When was the A.O.D fulfilled?

[CTK]

No, the only person mentioned in Daniel 9 was Jesus. Jesus is the Prince to come, small "p" or not.

Daniel 9:27 is the week of days of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.

To confirm a Covenant is not creating one. It is making it strong at a time when it seems the weakest. That is time is during the days of the 7th Trumpet. At that point billions on earth have already been tossed alive into the LOF. The many are those still left on earth who may have a chance at redemption. They are still in the Lamb's book of life, that is why the Atonement Covenant is strengthened at that point. Unfortunately one will have to chop their head off as their testimony of faith.

Salvation is taken away as symbolized by the words "daily sacrifice". Satan will have full authority, and Jesus and the 144k retreat to heavenly Mount Zion, to return 42 months later on white horses at Armageddon.

Daniel 9:27 is not about Jesus as Messiah in the first century, but as Prince at the Second Coming. The Prince to come is the Second Coming. His people the Jews destroyed their own city. The Romans just removed the walls and were disgusted at the inside after months of civil infighting within the walls, while the Romans were camped outside. They had turned into cannibals eating their own dead. There was nothing left to salvage.

Sorry, I don't agree. Chapter 9 is all about the restoration that began in 457 BC and ends in the last week of the prophecy when the Messiah goes to the cross. The two "restorative" verses (24-25) speak of the restoration process, while the two "destructive" verses (26-27) speak of their destruction.

There is nothing within Daniel that talks about Satan or an anti-christ figure. However, the little horn is spoken of in the latter chapters of Daniel. Can't miss him..... unless you want to.

But we are all entitiled to our own opinions.

 

[covenantee]

This "prince" is the coming of the little horn (papacy) who would appropriate His church after the fall of pagan Rome. He would rule over His church and continue until he is destroyed without human hands at the time of the end.

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9:24-27.

He is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come" in verse 26, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of the "He's" in verse 27.

Messiah the Prince did come, circa 1-2 centuries after Daniel wrote.

Verses 26-27 describe what He would do. He confirmed His covenant, and caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, in the middle of the 70th week at Calvary. In 70 AD, He destroyed Jerusalem, using the abominable Roman armies as His people of judgment and desolation (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20) upon apostate Israel.

None of what is described in verses 26-27 can be applied to the papacy.

However, the papacy certainly does appear as the little horn, in Daniel 7.

 

[CTK]

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9:24-27.

He is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come" in verse 26, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of the "He's" in verse 27.

Messiah the Prince did come, circa 1-2 centuries after Daniel wrote.

Verses 26-27 describe what He would do. He confirmed His covenant, and caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, in the middle of the 70th week at Calvary. In 70 AD, He destroyed Jerusalem, using the abominable Roman armies as His people of judgment and desolation (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20) upon apostate Israel.

None of what is described in verses 26-27 can be applied to the papacy.

However, the papacy certainly does appear as the little horn, in Daniel 7.

I don’t think so. The PEOPLE of the prince who is trying come shall destroy the city…

The people who destroyed the city in 70 AD was the people under Titus of pagan Rome.

The “prince” who is to come who will rule over these same people is the little horn.

Regarding your following the rules found in the English language does not always apply in the Scriptures.

You also might want to try and construct a “chiastic” diagram for these 4 verses.

The Messiah the Prince is revealed in a “restorative” verse and in a “destructive” verse (without the “Prince” attached).

The Messiah is not referred to as a prince after the cross. This one who comes after the cross, and well afte 70 AD IS referred to as a prince(small p) because he represents the little horn who will come to rule over those who destroyed the city AND will think of himself as a prince like power.

God would not refer to the Messiah as one who rules over those that destroy His city.

 

[tailgator]

Those verses concern the church prior to the Second Coming.

The beheaded are after the Second Coming, not the church prior to the Second Coming.


You need to establish when the Second Coming happens. Why do you have the church on the earth after the Second Coming?

The Second Coming is not the end. Jesus and the angels are on the earth before the end. The Second Coming already happened prior to any ending you address. The church is not on the earth all the way to any end.

False
The verses I quoted are about Jesus's disciples in the land of Israel being killed before the second coming.It has nothing to do with christians in any other part of the world.
They are about the disciples of Jesus who do not worship the beast ,or it's image nor receive it's mark.

Notice,they can't buy anything in the verses I quoted.

 

[covenantee]

I don’t think so. The PEOPLE of the prince who is trying come shall destroy the city…

The people who destroyed the city in 70 AD was the people under Titus of pagan Rome.

The “prince” who is to come who will rule over these same people is the little horn.

Regarding your following the rules found in the English language does not always apply in the Scriptures.

The PEOPLE of the prince were the PEOPLE of Messiah the Prince, the only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

They were the Roman armies, whom He conscripted as His people to bring judgment and desolation upon apostate Israel.

They were under the command and control of Messiah. Titus himself recognized it:
"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?" (Wars of the Jews 6.9.1)

None of what is described in Daniel 9:27 can be attributed to Titus, or to the papacy. Scripturally, historically, and grammatically, it can only be attributed to Messiah the Prince.

