The TRUE Meaning Of The Little Horn Prophecy For the End

[covenantee]

I guess you like them so much you are going to have to quote them to see if they need peer reviewed today.

They're peer-reviewed.

You're not.

 

[Douggg]

You claim that your futurist view is based on the bible.

Where in the Bible are you seeing the words "the Antichrist"?

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

The Anti (instead of and against) christ will be anointed the King of Israel instead of the rightful King of Israel - Jesus.

 

[Timtofly]

No.

There's nothing preventing us from interpreting "time" here as "prophetic time" and not chronological time in general - because at some point after "time no more" the days of the 7th trumpet come to pass.

You can't have "time no more" followed "days" which we all know are blocks of time.

When trying to understand what "to finish, make and end, make recon, bring in, seal up, and anoint" pertains to, we cannot look beyond what Gabriel says these pertain to: "thy people and thy holy city" aka ancient Israel and Jerusalem. Today, God's people are the "Israel of God" who "walk by this rule" of the "new creature" in Christ. Abraham's seed today are those who belong to Christ, etc.

Therefore, we can't say "sin still exists in the world so the prophecy is still future..."

One of the reasons why the 70 Weeks was cut off from the 2,300 Days was "to seal up the vision and the prophecy" - which refers to a "seal of assurance" for Daniel's people that the 2,300 Days would just as surely come to pass as when they would see the 70 Weeks come to pass and the Gospel go to the Gentiles.

The 2300 days was already fulfilled. Turning that into some symbolic time frame, and extending that into a dispensational future, and setting dates, is not the same thing as Daniel 9 and the 70 sets of 7.

Again, "thy people and thy holy city".

After the Cross, Jesus directed the apostles to only go to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" and many found "eternal righteousness" in Christ. Again, "thy people and thy holy city".

The 70 Weeks stretch from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D. which pertains to His First Coming.

Yes, because of Daniel's confusion, the 70 Weeks were "cut off" from the 2,300 in order to clarify what the 2,300 did not: the timing of the arrival of the "anointed One" - as well as the details of His mission - through Whom He would accomplish the "cleaning of the sanctuary" after 2,300 Days mentioned in chapter 8.

Actually, before any mention of the Messiah at all, the prophecy mentions the six reasons for why the 70 was cut off from the 2300 - one of which is "to anoint the Most Holy" in the Jordan.

The 70 weeks are not finished until the Prince returns.

I'm glad you recognize what many don't: that we can't slice off the entire 70th week if the Cross has half of it nailed down firmly in history. However, we don't have any good reason to slice off 3.5 years either, because:

1) no other Numerically Specific Time Prophecy utilizes a "gap" - their duration lasts only as long as stated
2) Jesus is easily the "prince that shall come", "covenant confirmer", "sacrifice/oblation suspender, etc.
3) only Jesus can fulfill the prophecy: for instance, Job says Leviathan (Satan) makes covenants with no one

Actually, the final minutes of the 70 Weeks pertained to "thy people and thy holy city" back then, seemingly with the stoning of Steven, because right after the Gospel went to the Gentiles.

We have every right to wait for the Prince to come part, as that is Jesus at the Second Coming, who will declare the 70 weeks have been accomplished.

If the 70th Week is as much a block of time on the prophetic timeline as are the 69 Weeks - the 70th Week isn't "Jesus" but "a period in which Jesus would accomplish His mission".

The 7 Churches, Seals, Trumpets being parallel to one another on the prophetic timeline, the 7th trumpet began sounding in 1844 and will continue to sound until "the Trump of God" is blown by Him.

The 70th week is not even addressed as any time period in Daniel 9. It is certainly not verse 27. The only thing defining the 70th week is Jesus as Christ and the King to come, at the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

They're peer-reviewed.

You're not.

Obviously, you have no credit whatsoever to even determine if I am right or wrong.

 

[covenantee]

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

The Anti (instead of and against) christ will be anointed the King of Israel instead of the rightful King of Israel - Jesus.

So there's no antichrist in Daniel 9:27.

