This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!

[claninja]

It's good that you say that - because you are discussing it in a vacuum when it appears in the Revelation.

1. [G5034 tachos]: swiftly within a brief space of time.

Paul had been transferred to a prison in Caesarea to keep him safe from the Jews. Festus, the Roman governor, had gone from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed Festus against Paul and begged him, asking a favor against Paul that Festus would send for him to Jerusalem (they had made a plot to kill Paul on way).

Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea - Festus himself would depart Jerusalem swiftly within a brief space of time [G5034 tachos], saying that those having power among the Jews may go down to Caesarea with him, and if there is a thing amiss in Paul, let them accuse him.

Then staying among them more than ten days, going down to Caesarea, on the next day sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought, and the Jews who came down from Jerusalem stood around and brought many charges against Paul, which they could not prove. (Acts 25:1-7)

In Luke 18:7-8, Jesus said:

"Won't God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he bear their suffering with them, but delay long to help them?

I say to you that He will avenge them swifly within a brief space of time [G5034 tachos]."

Then He said:

"Yet when the Son of man comes, shall He find faith on the earth?".

The first verse in the book of Revelation uses the same word:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants things which must come to pass swiftly within a brief space of time [G5034 tachos] - things which Jesus signified by His angel to His servant John, whom He sent out with it." (Revelation 1:1).

You need to stop interpreting the above word and the word below in a vacuum when it appears in the Revelation:

2. At hand [G1451 eggus]

Luke 19
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was near [G1451 eggus] to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately [G3916 parachrema] appear.

Mark 13
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near [G1451 eggus].

You have guessed that time into the first century AD, and no amount of telling you not to interpret the word in a vacuum is going to change your mind.

Revelation 1
3 Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is [G1451 eggus] at hand.

Nothing in the New Testament that mentions the time of Christ's return / the time of the end suggests or implies that it would take place in the 1st century AD - or ANY century. That's why Jesus gave signs and told His disciples to watch. But His disciples can't even understand the signs, which is why for every two Christians there are three opinions about the Olivet Discourse.​

So the apostles no where say that the coming of Christ is near, in the NT?

 

[claninja]

Some things were happening, yes and

Some things were happening, yes and that is why many were concerned in 2 Thess. 2:2. However, Paul knew there were still signs to be fulfilled and he gave some in vss. 3-12 which still hasn't happened. Every generation should have lived as if Christ's return could happen in their generation. I would say that every generation since has experienced many of those prophetic like events. However, many is not "all and the "all" of the church age won't come until after Armageddon, when the new age will begin.

How can one generation experience all of the events of the discourse if some were happening then and some have still not happened?

 

[Zao is life]

So the apostles no where say that the coming of Christ is near, in the NT?

You imply they knew how soon the return of Christ would be - but your trying to force biblical facts to fit what you want scripture to be saying is as good as the person who started this thread's is

- useless at changing the facts.

This is how well the apostles knew how near the coming of Christ was:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36).

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." (Matthew 24:44)

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4).

Are you saying that Paul knew when it would be fulfilled, and 'knew' that it would be within a very short time?

PS: You will never, never, never be able to identify the one Paul is talking about if you have already identified someone else - because then you are already under a strong delusion brought about by your faith in your own false doctrines.​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s an expression……

I know. I was kidding. That's why I included this:

Are you even reading my posts?

Yes, I am. Thanks for asking.

Why do you keep asking this over and over again.

Because you continue not telling me exactly what you think Jesus meant when He said "I am coming quickly". You seem to think He was saying His coming was near, but that's not what it means.

As already previously stated, I believe tachy means quickly. You believe that is false understanding?

No, that is correct and that's why it's translated that way. So, why do you (apparently) think He said He is coming soon rather than quickly? His coming itself will be quick. Has nothing to do with how long it will be until He comes. I have seen other preterists try to make that argument, so I thought you were trying to make it, also.

I’ve already agreed it can mean quickly, and without delay. I never once said tachy means near, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you should re-read your own post then. You are trying to associate Him coming quickly with "the time is near". You are coming across as if you think He said His coming is near when He said He is coming quickly. Is that not the case?

It seems you are arguing with your own misunderstanding of the definition provided by Helps word studies. I think This is why your responses have been confusing. Some might take the phrase “I am coming quickly” by itself to mean Christ is presently coming immediately. Helps is arguing against that.

I, of course, am not saying He is presently coming immediately, which obviously makes no sense.

Again, I believe tacky likely means quickly as in speedily. Therefore, as already stated, Once the time is near, Christ comes quickly, speedily; I’ll add “immediately”.