The Reformers recognized the papacy in Daniel 7, but not in Daniel 9.

Correct grammar is universally applicable, both outside and inside of Scripture. Denial results in the chaotic interpretations characteristic of modernist dispensationalism's delusions and deceptions.

 

[CTK]

The PEOPLE of the prince were the PEOPLE of Messiah the Prince, the only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

They were the Roman armies, whom He conscripted as His people to bring judgment and desolation upon apostate Israel.

They were under the command and control of Messiah. Titus himself recognized it:
"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?" (Wars of the Jews 6.9.1)

None of what is described in Daniel 9:27 can be attributed to Titus, or to the papacy. Scripturally, historically, and grammatically, it can only be attributed to Messiah the Prince.

The Reformers recognized the papacy in Daniel 7, but not in Daniel 9.

Correct grammar is universally applicable, both outside and inside of Scripture. Denial results in the chaotic interpretations characteristic of modernist dispensationalism's delusions and deceptions.

Okay.

 

[CTK]

Okay.

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9:24-27.

He is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come" in verse 26, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of the "He's" in verse 27.

Messiah the Prince did come, circa 1-2 centuries after Daniel wrote.

Verses 26-27 describe what He would do. He confirmed His covenant, and caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, in the middle of the 70th week at Calvary. In 70 AD, He destroyed Jerusalem, using the abominable Roman armies as His people of judgment and desolation (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20) upon apostate Israel.

None of what is described in verses 26-27 can be applied to the papacy.

However, the papacy certainly does appear as the little horn, in Daniel 7.

Oh, I forgot to mention the Messiah is first mentioned in the "destructive" verse of 26, and this "prince" of the people who will come will destroy the city / sanctuary.

So, we have the restoration verses for the city / sanctuary / Messiah in 25, and the "destructive" verses for the city / sanctuary / Messiah in 26.

This "prince" (small p) is part of the destructive process of the physical elements - the city, the sanctuary, etc. The Messiah was cut off in the previous line.

This mention of the "prince" who is to come of pagan Rome, ties in perfectly with Chapters 7, 8 and 11.

The Messiah will return as a KING, but this little horn (prince) will come some 500 years after the cross and continue until His second return.

 

[covenantee]

Oh, I forgot to mention the Messiah is first mentioned in the "destructive" verse of 26

Messiah the Prince is first mentioned in verse 25.

this "prince" of the people who will come will destroy the city / sanctuary.

The people of the prince were the Roman armies who destroyed the city and sanctuary, under the command and control of Messiah the Prince. In the passage, Messiah was both "the Prince" and "the prince".

So, we have the restoration verses for the city / sanctuary / Messiah in 25

The restoration was completed before Messiah came.

the "destructive" verses for the city / sanctuary / Messiah in 26.

The destruction was carried out under the command and control of Messiah.

This mention of the "prince" who is to come of pagan Rome, ties in perfectly with Chapters 7, 8 and 11.

That prince did not do anything described in Daniel 9:27. Only Messiah did.

The Messiah will return as a KING, but this little horn (prince) will come some 500 years after the cross and continue until His second return.

Messiah came at His first coming between one and two centuries after Daniel wrote his prophecy.

 

[CTK]

Messiah the Prince is first mentioned in verse 25.

The people of the prince were the Roman armies who destroyed the city and sanctuary, under the command and control of Messiah the Prince. In the passage, Messiah was both "the Prince" and "the prince".

The restoration was completed before Messiah came.

The destruction was carried out under the command and control of Messiah.

That prince did not do anything described in Daniel 9:27. Only Messiah did.

Messiah came at His first coming between one and two centuries after Daniel wrote his prophecy.

I guess we will simply agree to disagree. No problem.

 

[Timtofly]

The people who destroyed the city in 70 AD was the people under Titus of pagan Rome.

The Romans destroyed the walls. The Jews destroyed their own city.

The walls were mentioned as being rebuilt. But not mentioned in the destruction. The Jews destroyed their city and their sanctuary.

Josephus says it is unclear who set the Temple (sanctuary) on fire. If a Roman did, it was in direct disobedience to Titus who commanded that the Temple not be destroyed. So why do you think it normal that any one under Titus would violate a direct command? Some say that a Jew started the fire to prevent Titus from setting up an ensign in defilement of the Temple, or worse yet using the Temple for a pagan diety.

It is very plausible that Titus would have never destroy the Temple, but appropriate the Temple to his Roman diety of choice. Yet Gabriel said that Jesus' own people would destroy the city and sanctuary, agreeing with the actual historical record. The Temple mount was the last wall standing for that very reason. There are still the original foundation stones. The walls of the Temple mount only breached after the Temple was burned to the ground. The Romans came in through the western walls through the city, not from the east directly into the Temple mount. Parts of the Roman fortress annexed to the Temple, was the only thing left standing.

The city was being destroyed from within, over the months the Romans laid seige, waiting for those inside to be consumed by hunger and plague. Along with all the infighting among the Jews themselves.

