while the Roman army was trying to capture it. The Romans failed to capture it, that 2nd temple burned down. Most likely the Jews inside that temple set fire to it inside, as they probably recalled what Antiochus Epiphanes did in 165 B.C. with desolating inside that temple with swine sacrifice and setting up an abomination idol to Zeus, and demanding that all bow to it. So the Jews did not want the Romans to capture the temple in 70 A.D., probably afraid that kind of desolation inside the temple would happen again.

Who cares about Josephus? I am not interested in what he wrote. I am more interested to what Word of God says. So your interpreation of Antiochus Epiphanes is incorrect. so I am not going to deal with this nonsense here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, you are incorrect.

No, you are incorrect.

The Messiah the Prince shall come (appear) within the 69th week.

Wrong. You are butchering the text to make it fit your doctrine (not talking about the Amil doctrine itself, obviously, but your overall understanding of things).

Look at the following text carefully for the first time in your life, please.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

How do you get that He comes within the 69th week from this? This says His appearing would come 69 weeks after "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" was given. That means the first 69 weeks would pass and then the Messiah appears. You have Him somehow appearing years before the end of the first 69 weeks when the text indicates no such thing.

And yes, it was 69 weeks unto the Messiah being cut off because, pay attention to this, that was when he confirm a covenant for ONE WEEK (70th week).

You make the same mistake that dispensationalists make by thinking that it's talking about the covenant being made for the duration of one week and that's why, since you know the new covenant is not just one week in duration, you try to stretch the 70th week out for longer than 7 years.

That was the beginning of the week, which you admitted was done with the blood of the Cross! LOL.

LOL at you trying to claim that He was cut off at the beginning of the 70th week when He doesn't even initially appear as the Messiah until the beginning of the weak and then is cut off in the midst of the week when His blood established the new covenant and made the old covenant sacrifices obsolete.

Do you somehow not know the significance of making the old covenant sacrifices obsolete? Why would you think that would not be mentioned in a verse that talks about the establishment of the new covenant?

The blood of the Cross began the final week! That means Christ the Prince, has appeared before the final week! It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science to see that the blood of the cross came in the midst of the 70th week when the new covenant was established and the old covenant sacrifices were made obsolete.

LOL!!!!!

LOL!!!!!

I am not going to waste my time explaining the length of first 69 weeks that may take pages,

You know that your view can't be true if it takes that much to explain it. The truth is simple and not that complicated.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I agree that it's ludicrous to believe that Daniel 9:26 is future, but it's also ludicrous to think that Daniel 9:27 is future because it relates directly to Daniel 9:26. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26 is related directly to the desolation described in verse 27.

Wrong!

Dan 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.

This occured at the Cross. The people of the Prince is the Jews who have destroyed their kingdom representative of their kingdom. This is how the Old Testmaent Congregation became desolation and no longer represented for God after the Cross.

Dan 9:27 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.

This is a completely new covenant week, APART from 62 weeks and the desolation of Old Testament Congregation, focusing on the New Testament congregation. The church will face a fate similar to that of Israel due to its unfaithfulness, leading to her own desolation as described in Revelation 18. This is not related to the physical city of Jerusalem or to Jewish animal sacrifices.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wrong!

No, you're wrong!

Dan 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.

This occured at the Cross. The people of the Prince is the Jews who have destroyed their kingdom representative of their kingdom. This is how the Old Testmaent Congregation became desolation and no longer represented for God after the Cross.

LOL!!! You have terrible reading comprehension skills. Where did I say otherwise?

Dan 9:27 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.

This is a completely new covenant week, APART from 62 weeks and the desolation of Old Testament Congregation, focusing on the New Testament congregation. The church will face a fate similar to that of Israel due to its unfaithfulness, leading to her own desolation as described in Revelation 18. This is not related to the physical city of Jerusalem or to Jewish animal sacrifices.

Nonsense. It refers to the 70th week that immediately followed the 69th week. The desolation described here relates directly to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Who cares about Josephus? I am not interested in what he wrote. I am more interested to what Word of God says. So your interpreation of Antiochus Epiphanes is incorrect. so I am not going to deal with this nonsense here.

