Not a future seeing Jesus coming guy

[Douggg]

I said nothing about duration or time. I asked you to identify who "he" in Daniel 9:27 is, based on grammar and Matthew 26:28.

Please try again.

A key factor in Daniel 9:27 is time duration. for 1 week (7 years). And in the midst of the week (7 years).

Differently, Matthew 26:28 has to do with the basis for the new covenant, Jesus's shed blood.

What are you trying to defend... your belief that the 70th has been fulfilled ?

 

[covenantee]

A key factor in Daniel 9:27 is time duration. for 1 week (7 years). And in the midst of the week (7 years).

Differently, Matthew 26:28 has to do with the basis for the new covenant, Jesus's shed blood.

What are you trying to defend... your belief that the 70th has been fulfilled ?

The grammar has nothing to do with time duration.

Please try again.

And there's nothing "differently" about Matthew 26:28 because it confirms the New Covenant, and thus confirms Daniel 9:27.

Please try again.

The Scriptures defend themselves.

The historical orthodox Christian Church unanimously agrees.

 

[HealthyShape]

The seven years of Daniel 9:27 are the same seven years that follow the Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel 39. The seven years are Daniel 39:9.

Or not. It is like flipping a coin. Source texts differ from each other, translations differ from each other and there is an unending number of interpretations and "systems" like yours.

Look at my seven years chart, upper left hand corner for background of the person that will become the Antichrist.

I am not interested.

 

[Douggg]

The grammar has nothing to do with time duration.

Please try again.

And there's nothing "differently" about Matthew 26:28 because it confirms the New Covenant, and thus confirms Daniel 9:27.

Please try again.

The Scriptures defend themselves.

The historical orthodox Christian Church unanimously agrees.

In context, Matthew 26:28 took place at the last supper, with the wine representing Christ's blood that would be shed.

The term "confirm", "confirming", is not in the text. Nor is for one week (7 years).

Do you believe that the 7 years of Daniel 9:27 has been fulfilled or still yet to be fulfilled ?

 

[covenantee]

Why do you continue to avoid the grammar?

In context, Matthew 26:28 took place at the last supper, with the wine representing Christ's blood that would be shed.

Yes, and His Blood validated i.e. confirmed, His New Covenant.

The term "confirm", "confirming", is not in the text. Nor is for one week (7 years).

The term "antichrist" is not in the Daniel 9:27 text. The term "Sinai" is not in the Daniel 9:27 text.

Do you believe that the 7 years of Daniel 9:27 has been fulfilled or still yet to be fulfilled ?

Absolutely fulfilled. They are the final determined week of the 70 determined weeks:

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined...

If the 70th week is not fulfilled, then it is decapitated and undetermined, and the 70 weeks are undetermined.

But the 70 weeks are determined as Daniel declares, and therefore the 70th week is fulfilled and determined.

 

[Douggg]

Why do you continue to avoid the grammar?



Yes, and His Blood validated i.e. confirmed, His New Covenant.



The term "antichrist" is not in the Daniel 9:27 text. The term "Sinai" is not in the Daniel 9:27 text.


Absolutely fulfilled. They are the final determined week of the 70 determined weeks:

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined...

If the 70th week is not fulfilled, then it is decapitated and undetermined, and the 70 weeks are undetermined.

But the 70 weeks are determined as Daniel declares, and therefore the 70th week is fulfilled and determined.

The prince that shall come is in the text of Daniel 9:26. He will be of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary (temple). Which were the Romans. 70 AD.

Daniel's people, the Jews, which the 70 weeks are determined upon, have yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. That will not happen until the middle of the 70th week. Revelation 12:10.

 

[covenantee]

The prince that shall come is in the text of Daniel 9:26. He will be of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary (temple). Which were the Romans. 70 AD.

Daniel's people, the Jews, which the 70 weeks are determined upon, have yet to embrace the new covenant in Christ. That will not happen until the middle of the 70th week. Revelation 12:10.


View attachment 72824

The grammatical referent of "prince" in Daniel 9:26 is "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25.

Messiah is the only prince in the passage, and identifies Him as being "he" in Daniel 9:27.

Which invalidates the fallacy of any antichrist, and of any antichrist confirming any covenant.

Because Christ cannot be contorted into antichrist.

 

[Douggg]

The grammatical referent of "prince" in Daniel 9:26 is "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25.