 

[covenantee]

Obviously, you have no credit whatsoever to even determine if I am right or wrong.

That's what peer review is for.

And it says you're wrong.

 

[Douggg]

So there's no antichrist in Daniel 9:27.

The prince that shall come in Daniel 9:27 will become the Antichrist.

1. Gog/Magog event.
2. Then the prince that shall come.
3. Then anointed the King of Israel, thought to be messiah, becoming the Antichrist. Confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant and the 7 years begin.
4. The around 3 years into the 7 years reveals himself as the man of sin. God has him killed, and in disdain for the person brings him back to life. At which time the person becomes possessed by the spirit of garden of eden serpent beast that will ascend out of the bottomless pit - and the person becomes the beast of Revelation 13.
5. As the beast king, he will rule the world for 42 months.

 

[Timtofly]

That's what peer review is for.

And it says you're wrong.

You cannot speak for peer review, without posting the peer review. Then showing where I am wrong. No one reads your mind, just your posts.

 

[covenantee]

You cannot speak for peer review, without posting the peer review. Then showing where I am wrong. No one reads your mind, just your posts.

Calvin peer-reviewed Clement. Did you miss it?

Both of them declare that you're wrong.

 

[covenantee]

The prince that shall come in Daniel 9:27 will become the Antichrist.

1. Gog/Magog event.
2. Then the prince that shall come.
3. Then anointed the King of Israel, thought to be messiah, becoming the Antichrist. Confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant and the 7 years begin.
4. The around 3 years into the 7 years reveals himself as the man of sin. God has him killed, and in disdain for the person brings him back to life. At which time the person becomes possessed by the spirit of garden of eden serpent beast that will ascend out of the bottomless pit - and the person becomes the beast of Revelation 13.
5. As the beast king, he will rule the world for 42 months.

A simple grammatical referent shows that the prince of Daniel 9:26 is Messiah the Prince of Daniel 9:25, as Messiah is the only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

So you're claiming that Messiah the Prince will become the antichrist, i.e. Christ becomes antichrist.

That's not based on any Bible in existence.

 

[Timtofly]

Calvin peer-reviewed Clement. Did you miss it?

Both of them declare that you're wrong.

Not according to your post.

Brothers and sisters, don't listen to Davy, who is espousing modernist Darby/Scofield dispensational blasphemy, which attempts to contort Christ into antichrist. Such heresy was unheard of in more than 17 centuries of historical true Christian Church orthodoxy. The Church unanimously declared that Christ is the Covenant Confirmer of Daniel 9:27, which He fulfilled at Calvary in the midst of the 70th week (Matthew 26:28).

Davy does not provide any evidence from the historical true Church supporting his claims, because such evidence does not exist.

Following are two examples of evidence of what the historical true Church actually believed.

Clement of Alexandria quotes Daniel 9:24-27, and declares that it was fulfilled.

160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "160 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."


John Calvin (1509-1564) declares that it was Christ who confirmed the treaty with many for one week.

"The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week."

Calvin did not mention Clement at all according to your post. You just quoted 2 people. Are you being purposely deceptive, forcing people to read your mind?

I did respond to both of your quoted theologians.

You cannot read their minds, and what you posted was your opinion of their quote, not their expressed opinions. Clement was mentioning time that had passed.

John Calvin did not say "Christ did confirm". John Calvin was quoting that the angel said Christ should confirm. You left out all the part of this quote that would confirm you opinion, and tried to read their minds, instead of what they actually wrote.

We can read directly from a Bible the same words you posted about these two. But you did not post their editorial comment on what they thought that Scripture was saying.

Clement wrote, "and He shall confirm", that was not written as fulfilled. Clement was agreeing what many post that at a future time, Jesus as Prince "shall confirm". So implying that Clement wrote Jesus fulfilled the part about confirming the Covenant with many, contradicts this quote. Besides, while Clement was talking about the times, you left out any interpretation, he had about Jesus. Clement was just quoting the same Scripture we all post today. You gave us Clements thoughts on how much time passed from the birth of Moses until the birth of Jesus. Then you imply something on a different topic than just the amount of years, without given us the full detail of Clements thoughts. Even Calvin did not write: "he did confirm the treaty". Calvin was wrong to claim a treaty. Why not just call it the Atonement Covenant instead of a treaty?