So, you disregard all historical documents besides the Bible then? None of them contain any truth? Nothing truthful was ever written about what happened in Jerusalem and how the city and the temple was destroyed? Nothing we read in any history books can be trusted?

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, you are incorrect.

Look at the following text carefully for the first time in your life, please.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

How do you get that He comes within the 69th week from this? This says His appearing would come 69 weeks after "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" was given. That means the first 69 weeks would pass and then the Messiah appears. You have Him somehow appearing years before the end of the first 69 weeks when the text indicates no such thing.

Read the article. It will explain.

You make the same mistake that dispensationalists make by thinking that it's talking about the covenant being made for the duration of one week and that's why, since you know the new covenant is not just one week in duration, you try to stretch the 70th week out for longer than 7 years.

LOL. Actually, you think like dispensationalists that insist the covenant week is 7 literal years in duration. LOL.
The verse clearly say Christ confirmed a covenant for the WHOLE NEW COVENANT PERIOD, and it is NOT 7 years. It covers the Elects in the New Testament period until Christ returns.

LOL at you trying to claim that He was cut off at the beginning of the 70th week when He doesn't even initially appear as the Messiah until the beginning of the weak and then is cut off in the midst of the week when His blood established the new covenant and made the old covenant sacrifices obsolete.

I did not say that. You misrepresented what I said.

He was cut off at the end of the 62 weeks, and at the same time, his blood confirmed a covenant that started the 70th week.

And you are the one who has a problem receiving what verse 27 says. The verse clearly said that Christ confirmed a covenant for ONE WEEK. It does not say that he confirmed it in the midst of the week. You made it up.

Dan 9:27
"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.

You can't bring Old Testament sacrifice and obligation into the "midst" or middle of the 70th week to be ceased AFTER Christ confirmed a covenant for the whole week that already took place before! You do not make any sense.

Do you somehow not know the significance of making the old covenant sacrifices obsolete? Why would you think that would not be mentioned in a verse that talks about the establishment of the new covenant?

I know what you believe. You are still stuck with Old Testament temple and old Testament animal sacrifice that must have some role during the 70th week. But I will say something here:
When Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem and threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple He said:

Luke 19:43-45

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;"

So, all rhetoric aside, Christ spoke of not only the Temple, but also of the whole city of Jerusalem being laid even with the ground and not one stone left standing! Yet like you, everyone wants to ignore God's truth here because Josephus said it was all fulfilled in 70 A.D. taking Josephu's word over Christ's own Words.

Many do not understand that Christ is talking about the judgment of people, or the congregation, not stones, not architecture, not literal buildings, and therefore, not one stone was left standing. Because SPIRITUALLY the entire kingdom was taken away from Israel. The Stone the builders (Jews) rejected as their foundation, is become head of another Temple building, which is the New Testament Church. Thus that old Temple and City is left in desolation and ruin! The whole nation is left desolate. But when? Read the whole context, in all books, comparing scripture with scripture, and the Spiritual truths of the people representing the Holy City shines through. In context of Luke you quoted for example:

Luke 19:38-47

• "Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
• And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
• And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
• And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
• And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him,

It is HERE that they (Jews) then sought to destroy Him. It was then "as He" cast the "Buyers and Sellers" out of the Temple that the priests and scribes asked him for a Sign demonstrating by what authority He had to do this. And He "responded" and answered, telling THEM for a SIGN, stating, "Destroy this Temple and in 3 days I will raise it up." For example, that WAS the SIGN. And the stones (people) indeed would cry out, they indeed would have their Sign and they would indeed be laid in ruin (desolation) even with the ground. Not in AD 70, but at the cross when the veil of the Temple was torn in two SIGNIFYING the END Old Testament Israel and the Revelation of New Testament Israel. And yes that includes your precious animal sacrifice system! All of this has occured on the day Christ went to the Cross!

It's not rocket science to see that the blood of the cross came in the midst of the 70th week

The Scripture does not support your false claim. Read the verse again and again and again until your brain finally functions.