Okay, so we agree on that then. So, why do you bring that verse up when you try to argue that His coming was near as of the time Revelation was written? Him saying He was coming quickly has nothing to do with how long it would be before He came.

My main point was the “when” does Christ come quickly or speedily —— Can we know when the speedily coming of Christ is near?

Talk about not being clear. You came across as if you believed that Him saying "I am coming quickly" meant He was saying He was coming soon (that His coming was near). But, I guess you were not intending to say that? Fine.

Let me ask you this. Since you think that Jesus came in 70 AD, how exactly do you think He came quickly in 70 AD?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

one second after 12/31-1/1 the previous year is past.

Is one second after the previous year is past part of the previous year or the current year? The current year, right? Similarly, the Messiah being cut off AFTER the 69th week does not mean He was cut off at the end of the 69th week, but rather some time after the 69th week ended and during the 70th week. Very simple.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Only Lk. 21:21-24 was specifically about 70ad.

Explain to us why you think only Luke would have recorded Jesus's answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed while Matthew and Mark did not think it was significant enough to record that?

 

[Trekson]

So now you have decided to adjust it from the end of the 69th week to one second into the 70th week even though Daniel was writing about the coming of the Messiah who would be cut off after the 69th week and bring an end to sacrifice and offering in the midst of the one week remaining.

Are you Daniel?

Do you even know why God sent Jesus to die for our sins?

Hebrews 10:8-10
"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."

The prophecy that Hebrews quoted says:

Isaiah 1:11-14
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them."

Daniel 9:27b prophesied about the Messiah causing the animal sacrifices for sins and the oblations to cease, by rendering them obsolete through His own sacrifice of Himself:

"..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 (the city and the temple) desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27b).

The abominations spoken of in verse 27 are not specified (as to what they were) but it's safe (at least not without any basis) to assume they were in the form of continued animal sacrifices in rejection of the Messiah.​

Sorry, but the covenant and person spoken of in 27 was never and will never be Christ because it's not talking about a religious covenant.

 

[Zao is life]

Explain to us why you think only Luke would have recorded Jesus's answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed while Matthew and Mark did not think it was significant enough to record that?

Here we go again. Luke said nothing about the temple buildings when quoting Jesus's reply to the question. Luke records only that Jesus told the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem.

In Matthew and Mark Jesus said nothing about the stones of the temple made with human hands or the temple buildings in His reply to the question on the Mount of Olives. He spoke to them about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament temple would be delivered up to at the time of the end - as did Luke, though he mentioned the armies gathering around Jerusalem.

After telling the disciples that at the time of the end they would be delivered up to tribulation and killed, Jesus said, "therefore when you see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place", flee Judea - and led into saying it would be a time of great tribulation such as has never been before or ever will be - which will be shortened for the elect's sake.

According to your assumption and understanding of English grammar, the word "therefore" in that sentence is not linked to what Jesus was saying about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were to be delivered up to at the time of the end, but to the stones of the temple that the disciples had asked about - which Jesus on the Temple Mount had declared would not be left one on top of another.

Also according to your assumption and understanding of English, Jesus was talking about the stones of the same temple when he spoke about armies gathering around Jerusalem - even though Jesus's chief concern was for the disciples to know that that would be the sign for them to know that they should flee Judea.

The only stones whose tribulation Jesus directly spoke about in His reply to the disciples' question on the Mount of Olives, were the living stones of the New Testament Temple.
​

But you will have it that though Jesus called the Old Testament Temple "Your house" when telling the scribes and Pharisees in the temple that it was going to be left to them desolate, yet Jesus, knowing that Paul and Peter would both be teaching that the living stones are the Temple of God following the Day of Pentecost - and they would be teaching this long before the temple made with human hands was destroyed - Jesus nevertheless needed to call the temple of stones made with human hands "the holy place" when replying to the disciples' question - in the context of telling them about the tribulation they were to endure.

 

[Trekson]

Nonsense. Hebrews tells you who was making the covenant, and why.



No you have chosen to change who the prophecy is about by changing who is making the covenant in verse 27, week 70, and who is cut off in the middle of the 70th week, causing sacrifice and oblation to cease.

