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

[TribulationSigns]

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins; YLT

Good job. Many are the Election!

The birth of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The ministry of Messiah was physical and spiritual events.
The death of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The resurrection of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The ascension of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.

The desolation of Jerusalem by Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.

Get used to it.

Physical and spiritual event? LOL

 

[Truth7t7]

Thanks for the guffaws.

You haven't answered a single one of Spiritual Israelite's questions.

What are you afraid of this time?

You have clearly been shown that your claimed 70AD great tribulation in Matthew 24:15 is a complete farce, the event is future unfulfilled

Reformed Preterist Eschatology Is A "Lie"

 

[covenantee]

Good job. Many are the Election!




Physical and spiritual event? LOL

Was the birth of Messiah a physical and spiritual event?

 

[covenantee]

You have clearly been shown that your claimed 70AD great tribulation in Matthew 24:15 is a complete farce, the event is future unfulfilled

Reformed Preterist Eschatology Is A "Lie"

Jesuit futurist eschatology is cowardice.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Really

That was not Jesus.

The Bible said otherwise.

Jesus never confirmed a covenant for 1 week. He fulfilled a covenant he was sent to confirm. An eternal covenant

One week? When did the covenant with many ended? Honestly??

lol

Jesus was sent to the world. so whoever in the world believes will be saved.

No.

Joh 3:16-17
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Mat 1:21
(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luk 1:68
(68) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Joh 3:16-17
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

So no, God did not love everyone in the world, else why did He hate Esau before he was even born? Humm?

 

[TribulationSigns]

lol

1. He confirmed a covenant for 1 week.

In the middle of the week, he caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

No you want me to believe in the cross he confirmed a covenant, and then at the same time 3.5 years later, his same death caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease?

Come on man.. Your not helping..

Can't help you because you everything wrong. First, how did the covenant get confirmed? Make strengthened? Or become a force? Think it was baptism? No, you need to read Hebrew 9 again.

 

[TribulationSigns]

lol

1. He confirmed a covenant for 1 week.

In the middle of the week, he caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

No you want me to believe in the cross he confirmed a covenant, and then at the same time 3.5 years later, his same death caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease?

Come on man.. Your not helping..

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your doctrine, you believe Christ confirmed a covenant at Baptist, then 3.5 years later, he caused the literal sacrifice and burnt offering at the Cross, then 3.5 years later, what happened at the consummation say for example in 36AD, humm?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Assuming you are correct, why would the text list that last when it is the very first thing a view such as yours has being accomplished?

Because there is no indication that it was listing those things in the order they would be accomplished. Why would you assume that would be the case?

You have that accomplished first, something last on the to do list, meaning there are still 5 more things to accomplish if that is accomplished first. Something not right about that picture, that the last thing on the list is the very first thing accomplished, being the point.

There's something not right about you making assumptions about what the text is saying. Where does it indicate that it was listing those things in the order that they would be accomplished? There is nothing there to indicate as such.

If I'm not mistaken I think some take the most holy to be meaning the most holy place. And if that is correct to do so, the OT never has the most holy place to be meaning a person as far as I can tell. Or if it does, I guess I never noticed.

The Hebrew word translated as "the most holy" means "holy". So, it can used to refer to the most holy place, as in the temple, or to anything or anyone that is holy, including Jesus. So, it's left to interpretation which is why not everyone agrees as to what it is referring to.

But, to me, if it was talking about a physical temple, I don't see any way it could be talking about a temple being anointed in the future. What would that even mean and how would that occur? The onus is on those who believe the anointing of the most holy will occur in the future to explain that. Meanwhile, those of us who believe it is talking about the anointing of the Most Holy One, Jesus, have scripture to back up our view in terms of the fact that it teaches that He was anointed long ago.

But, let's say it was referring to the most holy place. That still wouldn't mean it has to be talking about a physical temple. As Jeff pointed out, it could be referring to the most holy place in heaven (or referring to the most holy place in a figurative or spiritual sense) like we see here:

Hebrews 9:11 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; 12 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.

Another thing to consider is that if the other five things listed are fulfilled by Jesus, then why wouldn't that one be fulfilled by Jesus as well?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Even though I'm Premil, yet unlike typical Premils that don't agree that the 2nd coming is when the NHNE begin, I OTOH agree with Amils in this case, that it does. Right or wrong, at least it can fit my view.

How can it fit your view if we're talking in terms of everlasting righteousness being brought in literally when Christ returns? How does that fit with your belief that the following would occur after His return?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

How can a number as the sand of the sea oppose "the camp of the saints" AFTER everlasting righteousness has literally been brought in? Seems like a whole lot of unrighteousness going on there with Satan leading the way. So much for everlasting righteousness having been supposedly literally brought in before that.