Dan 9:27 (a)
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week":

When did the final week start exactly? You admitted it was the blood of the Cross, then when was that? Was it in the midst of the whole week? LOL! No, it was the false witness coming out of your mouth.

Dan 9:27 (b)
"and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,"

Where do you read Christ confirmed a covenant in the midst of the week right here? NO WHERE!

when the new covenant was established and the old covenant sacrifices were made obsolete.

No the new covenant was not confirmed in the midst of the week, unless you show us the verse that says this exactly which you have NOT done so! And no you got the sacrifice system for verse 27 all wrong. See, your so-called amillennial doctrine has been confused with preterist doctrine.

You know that your view can't be true if it takes that much to explain it. The truth is simple and not that complicated.

Excuses, excuses. Read the article and compare it with Scripture. Selah.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Nonsense. It refers to the 70th week that immediately followed the 69th week. The desolation described here relates directly to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Christ, the Prince, gave the sign to the Jews (people of the prince) to destroy the temple, which speaks about the temple of his body that represents his congregation which is the city and the sanctuary. It is all about PEOPLE not physical stones. Boy, you are as blind as those Jews who thought He was speaking about the physical stones of the temple. LOL.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So, you disregard all historical documents besides the Bible then? None of them contain any truth?

Nothing truthful was ever written about what happened in Jerusalem and how the city and the temple was destroyed? Nothing we read in any history books can be trusted?

Is it true that most theologians don't agree with my understanding that it is an error to think that the 70 AD theory fulfills the prophecy of the Temple being thrown down? ...I would say yeah, that is probably true. Most probably wouldn't agree with me. I believe that is because their eyes are on this world and its preoccupation with secular history, rather than on the Bible alone and Biblical history. Biblical history corroborates, substantiates, and validates how the prophecies are fulfilled. But we have to be open-minded, like the Bereans. For if man cannot even understand when earthly declarations are inconsistent and a contradiction, how is he to understand the harmony of the heavenly things "that it prefigured or represented," humm?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Is it true that most theologians don't agree with my understanding that it is an error to think that the 70 AD theory fulfills the prophecy of the Temple being thrown down? ...I would say yeah, that is probably true. Most probably wouldn't agree with me. I believe that is because their eyes are on this world and its preoccupation with secular history, rather than on the Bible alone and Biblical history. Biblical history corroborates, substantiates, and validates how the prophecies are fulfilled. But we have to be open-minded, like the Bereans. For if man cannot even understand when earthly declarations are inconsistent and a contradiction, how is he to understand the harmony of the heavenly things "that it prefigured or represented," humm?

And I like to add, @Spiritual Israelite that because most of the church doesn't have their eyes focused on Christ. Their eyes are on temporal things of this world, like physical genealogies, nations, temple buildings, holy lands, wars, famines, prosperity, pestilence, angels, their belly, and such. And just as those who went before them, they totally miss that the point of prophecy is a Spiritual lesson using physical imagery to represent "deeper" Spiritual truths. As our examples, even Christ's disciples missed the point of representations, and Christ had to provide revelation concerning the cryptic nature of His words. e.g.

Matthew 16:11-12

• "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
• Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Bread represented doctrine. Wine represented His blood. Water Baptism represented spiritual ablutions. The promised land was a Spiritual inheritance. And so on and so forth. God wants us to worship Him in Spirit and truth, not in meat and drink. Not being a citizen in physical Jerusalem, but being a citizen of Spiritual Jerusalem. Likewise, the city and temple of prophecy where Christ said they would have every stone thrown down, was not the literal city and temple He was speaking of. It was the Old Testament body of Moses who remained under law and rejected Him as the cornerstone of its rebuilding following its fall. It was because of the abominations in God's house that they were cast down as stones from a temple, and not one left standing. i.e., the whole house was destryed, and a new house built upon better promises was constructed. The kingdom representation was taken from them, and given to another. This is all a Spiritual portrait that can be seen in Jeremiah's prophecy.

Jeremiah 8:12-13

• "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."