In the 70th week the a/c/false messiah makes a pact w/ Israel to allow sacrificing to return and sometime "in the context of" the 70th week he changes his mind and breaks the covenant. No, it doesn't have to be in the exact middle of the week which causes many to go astray in their eschatology. Are you aware that Dan. 8:14, 9:27 and 11:31 and 12:11 are all speaking of the same day and event and as you can see Christ really isn't a consideration of them until he comes in judgment upon them. If one reads through Daniel, combines all the prophecies it can be easily seen that they are not Messianic prophecies, until the time of judgment, when he destroys the last and final kingdom, the 10 toes of Dan. 2 and the 4th beast of Dan. 7 and No they are "not" Rome, which hasn't happened yet.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorry, but the covenant and person spoken of in 27 was never and will never be Christ because it's not talking about a religious covenant.

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, 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 believe that Jesus made animal sacrifices and sin offerings obsolete when He died and shed His blood to establish the new covenant?

 

[Trekson]

How can one generation experience all of the events of the discourse if some were happening then and some have still not happened?

If the prophecies are not about Christ's 1st advent, they are most likely all future except Lk. 21:20-24 which is a stand alone prophecy among the gospels.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Here we go again.​

Yep. Here you go again explaining away obvious truth.

Luke said nothing about the temple buildings when quoting Jesus's reply to the question. Luke records only that Jesus told the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem.​

And why would they need to flee? Because the Roman armies were surrounding Jerusalem before they went and destroyed the city and its temple buildings. Jesus told the disciples that the temple buildings would be destroyed and they asked Him when that would happen. You have chosen to inexplicably conclude that He didn't answer that question. Why would He have told them that would happen in the first place if He wasn't willing to answer any questions about it? On this topic, you are so very wrong and that's all there is to it. We've already discussed this several times and I have no interest in discussing it again in detail right now.

 

[Zao is life]

In the 70th week the a/c/false messiah makes a pact w/ Israel

Blah blah blah. Straight out of a Darby and Hagee fantasy novel.

Care to produce anything more "novel"?

We're discussing the text in Daniel - not the sci-fi fantasies of Hagee and others. Tell us where in the Bible it says that an 'antichrist' would attempt to copy the covenant which was cut and strengthened by the Messiah in the 70th week?

to allow sacrificing to return and sometime "in the context of" the 70th week he changes his mind and breaks the covenant.

Did you know that the word for the sanctuary of God [naos] which was housed in the temple structure [hieron] is not used again in reference to the temple in Jerusalem following the verses that tell about the tearing of the veil in that sanctuary [naos]?

Did you know that the next time it's used is in Acts where we are taught that God does not dwell in a sanctuary [naos] made with human hands?

Did you know that even though the Jerusalem temple continues to be referred to as a hieron (physical temple structure), after the tearing of the veil, the word [naos] is only used in reference to the churche/s and bodies of individual believers when the Temple of God is being referred to - and this includes 2 Thessalonians 2:4?

Did you know that three times New Jerusalem is called the holy city in the Revelation, but the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt appears in the same passage where John is told to measure the sanctuary [naos] of God but to leave the outer court because it's the court of the Gentiles, and mentions that they will tread the holy city underfoot, before mentioning that the bodies of the two witnesses will lie in the street of the city called Sodom and Egypt?

I don't even know why I'm talking about this because it's pointless educating someone in the Word of God who refuses knowledge of the Word of God when it interferes with his chosen faith.

No, it doesn't have to be in the exact middle of the week which causes many to go astray in their eschatology.

You're the only one posting in this thread who has gone astray in your eschatology when it comes to Daniel 9:24-27.

Are you aware that Dan. 8:14, 9:27 and 11:31 and 12:11 are all speaking of the same day

Are you aware of the fact that Daniel 8:14, 11:31 and 12:11 are talking about an abomination of desolation placed in the holy place that did not result in the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or the temple? The temple was cleansed after the period during which the daily sacrifices were taken away, was over- as the prophecy stated.

Are you aware that Daniel 9:26-27 prophesied about abominations that would result in the destruction of both the city of Jerusalem and the temple?

The fact that you conflate the two prophecies shows how far you are from ever grasping what and who Daniel 9:24-27 is talking about, as can be seen by your false statement below - which once again only expresses your faith in your own false doctrines regarding eschatology:

If one reads through Daniel, combines all the prophecies it can be easily seen that they are not Messianic prophecies

Daniel 8:14, 11:31 and 12:11 are not Messianic prophecies. Daniel 9:24-27 is a Messianic prophecy.

Both have already been fulfilled and the former prophecy (Daniel 8:14, 11:31 and 12:11) is a biblical type of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Matthew 24;15.

 

[Zao is life]

Yep. Here you go again explaining away obvious truth.

Not truth but obvious fallacy and truth to you and those who agree with you - but not to those who indeed do understand the obvious truth that you - by choice of what you will to believe - fail to understand because you refuse to understand.

And why would they need to flee?