Messiah is the only prince in the passage, and identifies Him as being "he" in Daniel 9:27.

Which invalidates the fallacy of any antichrist, and of any antichrist confirming any covenant.

Because Christ cannot be contorted into antichrist.

Jesus was a Jew, not of the people that destroyed the city and sanctuary (temple), i.e. the Romans.

 

[covenantee]

Jesus was a Jew, not of the people that destroyed the city and sanctuary (temple), i.e. the Romans.

The Jews were as responsible as the Romans for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Both Jews and Romans were the people of Messiah the Prince to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction.

The grammar doesn't change.

 

[Douggg]

The Jews were as responsible as the Romans for the destruction of Jerusalem.

The city and the temple were destroyed by the Romans, not the Jews.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Why are there 2 different versions of the abomination which causes desolation?

 

[Douggg]

Why are there 2 different versions of the abomination which causes desolation?

The aod in Daniel 11:31 was a statue image set up in the temple by Antiochus IV. It was a preview of what the end times aod of Daniel 12:11 is will be - a statue image.

In Revelation 13:14, the image made of the beast king will be a statue image, that the false prophet will have placed on the temple mount.

 

[covenantee]

The city and the temple were destroyed by the Romans, not the Jews.

Evidence from the Jews themselves:

"While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

Evidence from the Romans themselves:

Titus:
"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?"


The grammar doesn't change.

Your turn.

Quoted evidence, not your opinion.

 

[Douggg]

Evidence from the Jews themselves:

"While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

Evidence from the Romans themselves:

Titus:
"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?"


The grammar doesn't change.

Your turn.

Quoted evidence, not your opinion.

From that same site...

"During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea."

The Romans destroyed the temple, not the Jews.

The grammar of Daniel 9:26-27 is that the prince that shall come will confirm the covenant for one week (7years). Neither of those refer to Jesus, nor the new covenant.

Also you fail to recognize that Ezekiel 39 has Jesus speaking in the text of Ezekiel 39:21-29, 7 years after the Gog/Magog event of the latter years, latter days.

You also fail to recognize the 15 time of the end time frames. All of which fit within the 7 years.

 

[HealthyShape]

Jesus was a Jew, not of the people that destroyed the city and sanctuary (temple), i.e. the Romans.

And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming.
Dan 9:26, LXX, Brenton

Jesus destroyed the city and the temple with the prince (Titus).

As I said, there are so many different textual versions, translations and possible interpretations that one can find anything in it.

 

[Douggg]

As I said, there are so many different textual versions, translations and possible interpretations that one can find anything in it.

There are many misinterpretations of Daniel 9, people come up with. Saying that Jesus used Titus to destroy Jerusalem and the temple (which, Jesus called His Father's house) is one of them.

In all of the translations of Daniel 9 though, the 70th week of Daniel 9 is addressed as its own unit.

The 70th week is still unfulfilled.

 

[HealthyShape]

There are many misinterpretations of Daniel 9, people come up with. Saying that Jesus used Titus to destroy Jerusalem and the temple (which) Jesus called His Father's house) is one of them.

In all of the translations of Daniel 9 though, the 70th week of Daniel 9 is addressed as its own unit.

The 70th week is still unfulfilled.

How many times do I need to tell you that I am not interested in your graphical speculations? Stop posting them. If you want to talk about Scriptures, textual versions, possible meanings, we can. But do not spam me with your prepared materials.

Jesus said "the hour is coming in which people will worship God neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain". There is no "Father's house" anymore.

 

[Douggg]

And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming.
Dan 9:26, LXX, Brenton

Jesus destroyed the city and the temple with the prince (Titus).

From that same source...

Daniel 9:27And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

 

[Douggg]

How many times do I need to tell you that I am not interested in your graphical speculations? Stop posting them. If you want to talk about Scriptures, textual versions, possible meanings, we can. But do not spam me with your prepared materials.

Jesus said "the hour is coming in which people will worship God neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain". There is no "Father's house" anymore.

I am not going to stop posting my charts. They are based on the scriptures.

How do you explain the 15 time of the end time frames given the bible ?

 

[HealthyShape]

I am not going to stop posting my charts. They are based on the scriptures.

In that case you will go to ignore. I want a conversation, not to be spammed with someone's prepared close minded/rigid teachings.