According to Scripture the time of their visitation is when Christ came, and that is when there was abominations, and that is when they were cast down. Not 70 AD, but even as Christ Himself spoke of this when weeping over the City in plainly declaring not one stone would be left standing there that was not cast down. 70 AD does not qualify.

Yes, I would imagine that "probably" most theologians believe 70 ad fulfilled the prophecy of the fallen temple and city because their eyes are on the physical and not the Spiritual. God is not interested in judging bricks or stones of a city or a temple, but the church and its people who were "represented" by them. Remember when Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem (the representation of the church), and then made the prophecy concerning it saying not one stone would be left standing? He then "cast out" the "buyers and sellers" from the Holy Temple. That whole scenario of the city and its temple represented the congregation/church of that day, and that temple represented His body that people would destroy. The buyers and sellers cast out represent those who are judged at that time by God. If it represented the literal city and literal temple as supposed, then the prophecy has not been fulfilled because no one can honestly say every stone was thrown down. That was a requirement of the prophecy. And yet every stone was cast/thrown down of the spiritual city Jerusalem because God completely destroyed her where she no longer represented the church. The kingdom was taken from that congregation and given to another. Thus that city and temple are left desolate because of the abominations that stood in it. e.g.

Luke 19:41-45

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;"

It cannot get much plainer than that. The reason the congregation is judged is because they rejected Christ, not knowing the time of their visitation. Remember the prophecy in Jeremiah? Christ is here talking to a city, and saying her children within her would "all" be thrown down right along with her. ...and they were, not one left standing because there is now constructed a "New" Testament church, built with living stones, with Christ being the chief cornerstone of that temple. Theologians are looking elswhere when the truth is right in front of their eyes.

When did it occur exactly? At the cross because in three days, Christ rebuilt THAT TEMPLE, which is now the New Testament Church that Christ confirmed a covenant with! Selah!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Read the article. It will explain.

No, I will not. YOU explain it to me. I'm talking to YOU. Do you need someone else to explain it for you? That's weak.

I did not say that. You misrepresented what I said.

He was cut off at the end of the 62 weeks, and at the same time, his blood confirmed a covenant that started the 70th week.

It does not say He was cut off at the end of the 62 weeks, it says He was cut off AFTER the 62 weeks. You are BUTCHERING the text BADLY.

And you are the one who has a problem receiving what verse 27 says. The verse clearly said that Christ confirmed a covenant for ONE WEEK. It does not say that he confirmed it in the midst of the week. You made it up.

Dan 9:27
"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.

You can't bring Old Testament sacrifice and obligation into the "midst" or middle of the 70th week to be ceased AFTER Christ confirmed a covenant for the whole week that already took place before! You do not make any sense.

LOL. You need to wake up. Compare these verses...

Daniel 9:27 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,

Hebrews 10:8 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; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

These scriptures line up perfectly. During the 70th week he would confirm the covenant with many. During the 70th week was His ministry, His death, resurrection and the preaching of the gospel first to the Jews before going to the Gentiles. In the midst of the 70th week he caused the old covenant sacrifice and the oblation to cease by making it obsolete with His blood that established the new covenant.

I know what you believe. You are still stuck with Old Testament temple and old Testament animal sacrifice that must have some role during the 70th week.

Any time the establishment of the new covenant is referenced in NT scripture it also references the old covenant animal sacrifices being taken away and made obsolete. Why would Daniel 9:27 be any different?

But I will say something here:
When Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem and threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple He said:

Luke 19:43-45

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;"

So, all rhetoric aside, Christ spoke of not only the Temple, but also of the whole city of Jerusalem being laid even with the ground and not one stone left standing! Yet like you, everyone wants to ignore God's truth here because Josephus said it was all fulfilled in 70 A.D. taking Josephu's word over Christ's own Words.

LOL!!! That prophecy was fulfilled just as Jesus prophesied! We should be celebrating that and praising Him for foretelling what would happen exactly as it happened. Instead, you deny that it has happened! Unbelievable!

It's utterly STUPID to think that no historical documents other than the Bible have any truth in them. I'm not taking Joseph's word over Christ's own words. Do you have anything to prove otherwise in relation to what happened? Do you see the temple buildings still standing there anywhere? No. So, it's utterly ridiculous to doubt that the historical accounts of what happened in 70 AD. What reason would Josephus have had for making things up?