It can even fit your view except you seem unable or unwilling to interpret the 70 weeks in any other manner, thus it can only be interpreted in a Preterist manner. Anything else is out of the question, period.

How can it fit my view? And why am I supposedly unable or unwilling to interpret the 70 weeks in any other manner? I interpret it the way I do because I believe it fits with the rest of scripture. Who are you to tell me what I'm able or willing to do? Clearly, it's possible to interpret that particular passage "in a Preterist manner" without being a preterist (since I am not a preterist), so I don't know why you are so offended that anyone would interpret it that way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your doctrine, you believe Christ confirmed a covenant at Baptist, then 3.5 years later, he caused the literal sacrifice and burnt offering at the Cross, then 3.5 years later, what happened at the consummation say for example in 36AD, humm?

I don't know how, but you are completely misunderstanding his view. He doesn't even believe Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus, but thinks it's about an Antichrist confirming a 7 year covenant (peace treaty?) in the future instead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was right all along.. You can;t admit that? I never changed my stance on what you said.

I never said you were wrong about it, so you're getting all bent out of shape about nothing. I said all along that I believe Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus. How can you have missed that?

You are bearing false witness, You should be ashamed of yourself. and you should repent.. I am sick of being falsly accused of doing something I have never done,

No, I am not. You are acting as if I denied that I believe Daniel 9:27 is about Jesus and I never did any such thing. Why would I do that? That makes no sense. You are the one bearing false witness and you are the one who should be ashamed of yourself and repent of your lying.

if you can not be honest, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I've been honest all along. You're the one being dishonest.

I refuse to try to discuss the word with someone who has to bear false witness in order to try to convince himself he is right.

Look in the mirror. You are accusing me of doing what you are doing. It's unbelievable.

The Prince of rome, whos people destroyed the city is the last person to be spoken about,

But, he is not in focus in that verse. The people of the prince are in focus. So, even if the prince of verse 26 wasn't talking about the Messiah (I believe it is, but I know you'll never accept that which is why I'm speaking from this perspective instead), verse 27 is still talking about the Messiah.

What if we used the way you're interpreting Daniel 9:26-27 and applied the same approach to this passage (keep in mind I'm not saying this passage is related to Daniel 9:26-27, I'm just making a point about your grammatical approach to that passage):

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Whose coming is being referenced in verse 9? The last person to be mentioned is the Lord ("the brightness of his coming refers to the Lord's coming). Using the same kind of logic you're using in Daniel 9:26-27 to conclude that Daniel 9:27 is referring to the prince mentioned in verse 26, we'd have to conclude that "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" is referring to the Lord! God forbid! But, we know it's instead referring back to the Lord even though He wasn't the last individual mentioned before that. See how your faulty human logic doesn't work and we instead need to use discernment and interpret things in context?

lol. Now I have heard everything

He will confirm a covenant for one week. But it does not have to be one week, it could be any amount of time acytually, including for all time..

You're not even trying to see my point. Does that say "He will confirm a covenant that will last for one week"? No. But, you're acting as if that is what it says. It is the confirming of the covenant that takes one week, not the covenant itself. Your doctrinal bias is leading you to act as if it says "He will confirm a covenant that will last for one week", but that is not what it says. Instead, it's saying that He will confirm a covenant and it will take one week to confirm it. The duration of the covenant is not specified there no matter how badly you want it to be.

My friend, if you have to believe this to convince yourself. feel free. But do not expect others who are open minded to believe that a one week covenant may not be one week.

You are assuming the covenant has a one week duration. The text itself does not say that, as I've shown. It is the confirming of the covenant that occurs for one week.

ONE WEEK.

That is what the word days, And I am rediculous because I take one week to mean one week.

Why do you have to be so childish about this? I am not saying that the reference to one week is anything but one week. This is why I call you a liar because you constantly misrepresent my view. The one week is indeed one week and not any other period of time (with the understanding we both have that the one week represents seven years). That isn't what we are disagreeing about. We are disagreeing about what occurs during that one week. I say that the confirming of the eternal new covenant is what occurs during the one week and you say that the covenant itself lasts for one week.

I can not go on any furthur.. I thouight the phariusees were bad. But now I have seen everything.

I am moving on.. I can not take anything you say serious anymore

You can't refute anything I'm saying. All you can do is throw childish temper tantrums in response. Comparing me to the Pharisees? Are you saying I'm not a Christian? The Pharisees rejected Christ. Am I somehow rejecting Christ just because I disagree with you on an interpretation of one prophecy? Are you serious?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, Matthew 26:28 is for only 1 week.