 

[Timtofly]

False
The verses I quoted are about Jesus's disciples in the land of Israel being killed before the second coming.It has nothing to do with christians in any other part of the world.
They are about the disciples of Jesus who do not worship the beast ,or it's image nor receive it's mark.

Notice,they can't buy anything in the verses I quoted.

You quoted Matthew 10. That was not an end time prophecy but a command to the church.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

How can you say those 12 are still alive today?

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."

This was given to the broader church to continue generation after generation.

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

You do know that there are Palestinian Christians yet today persecuted by Israel?

Jesus had said that the Gospel would not have gone over all the cities until the Son of man returned.

The Gospel had to overcome the religion that had permeated His country which was the beginnings of Judaism. Organized religion was unheard of because God did appear each year in the Holy of Holies until the Cross. God did have a personal relationship with what was left of Israel. Religion is humans trying to attempt a relationship outside of the Gospel, that is an imagination of the mind. Religion makes up things that they think God desires and then puts that doctrine into every day practice. A personal relationship with God, should be real and honest not imagined "doctrines of man".

The point is that the Gospel had to overcome these human perceptions of God, from people who would persecute and kill, those offering the Gospel, which is a direct relationship with God.

Judaism became a religion, because there was already the "middleman" of the priesthood standing between God and man. And especially after the Cross, and the destruction of the Temple, 40 years later.

Up until the 20th century there were Christians scattered throughout Palestine, because Judaism was practically wiped out of Palestine by the Romans, while Christians seemed barely a threat to the Romans. In fact Christianity as a religion was eventually adopted by the Romans, and then the persecution against Christians was from Christianity, itself. In the last 70 years Christians have once again been displaced by Israel moving in and taking over the land that they had been driven from by the Romans.

I am not saying your point is irrelevant. I am saying it is true again today, but for a totally different generation, not the one addressed in Matthew 10. You cannot apply the mark of the beast nor that economy back onto those in the first century. You cannot say that Jesus was being prophetic and then insert Revelation into Matthew 10.

What those in the first century faced is being faced once more in this century. And it is still not because of the mark and Satan's economic policy. Satan is not a current one world leader. No one nation nor human is.

BTW, each generation is admonished to endure and remain faithful to the end, because no generation knew if they were the last. Obviously, Jesus never said, "OK, I will return in 2,000 years. That last generation should be faithful and the rest of you all can do as you please." Endurance through tribulation, until the end, was true for every single generation, not just that first generation, and the last generation at the Second Coming.

 

[tailgator]

You quoted Matthew 10. That was not an end time prophecy but a command to the church.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

How can you say those 12 are still alive today?

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."

This was given to the broader church to continue generation after generation.

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."

You do know that there are Palestinian Christians yet today persecuted by Israel?

Jesus had said that the Gospel would not have gone over all the cities until the Son of man returned.

The Gospel had to overcome the religion that had permeated His country which was the beginnings of Judaism. Organized religion was unheard of because God did appear each year in the Holy of Holies until the Cross. God did have a personal relationship with what was left of Israel. Religion is humans trying to attempt a relationship outside of the Gospel, that is an imagination of the mind. Religion makes up things that they think God desires and then puts that doctrine into every day practice. A personal relationship with God, should be real and honest not imagined "doctrines of man".

The point is that the Gospel had to overcome these human perceptions of God, from people who would persecute and kill, those offering the Gospel, which is a direct relationship with God.

Judaism became a religion, because there was already the "middleman" of the priesthood standing between God and man. And especially after the Cross, and the destruction of the Temple, 40 years later.

Up until the 20th century there were Christians scattered throughout Palestine, because Judaism was practically wiped out of Palestine by the Romans, while Christians seemed barely a threat to the Romans. In fact Christianity as a religion was eventually adopted by the Romans, and then the persecution against Christians was from Christianity, itself. In the last 70 years Christians have once again been displaced by Israel moving in and taking over the land that they had been driven from by the Romans.

I am not saying your point is irrelevant. I am saying it is true again today, but for a totally different generation, not the one addressed in Matthew 10. You cannot apply the mark of the beast nor that economy back onto those in the first century. You cannot say that Jesus was being prophetic and then insert Revelation into Matthew 10.

What those in the first century faced is being faced once more in this century. And it is still not because of the mark and Satan's economic policy. Satan is not a current one world leader. No one nation nor human is.

BTW, each generation is admonished to endure and remain faithful to the end, because no generation knew if they were the last. Obviously, Jesus never said, "OK, I will return in 2,000 years. That last generation should be faithful and the rest of you all can do as you please." Endurance through tribulation, until the end, was true for every single generation, not just that first generation, and the last generation at the Second Coming.

Mathew 10
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.


Sure these things are about end times when Christ comes. And the things which mathew wrote before of the these things happen to his apostles he sends forth.
You believe those 12 apostles died in Jerusalem?
Or do you believe these apostles in this verse are other apostles Jesus sends forth who die in Jerusalem?

Mathew 23:34
Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Keep in mind.These things in this verse are also in Mathew 10.