Because Jesus was concerned for His disciples. Your reasons for Jesus's warning has Him telling them to flee because He was concerned for that temple of stone:

Because the Roman armies were surrounding Jerusalem before they went and destroyed the city and its temple buildings. Jesus told the disciples that the temple buildings would be destroyed and they asked Him when that would happen.

Did they know that the temple was going to be destroyed in 70 AD because His reply told them so?

Or did they know Jesus had told them to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Israel, and so those who were still alive 40 years later, would have known it was time to flee Judea because armies had gathered around Jerusalem?

Though you have chosen to believe that Jesus was concerned with their concern for the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, He was not. He was concerned for them.

You have chosen to inexplicably conclude that He didn't answer that question.

You have chosen to ignore the fact that He had already announced the end of the old system and it was just hours away from the greatest suffering He was to endure for the sin of the whole world that any human would ever have to endure, and hours away from the time that by His blood and through His resurrection and ascension He was about to bring a completely new covenant and a completely new Temple.

You have chosen to demand in your belief about this that Jesus "must have" answered their concern about a building that He at that point no longer had any concern for, because it was the house of those who had opposed Him in every way possible - to the end - and you insist it's the case that Jesus always answered their questions produced in the mnds of men with answers that were answers produced from the minds of men, instead of answers produced from the mouth of God and in the mind of God.

Yet you cannot quote one sentence where the word "temple" appears in His entire reply - all you can do is to falsely assert, as you do, that He called that temple of stone "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15.

Why would He have told them that would happen in the first place if He wasn't willing to answer any questions about it?

For goodness sake, SI. For someone who at least appears to have a deeper understanding than many at these boards, do you really believe that though the hour of His passion was almost upon Him He would have needed to say what there was nothing more to say about?
​

The temple was going to be destroyed. He had said so on the Temple Mount. They pointed out how beautiful the temple was after hearing Him tell the scribes and Pharisees it was going to be destroyed, and Jesus had repeated - this time making it abundantly clear by the words "not one stone will be left upon another" - that it would be destroyed.

If you could be there as a witness after that with Him and the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and knowing that less than half a week was left before the last supper and His arrest, trial and crucifixion, what would you have demanded Jesus said more about it after they again brought up that temple, asking Him on the Mount of Olives WHEN it was going to be destroyed, and what the sign would be that its destruction and the end of the age and His return was near?

Haven't you even noticed that in His reply He immediately launched into a very long dicourse about what was going to be their experiences?
​

You are not placing yourself in the shoes of Christ that day, and through the Holy Spirit in you letting your thoughts be guided by His thoughts instead of with your own theology produced in your own human mind about this.

On this topic, you are so very wrong and that's all there is to it.

That attatitude is why you will never grow in your knowledge and understanding of God through the Word of God any further than you have gotten up to this point.

We've already discussed this several times and I have no interest in discussing it again in detail right now.

Meaning; "I'm not interested in your reply".

Well, you're clearly not even interested in Christ's reply to the disciples that day or the reason why He replied that way (if you were you would not be saying the things you say about it), so I don't need to, and shouldn't talk to you about it any more after this, either.

So stick to your words now, and say nothing more - but do not expect me never to correct you when you say the same things to others - because you do not have Christ or the mind of Christ in your answer. In fact, you have the mind of Preterists in your answer.

You probably don't want to have the mind of Christ in your answer because it will interfere with the human theology you have chosen to uphold because you have chosen to adopt human theology over the Word of God regarding some things.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not truth but obvious fallacy and truth to you and those who agree with you

You are 100% incapable of refuting my interpretation, as you've already proven several times. So, you can say this all you want, but your words are meaningless.

- but not to those who indeed do understand the obvious truth that you - by choice of what you will to believe - fail to understand because you refuse to understand.

YAWN.

Because Jesus was concerned for His disciples. Your reasons for Jesus's warning has Him telling them to flee because He was concerned for that temple of stone:

Why are you resorting to lying? Do you think that helps your case? I have never said that "He was concerned for that temple of stone". That's nonsense. No, He was concerned that His followers would get caught up in the destruction going on in the city if they did not flee to the mountains as He said they needed to do.

Did they know that the temple was going to be destroyed in 70 AD because His reply told them so?

Yes, because He said when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then that would be the time to flee to the mountains. And that is what happened just before 70 AD.

Or did they know Jesus had told them to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Israel, and so those who were still alive 40 years later, would have known it was time to flee Judea because armies had gathered around Jerusalem?

Say what now? That seems like the same question with different words. They fled to the mountains around 70 AD because of what Jesus had told them. What is hard to understand about this?