I see you're already flunking your English lesson.

That covenant is not the same covenant.

But keep talking., You keep increasing my faith that I am right, and decrease any possibility of me coming to your view..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"...and through you ALL the families of the Earth shall be blessed".

The New Covenant has always been about EVERYONE, not just Israel.

This is not about the new covenant,

Have you read daniel 9 : 1- 19? I can't believe you have, because you would not keep misunderstanding what and who the 70 weeks are about

That temple stood in the shadow of the coming Messiah.

YOUR "FUTURE REBUILT TEMPLE" will stand in the inescapable darkness of the prince of darkness.

I am not worried about what it will do.

I am worried about the fact God said it will be, and that it will be used, and it will be defiled.

I just take God at his word.

No He won't! He will rule over the "temple of God" - the church when He comes into His kingdom!

He will rule over the whole world. He will rule in Jerusalem. He will rule from the temple.

In fact. all the families of the world will come once a year to worship. Failure to do so will cause God to punish that family

Do you understand English? I said a thing that is promised no longer requires confirmation of the promise when the promise is finally fulfilled.

Yes I read English, I also understand nonsense when I see it..

Your trying to excuse it away.. I just take what it says and believe it.

You will not find a single verse that says the New Covenant is confirmed for all eternity - what is eternal is the New Covenant itself, not the process of confirming it, which was 7 years, and in case you missed it:

It was confirmed in one day.

Jesus did not hang on a cross for 7 years.

How long did it come up for you to come up with this, or is it what you were taught??

You don't continue confirming a hotel reservation after you've checked out and left.

What's that got to do with the 7 year process of confirming the promise of a New Covenant which is now a reality for us?

IT DOES NOT SAY IT WILL TAKE 7 YEARS. IT SAYS THE COVENANT IS CONFIRMED FOR 7 YEARS.. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO READ ENGLISH????

That's exaclty what I said, bro! The promise of New Covenant Salvation was to be confirmed by Jesus for the Jews ("thy people and thy holy city") so they could take the Good News Gospel to the world after it had been carried to all Israel - did not Jesus tell them to "go not the way of the Gentiles, but first go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"? After having been fully confirmed to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", the New Covenant finally was opened to "all the families of the Earth" so they could "be blessed" with salvation...RIGHT OR WRONG?

Excuse me sir but the gentiles have been part of the covenant since before the formation of Israel (see ninevah and other gentile believers)

The covenant God had with the nation of Israel however. is a different promise altogether.

Replacement theology is not a valid theology, it is flawed. and rejects that God keeps his promises

They will never be restored as a nation - read Isaiah 5, for heaven's sake.

lol.. read Lev 26, Ezek 37, Jer 23, Jer 31, Jer 33, I can go on and on and on..

The church is now the "Israel of God" while your Israel suffers "wrath...to the uttermost".

The church has been since the beginning of time.. Israel was in charge, then the gentiles came to be in charge, But Paul made it clear that we gentiles should not boast.. That God is not done, in fact. All israel will be saved. and it will be restored (romans 11)

Your not the israel of God. Your the Body of God, (if your saved)

Did they not cry, "His blood be upon us and our children FOREVER?"

Are not "all the promises of God yea and amen in Christ"?

Did He not "confirm the promises of the fathers" in Zechariah and other books for Himself and those who follow?

I am worried about what Daniel 9 says, and who it is written to. and the false application and interpretation of it.

 

[wooddog]

Oh really?

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.

And this Prince did confirm the Covenant with many, and it was that same Prince Messiah in that same context. Not an evil prince, not the prince Titus, not the Antichrist of future events, but the same Messiah the Prince that was spoken of in that verse. In our exegesis, which is the one where scripture interprets scripture, the only prince mentioned there (according to God's word) is Messiah, the anointed.

So who are the "many" in verse 27 that Christ confirmed a convent with, humm? (note: not for everyone in the whole world as you alleged.) The answer is the Election in Christ, to whom the promise pertain to, in Christ Jesus!

Galatians 3:15-16

• "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
• 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."

Only In Christ can "the many" be of the Covenant. Thus, the many are all who are in Christ Jesus. His chosen people, not everyone in the world.

Romans 11:27

• "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

It is the election, who have their sins taken away in Christ! This is whom the Lord made a covenant with. Now with everyone else in the world. Selah!




Not Abrahamic Covenant.

Not Mosaic Covenant.

It is a NEW covenant - an eternal covenant with many (His People, not everyone on the world). Selah.