Excuses, excuses. Read the article and compare it with Scripture. Selah.

You need someone else to speak for you. Weak.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is it true that most theologians don't agree with my understanding that it is an error to think that the 70 AD theory fulfills the prophecy of the Temple being thrown down? ...I would say yeah, that is probably true. Most probably wouldn't agree with me. I believe that is because their eyes are on this world and its preoccupation with secular history, rather than on the Bible alone and Biblical history. Biblical history corroborates, substantiates, and validates how the prophecies are fulfilled. But we have to be open-minded, like the Bereans.

I am as open-minded as anyone here. You can see that I'm backing up what I'm saying with scripture. Why do you think that no scripture has been fulfilled since the resurrection of Christ? That's ludicrous. What is wrong with believing otherwise? How else can we confirm what was fulfilled in the past except for historical documents? Do you claim that no historical documents besides the Bible contain any factual information? Yes or no?

For if man cannot even understand when earthly declarations are inconsistent and a contradiction, how is he to understand the harmony of the heavenly things "that it prefigured or represented," humm?

Get off your high horse. You are NOT more spiritually discerning than me. Don't make it about that. You are so puffed up with spiritual pride, it makes me sick. I am proof that you can interpret Daniel 9:27 the way I do without being a partial preterist. You are rightly against preterism, but you don't have to agree with everything they believe just because they might be right about a few things. Good grief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Christ, the Prince, gave the sign to the Jews (people of the prince) to destroy the temple, which speaks about the temple of his body that represents his congregation which is the city and the sanctuary. It is all about PEOPLE not physical stones. Boy, you are as blind as those Jews who thought He was speaking about the physical stones of the temple. LOL.

I don't need a babe in Christ like you to tell me how to interpret scripture. You understand me, baby boy?

You are the blind one here. You take spiritualizing scripture to a new level.

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

Jesus and His disciples went out of the temple. Is that saying they went out of PEOPLE? LOL. They pointed out the manner of stones and what buildings were there at the temple. Were they pointing at their own bodies? LOL. Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings?". Was He pointing out how great their bodies were? LOL. He said no stone would be left upon another. Was He saying no people would be left upon another? LOL. Your interpretation is a JOKE, boy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Christ, the Prince, gave the sign to the Jews (people of the prince) to destroy the temple, which speaks about the temple of his body that represents his congregation which is the city and the sanctuary. It is all about PEOPLE not physical stones. Boy, you are as blind as those Jews who thought He was speaking about the physical stones of the temple. LOL.

I don't need to take this nonsense from someone who thinks that Satan is not an actual spirit being (fallen angel). LOL. Talk about being blind! Wow.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, I will not. YOU explain it to me. I'm talking to YOU. Do you need someone else to explain it for you? That's weak.

It is your prerogative to read or not.

It does not say He was cut off at the end of the 62 weeks, it says He was cut off AFTER the 62 weeks. You are BUTCHERING the text BADLY.

The end of the 62 weeks and after 62 weeks mean the same thing. Christ's death comes after the 62 weeks which means it ended!

Daniel 9:27 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,

Hebrews 10:8 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; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

These scriptures line up perfectly. During the 70th week he would confirm the covenant with many. During the 70th week was His ministry, His death, resurrection and the preaching of the gospel first to the Jews before going to the Gentiles. In the midst of the 70th week he caused the old covenant sacrifice and the oblation to cease by making it obsolete with His blood that established the new covenant.

You don't get it and your timing is still wrong.

The Holy Temple, "representing" Christ today, is the corporate congregation. Just as the Holy Temple, "representing" Christ in Israel 2000+ years ago, was the corporate congregation of Israel. The place where God's people assembled, which is why we call it the assembly of God (the church). So we'll agree to disagree.