Treaty: an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation.


How did humans negotiate their plan of salvation with God? Reformed Calvinism does not even allow humans free will, so how does that negotiation work out for them? You still have no quote from either historical figure explicitly stating what you think Scripture is saying.

 

[covenantee]

Not according to your post.


Calvin did not mention Clement at all according to your post. You just quoted 2 people. Are you being purposely deceptive, forcing people to read your mind?

I did respond to both of your quoted theologians.

You cannot read their minds, and what you posted was your opinion of their quote, not their expressed opinions. Clement was mentioning time that had passed.

John Calvin did not say "Christ did confirm". John Calvin was quoting that the angel said Christ should confirm. You left out all the part of this quote that would confirm you opinion, and tried to read their minds, instead of what they actually wrote.

We can read directly from a Bible the same words you posted about these two. But you did not post their editorial comment on what they thought that Scripture was saying.

Thanks for confirming that denial is your only remaining argument.

 

[Davy]

Malachi says Jesus is the "Messenger of the Covenant".

Irrelevant to the one in Daniel 9:27, which is about the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel 11.

The false doctrine you are pushing with falsely claiming Dan.9:27 is about Jesus is a doctrine of the devil.

 

[covenantee]

Irrelevant to the one in Daniel 9:27, which is about the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel 11.

The false doctrine you are pushing with falsely claiming Dan.9:27 is about Jesus is a doctrine of the devil.

Your abominable dogma contorting Christ into antichrist is the epitome of blasphemy.

 

[Phoneman777]

In the video, I think the speaker referred to 1844, which SDA calls the great disappointment because Jesus was expected to return that year, but did not. Is that not what you are referring to as Protestant Historicism thought as well?

I think I mentioned that aside from a few SDA particulars, the foundational framework of Historicism was held by all Protestants for centuries.

Futurism is based on what is in the bible - not Jesuit commentary - nor Historicism commentary.

No, Futurism appears nowhere in history until the Jesuits invented it as a means to point the fingers of antichrist accusations by Protestant Historicists away from the papacy.

Have a look at what prophecy teachers aren't telling you from England's recognized all time greatest prophecy teacher:

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

 

[Phoneman777]

The 2300 days was already fulfilled.

Yes, they started at the same time the 70 Weeks did, because the 70 are "cut off" from the 2300. They ended in 1844.

The 70 weeks are not finished until the Prince returns.

When Jesus was "anointed" in the Jordan, the 69th Week ended and the 70th Week began.

3 1/2 years into it He was cut off, ending the sacrificial system.

He confirmed the New Covenant for the entire 70th Week, first in Person and then "by them that heard Him" - the disciples - according to Hebrews 2:3 KJV.

We have every right to wait for the Prince to come part, as that is Jesus at the Second Coming, who will declare the 70 weeks have been accomplished.

No, we don't. The prophecy lasted "70 Weeks" - not 70 Weeks plus 2,000+ years and counting.

I'd suggest returning from your noon lunch hour at 2:00 and try telling your furious boss that you aren't late, but that there's a "one hour gap" between 12:59 PM and 1:00 PM.

The 70th week is not even addressed as any time period in Daniel 9.

No?

Verses 25 and 26 say Messiah is crucified "after" the 69 weeks which is "during" the 70th - because 70 immediately follows 69, right?

 

[Douggg]

I think I mentioned that aside from a few SDA particulars, the foundational framework of Historicism was held by all Protestants for centuries.

No, Futurism appears nowhere in history until the Jesuits invented it as a means to point the fingers of antichrist accusations by Protestant Historicists away from the papacy.

Have a look at what prophecy teachers aren't telling you from England's recognized all time greatest prophecy teacher:

Early Church Fathers Were Historicist – H. Grattan Guinness

I continually hear that the early church fathers were all futurists with only vague references, there is nothing vague in what our author reveals here: .1. The Fathers interpreted the four wild bea…

nicklasarthur.wordpress.com

You and I are talking about two different things, Phoneman777.