Break? Where did it say in Daniel 9:27? No. He (Christ) caused the sacrifice and the oblation necessarily for salvation to cease now that He has secured all Elect for salvation, Revelation 7:1-4. The sacrifice simply ended, not breaking the covenant itself which is eternal! Oh boy!

I get it now, since this new covenant was only for one week it has ceased to be in effect and the prophecy is complete, no gaps whatsoever. Is this what you imply?

 

[Davidpt]

Oh really?

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.

And this Prince did confirm the Covenant with many, and it was that same Prince Messiah in that same context. Not an evil prince, not the prince Titus, not the Antichrist of future events, but the same Messiah the Prince that was spoken of in that verse. In our exegesis, which is the one where scripture interprets scripture, the only prince mentioned there (according to God's word) is Messiah, the anointed.

So who are the "many" in verse 27 that Christ confirmed a convent with, humm? (note: not for everyone in the whole world as you alleged.) The answer is the Election in Christ, to whom the promise pertain to, in Christ Jesus!

Galatians 3:15-16

• "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
• 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."

Only In Christ can "the many" be of the Covenant. Thus, the many are all who are in Christ Jesus. His chosen people, not everyone in the world.

Romans 11:27

• "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

It is the election, who have their sins taken away in Christ! This is whom the Lord made a covenant with. Now with everyone else in the world. Selah!




Not Abrahamic Covenant.

Not Mosaic Covenant.

It is a NEW covenant - an eternal covenant with many (His People, not everyone on the world). Selah.



Break? Where did it say in Daniel 9:27? No. He (Christ) caused the sacrifice and the oblation necessarily for salvation to cease now that He has secured all Elect for salvation, Revelation 7:1-4. The sacrifice simply ended, not breaking the covenant itself which is eternal! Oh boy!

IMO, since you are participating in this thread you need to make it crystal clear to the rest of us what your view is. Right now I am unable to make heads or tails as to what your view is. So that way we can know what you are arguing 'for' and what you are arguing 'against'. I'm mainly interested in knowing what you re applying the following to. We'll call the former A), the latter B).

A) 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.

What time period are you applying this to? 70 AD or something else? The prince that shall come, who are you taking that to mean here and how is that connected with the time period you have this involving?

B) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Do you agree or disagree that these events take place during the 2nd half of the 70th week? What time period are you applying this to? 70 AD or something else?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Per this scenario since it would be involving a rebuilt temple in the future, what does the Holy Place have to do with that? How could a rebuilt temple in the future possibly involve a Holy Place? That would be like saying after Jesus died and rose, and before the 2nd temple was destroyed, the 2nd temple was still the holy place and remained the holy place until it was destroyed.

The temple has a holy place. and a most holy place. any rebuilt temple would have these two places inside that temple.

The fact that it is not doing anything of value has no bearing on prophecy. Prophecy just states what is going on. not if it is required or not.

Israel is in sin, They are said to repent at the end of this tribulation period or time of Jacob's trouble.. So up until that time, I would expect them to do things which Mock Christ. Like starting sacrifice and burnt offering. which currently they have everything needed except the temple..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible said otherwise.

No it does not.

One week? When did the covenant with many ended? Honestly??

It says one week. It has not ended yet, because it has not yet even begun,

No.

Joh 3:16-17
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Thank you. You just proved my point

Mat 1:21
(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luk 1:68
(68) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Joh 3:16-17
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

So no, God did not love everyone in the world, else why did He hate Esau before he was even born? Humm?

John 3 again proves you in error

God told us to hate our parent, Yet he tells us to love them

God did not hate a baby, He loved the nation which came from Esau.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Can't help you because you everything wrong.

Will wait for you to prove me wro0ng

First, how did the covenant get confirmed? Make strengthened? Or become a force? Think it was baptism? No, you need to read Hebrew 9 again.

Which covenant, the one in Daniel 9, or the one on the cross?

the one on the cross was confirmed when he rose from the dead..

The one in daniel 9 has not even been made yet, let alone confirmed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your doctrine, you believe Christ confirmed a covenant at Baptist, then 3.5 years later, he caused the literal sacrifice and burnt offering at the Cross, then 3.5 years later, what happened at the consummation say for example in 36AD, humm?

Your not even close..

Nothing you said here is even close to what I believe

 

[covenantee]

That covenant is not the same covenant.

But keep talking., You keep increasing my faith that I am right, and decrease any possibility of me coming to your view..

You've already forgotten that I have no expectation of you coming to my view.

I've provided Scripture confirming that it is the same Covenant.

What Scripture can you provide confirming "That covenant is not the same covenant"?