The thing to remember is that Christ specifically went to that Holy Temple where His people assembled, and He cast the "buyers and sellers" out illustrating they had no right to be there. Get it?! That act referencing prophecy (Jeremiah 7) of the judgment of Israel that said they had made His house of prayer, a den of robbers. And when those people in the assembly asked Him for a "SIGN" that He had the authority to do this, He plainly answered them with the sign of, "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up." Clearly, that was the sign of His authority to judge. That's not a coincidence, as God doesn't work like that. They surely thought He spoke of the literal building, but we obviously know that He spoke of Himself. Their killing Him would be the sign of their desolation. Not a literal city, nor a literal temple, but his literal rebellious people. They were THEMSELVES, were the city and Temple laid even with the ground. Christ was reiterating the prophecy of their fall, wherein destroying Him (whom their Holy Temple represented) would be the sign that He was the Messiah that would bring their Temple representation to desolation. And true to His word, that Temple was no longer representing the body of Christ. selah. i.e., they asked for a sign, and He plainly answered them with the sign they sought.

Consider wisely:

Luke 2:32-34

• "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
• And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
• And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a SIGN which shall be spoken against;"

See? Fall and Rising -- the destruction and restoration of the Holy Temple in Him! Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. The Sign that He had authority in that Holy Temple to cast out the buyers and Sellers, for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, was that He was the prophesied Christ who they would destroy, and who would rise again in three days bringing the restoration of Israel. Here is the synergy and consistency of Scripture when one looks deeper than mere physical bricks or stones of a city. Therefore, the Old Testament Holy Temple represented Christ just as the New Testament Holy Temple does in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2!! Just as surely as the Jewish people's sacrifice of a Lamb did, just as their High Priest did, and just as their nation called Israel did.

Referencing Scriptures:

Hebrews 9:26

• "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

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."

Hebrews 9:11-12

• "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;
• Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Hebrews 10:19-21

• "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
• By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
• And having an high priest over the house of God;"

We can't only limit the Holy Temple "representation" to the True church of God/Christ or the very elect. The Lord told us plainly that the stones of the Temple building, some were gold silver and presious stones, but others in that Temple building were also of wood hay and stubble and would be burned. In every congregation (Holy Temple) there are those who are truly saved, and those who are "not" truly saved. 2nd Thessalonians 2 makes that abundantly clear prophesying of the abomination of the lawless man sitting in it to rule "as if" He were God.

The Holy Temple always represented Christ Himself, and it was never limited to the church of God/Christ that were the very elect. For many are called but few chosen.

Any time the establishment of the new covenant is referenced in NT scripture it also references the old covenant animal sacrifices being taken away and made obsolete. Why would Daniel 9:27 be any different?

You misunderstood. Christ has taketh away the first, the Old Covenant Law through animal sacrifices and offerings, that they have no more practical significance to His people, that he may establish the second, sacrifice system with his own flesh and blood.) In other words, the two stand in contrast with each other. All of this happened at the Cross. He ended the first and established the second with his blood...at the beginning of the final week, the first day of the covenant week! Not in the midst of the week BECAUSE you are mistaken thinking the sacrifice and the obligation of verse 27 were the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings which is NOT correct to begin with!

LOL!!! That prophecy was fulfilled just as Jesus prophesied! We should be celebrating that and praising Him for foretelling what would happen exactly as it happened. Instead, you deny that it has happened! Unbelievable!

That is right, I deny your faulty interpreation. It was NOT animal sacrifice that ceased in the midst of the week AFTER Christ had confirmed a covenant with his blood in the beginning of the week! You got the carriage before the horse. You got the wrong sacrifice system to place in the midst of the week. Biblical fact!

It's utterly STUPID to think that no historical documents other than the Bible have any truth in them.

I take biblical history over any history "documents" any day because you do not have a spiritual understanding on what God's Word actually talked about!

I'm not taking Joseph's word over Christ's own words.

Hummmmm. Really?

Do you see the temple buidings still standing there anywhere? No.

LOL, in denial like those who believe in flat earth.

So, it's utterly ridiculous to doubt that the historical accounts of what happened in 70 AD. What reason would Josephus have had for making things up?

Because the events surrounding 70AD were not what Chris talked about! You got wrong temple. Wrong people. And wrong sarac ifice system! You dont like this because it went against your flawed amillennial doctrine with the seasonings of preterism that relies on "70AD historical documents."