I am talking about the end times Truth, irrespective of what commentaries of the past preached, be they reformer commentators or papal commentators..

You are talking about a claim that papal commentators created the futurist view to counter the reformers claim of the papacy being the Antichrist.

As fas as end times Truth goes, the pope, papacy, cannot be the Antichrist, as neither is qualified. The person has to be a Jew, who's religion is Judaism in order to be anointed the King of Israel thought-to-be messiah by the Jews. The focal point of being the Antichrist is that the person has to be anointed the King of Israel.

 

[Phoneman777]

Irrelevant to the one in Daniel 9:27, which is about the "vile person" prophecy in Daniel 11.

The false doctrine you are pushing with falsely claiming Dan.9:27 is about Jesus is a doctrine of the devil.

My evidence that Jesus is the One Who confirms the covenant:
>Malachi calls Jesus "the Messenger of the Covenant" - the New Covenant
>Isaiah says God will "give Thee (Jesus) for a Covenant of the people" - the New Covenant
>Daniel said "Messiah the Prince" would confirm the covenant with "many"
>Jesus quoted Daniel, saying His blood of the new Covenant which is shed for "many"
>Paul told the Romans Jesus came to "confirm the promises" - the promise in Jeremiah of a New Covenant
>Paul says Jesus confirmed New Covenant salvation first by Him in Person, then through His disciples.


Your evidence that Antichrist confirms the covenant:
>nothing but subjective speculation - because the "people of the prince that shall come" can only refer to either "the Jews of Prince Jesus" or "the Romans of prince Titus" - antichrist is nowhere mentioned here.


God's evidence that Satan makes no covenants:
Will he (Leviathan) make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

 

[Phoneman777]

You and I are talking about two different things, Phoneman777.

I am talking about the end times Truth, irrespective of what commentaries of the past preached, be they reformer commentators or papal commentators..

I think I'm presenting both: Bible evidence and the unanimous belief of the entire former Protestant world - which should arrest the attention of any sincere student of prophecy

As fas as end times Truth goes, the pope, papacy, cannot be the Antichrist, as neither is qualified. The person has to be a Jew, who's religion is Judaism in order to be anointed the King of Israel thought-to-be messiah by the Jews. The focal point of being the Antichrist is that the person has to be anointed the King of Israel.

Antichrist is Gentile, not Jews, as the evidence shows:

1)John says Antichrist is Gentile because it arises within the church, but then goes "out from us".

2)Like Judas, it's called the "Son of Perdition" - both arose within the church but became apostate.

 

[Douggg]

My evidence that Jesus is the One Who confirms the covenant:
>Malachi calls Jesus "the Messenger of the Covenant" - the New Covenant
>Isaiah says God will "give Thee (Jesus) for a Covenant of the people" - the New Covenant
>Daniel said "Messiah the Prince" would confirm the covenant with "many"
>Jesus quoted Daniel, saying His blood of the new Covenant which is shed for "many"
>Paul told the Romans Jesus came to "confirm the promises" - the promise in Jeremiah of a New Covenant
>Paul says Jesus confirmed New Covenant salvation first by Him in Person, then through His disciples.

Daniel 9:27 does not say "new covenant"

The new covenant does not have a 7 year confirmation period attached to it.

Your evidence that Antichrist confirms the covenant:
>nothing but subjective speculation - because the "people of the prince that shall come" can only refer to either "the Jews of Prince Jesus" or "the Romans of prince Titus" - antichrist is nowhere mentioned here.

My evidence is that the covenant to be confirmed in Daniel 9:27 for 7 years is Deuteronomy 31:9-13 a law that Moses made, regarding the Mt Sinai covenant. The seven years cycle has been interrupted by 2000 years of the times of the gentiles and will be restarted by the Antichrist following the Gog/Magog event. (the little horn becomes the prince who shall come becomes the Antichrist becomes the revealed man of sin becomes the beast king)

Deuteronomy 31:
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.