 

[TribulationSigns]

I don't need a babe in Christ like you to tell me how to interpret scripture. You understand me, baby boy?

Is that the best you can do to respond?

You are the blind one here. You take spiritualizing scripture to a new level.

You mean spiritual discerned? Thank you.

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

Jesus and His disciples went out of the temple. Is that saying they went out of PEOPLE? LOL. They pointed out the manner of stones and what buildings were there at the temple. Were they pointing at their own bodies? LOL. Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings?". Was He pointing out how great their bodies were? LOL. He said no stone would be left upon another. Was He saying no people would be left upon another? LOL. Your interpretation is a JOKE, boy.

(Smile).

The truth is a lot of Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Premillennialists and Preterists theologians cling to the theory of the physical temple falling. It is the "easy" thing to believe since the Jewish temple was indeed destroyed by the Romans in 70AD. So it is easy for theologians to ignore or justify the fact that it doesn't "actually" fit with all the requirements of the actual text of prophecy. To cover this they say things like Christ was speaking in hyperbole, or it was actually exaggerated for effect, or it wasn't literally meant that not one stone would be left standing. However, isn't that their whole point--that it was "literally" fulfilled in 70 AD? To be honest, it's a product of sloppy exegesis, or often even eisegesis. But it really doesn't matter how many hold this, because as Oneil so accurately stated (and I fully agree) consensus has "never" been the arbiter or the determining factor for truth. If it were, then we'd be worshipping in the Jewish synagogues and denying Christ, like the vast majority of national Israel. A consensus of those calling themselves children of God is not what we look for.

Consistency with Scripture alone is.

Thus 70 AD cannot rationally be the fulfillment of that particular prophesy "IF" it was meant of the Physical buildings of the Temple being thrown down.

Mark 13:1-2

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

And before you start rationalizing how those stones were not of the main Temple building like so many others, please pay careful attention that Christ spoke not only of the Temple, its buildings, but also of all the buildings of the ENTIRE Holy City Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Now, logically speaking, "IF" Christ was really addressing the physical stones of the Temple and the physical Holy City Jerusalem, then it is ridiculous to say 70 AD qualifies since we all know that many many stones are left standing one upon another to this very day 2000+ years later. And "hyperbole" is just a word used when someone doesn't like exactly what Christ said. He was very specific, not one stone left standing one upon another. The "ONLY" Holy City and Temple that could meet that criteria is the corporate congregation of the nation of Israel. Not the Physical building, but as they were the building of God to whom pertained the Covenants before the cross. But not after. Hello??

That should settle it, but of course it won't because like you, a myriad of professing Christians choose to cling to these ideas supported by Josephus' writings and Church traditions as if they were gold. Well, Josephus' words aren't Gold, but God's Word is. It always gets back to "authority" of God's word or man's.

Revelation 3:18

• "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

That's not physical gold you can purchase in the church, neither physical clothing nor eyesalve. But you know that. How is it you can discern the face of the sky, but can not discern the signs of the times, humm?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I don't need to take this nonsense from someone who thinks that Satan is not an actual spirit being (fallen angel). LOL. Talk about being blind! Wow.

LOL. Say someone who does not have a spiritual understanding of who or what Satan really is.

There was no spirit of disobedience before Adam and Eve sinned. To have a disobedient spirit one has to violate God's law. Before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no violation of God's law, right? God tells us all his creation, including Adam and Eve, were perfect before they sinned by violating God's law. That was the introduction of the spirit of disobedience. Once they disobeyed, they had a spirit in the flesh that plunged man into bondage to that sin. And that spirit name is, guess what? Satan! And mankind remains in that bondage until Christ made atonement, overcoming that spirit in us. Where the Word of God resides in us, there is no spirit of disobedience.

1Jo 2:14
"I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

We have overcome that spirit of wickedness, Satan!

But of course, thanks to our Sunday School, we have been taught over and over and over that God created Satan (Lucifer) as a created being in heaven, guarding the throne of God, where he eventually became rebellious and was cast out of heaven with the angels to deceive that poor woman. Nope. Never happened like this, but I understand why it's hard for us to undo what you have learned and find out exactly what God's says in Scripture
.
But if it's nonsense to you. Fine. Like I said, you have not been enlightened yet. I will continue teaching what I understand, whether you like it or not, Lord willing. But I won't discuss about Satan here as it is not the right thread.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is your prerogative to read or not.

I'm sure it's as accurate as you think the writings of Josephus are.

The end of the 62 weeks and after 62 weeks mean the same thing.

LOL. Is this some kind of prank you're trying to pull on me? Did you never take English in school? Show me a definition of the word "after" that means "at the end of" or that it has to mean "immediately after". Good luck.

If I say that I'm going to mow the lawn after work, does that mean I'm saying I'm going to mow the lawn at the end of the time that I'm still working? No. After never means "at the end of" something. It means something ends and then some time after that something else happens.

Does my saying I'm going to mow the lawn after work mean I'm saying that I'm going to mow the lawn immediately after work is over or some time after work is over? The latter, right? It could be immediately or it could be an hour or two or more later. Why are you trying to create a definition for the word "after" that doesn't exist? It never means "at the end of" and the word is never defined to mean "immediately after". Something can occur immediately after something else, but it doesn't have to happen immediately after.

Christ's death comes after the 62 weeks which means it ended!

No, it means His death occurs some time after the 62 weeks end and it doesn't have to be immediately after. You're failing Grammar 101 here.

You misunderstood. Christ has taketh away the first, the Old Covenant Law through animal sacrifices and offerings, that they have no more practical significance to His people, that he may establish the second, sacrifice system with his own flesh and blood.) In other words, the two stand in contrast with each other. All of this happened at the Cross.

Hello? That's what I'm saying! I've said it several times now! You have no reading comprehension skills.

He ended the first and established the second with his blood...at the beginning of the final week, the first day of the covenant week!

No! Daniel 9:27 says He did that in the midst of the 70th week. You're still asleep. Nap time is over. Time for you to wake up!

Not in the midst of the week BECAUSE you are mistaken thinking the sacrifice and the obligation of verse 27 were the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings which is NOT correct to begin with!

No, I am not! Just like in Hebrews 8:6-7 and Hebrews 10:8-10, Daniel 9:27 references both the establishment of the new covenant and the old covenant being taken away and made obsolete.

That is right, I deny your faulty interpreation. It was NOT animal sacrifice that ceased in the midst of the week AFTER Christ had confirmed a covenant with his blood in the beginning of the week! You got the carriage before the horse. You got the wrong sacrifice system to place in the midst of the week. Biblical fact!

Wrong Biblical opinion!

I take biblical history over any history "documents" any day because you do not have a spiritual understanding on what God's Word actually talked about!

LOL. So, because of your ridiculous belief that no historical documents contain any facts, you automatically make it impossible for any Bible prophecies to have been fulfilled between Christ's resurrection and today.

How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? Hmmm? Maybe he wasn't for all we know? What can we base that on? How do we know that any person named Napolean Bonaparte was ever the Emperor of France? Hmmm? Maybe that is made up, eh?

How do you know that the Protestant Reformation occurred in the 1500s? Maybe it didn't actually happen for all we know, right?

Hummmmm. Really?

Yes, really. Unless you can show me that the temple buildings are still standing in Jerusalem? Good luck, boy!

LOL, in denial like those who believe in flat earth.

Oh, are you saying the temple buildings are still standing in Jerusalem? Do you believe in Big Foot and aliens, too?

Because the events surrounding 70AD were not what Chris talked about! You got wrong temple. Wrong people. And wrong sarac ifice system! You dont like this because it went against your flawed amillennial doctrine with the seasonings of preterism that relies on "70AD historical documents."

LOL at "seasonings of preterism". Oh no, I believe some Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the past! How could I believe such a thing? Well, you believe that, too. You believe all the prophecies about Christ's first coming were fulfilled. Should I say that your doctrine is flawed because you believe some Bible prophecy is fulfilled? LOL. What a joke.