Though you have chosen to believe that Jesus was concerned with their concern for the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, He was not. He was concerned for them.

HELLO?! Is anybody there? That is what I believe as well. What in the world did I ever say to give you the impression "that Jesus was concerned with their concern for the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem"? I never said anything like that. Why do you resort to misrepresenting my view when it comes to this topic?

You have chosen to ignore the fact that He had already announced the end of the old system and it was just hours away from the greatest suffering He was to endure for the sin of the whole world that any human would ever have to endure, and hours away from the time that by His blood and through His resurrection and ascension He was about to bring a completely new covenant and a completely new Temple.

No, I don't ignore that. So, you have chosen to misrepresent me once again. You just lose your mind when it comes to this topic for some reason.

You have chosen to demand in your belief about this that Jesus "must have" answered their concern about a building that He at that point no longer had any concern for, because it was the house of those who had opposed Him in every way possible - to the end - and you insist it's the case that Jesus always answered their questions with answers that were answers produced from the minds of men instead of answers produced from the mouth of God.

LOL! You use so many words to say nothing. According to your perspective, it was pointless for Jesus to even tell them that the temple buildings would be destroyed in the first place. But, He did. So, to think that He would not then be willing to answer a question related to that is just plain ridiculous.

Yet you cannot quote one sentence where the word "temple" appears in His entire reply - all you can do is to falsely assert, as you do, that He called that temple of stone "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15.

LOL. Where was the temple? In Jerusalem. He said when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies that they should flee to the mountains. Why? Because the city and the temple were about to be destroyed when that happened.

For goodness sake, SI.​

LOL!

For someone who at least appears (to me) to have a deeper understanding that many at these boards, do you really believe that though the hour of His passion was almost upon Him He would have needed to say what there was notrhing more to say about?​

Nothing more to say about? Only according to you. Why would I think that He would mention the destruction of the temple buildings only to refuse to answer a question about that afterwards? That makes no sense and you are doing NOTHING to make that make any sense.

The temple was going to be destroyed. He had said so on the Temple Mount. ​

Yeah. And what was the next thing recorded after that? His disciples asking Him "When will these things be?". He had just referenced "these things" in relation to the temple buildings, so they were obviously asking Him when would these things (the temple buildings) be destroyed as He had just told them they would be.

They pointed out how beautiful the temple was after hearing Him tell the scribes and Pharisees it was going to be destoyed, and Jesus had repeated - this time making it abundantly clear by the words "not one stone will be left upon another" - that it would be destroyed.​

Uh huh. Impressive use of bold and a large text there for no reason at all. Well done.

If you could be there as a witness after that with Him and the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and knowing that less than half a week was left before the last supper and His arrest, trial and crucifixion, what would you have demanded Jesus said more about it after they again brought up that temple, asking Him on the Mount of Olives WHEN it was going to be destroyed, and what the sign would be that its destruction and the end of the age and His return was near?​

Do you understand what the temple meant to the Jews at that time? The disciples had to be shocked at what He said. You think they would just say "Oh, wow. That's crazy. Anyway, let's move on to the next topic."? Get serious. I would certainly have wondered when that would happen if being told that and that's why the disciples asked Him when it would happen. It was a natural question to ask after being told something shocking like that.

Haven't you even noticed that in His reply He immediately launched into a very long dicourse about what was going to be their experiences?​

Uh huh. So?

You are not placing yourself in the shoes of Christ that day,​

Another lie from you. Why is it that all you can to is make up lies about me when it comes to this topic? Are you even the same person who I'm on the same page with when it comes to other topics and when it comes to passages like Daniel 9:24-27? I don't see you making things up or lying about people when you talk about that topic.

and through the Holy Spirit in you letting your thoughts be guided by His thoughts with your theology about this.

Yes, I am. Unlike you, I can acknowledge that the disciples would have naturally wondered when the temple buildings would be destroyed after being told such a shocking thing as that. The Holy Spirit confirms that to me. I don't need someone like you who is so lacking in spiritual discernment about certain topics to tell me whether or not I'm relying on the Holy Spirit when it comes to this topic.

That attatitude is why you will never grow in your knowledge and understanding of God through the Word of God any further than you have gotten up to this point.

LOL. Look how arrogant you are. Do you think the Holy Spirit is leading you to be arrogant like this as if you have all the answers? Why are you doing such a horrible job of backing up your claims if what you believe about this is the truth. The Holy Spirit is certainly a much better communicator than you are.

Meaning; "I'm not interested in your reply".

Well, you're clearly not even interested in Christ's reply to the disciples that day or the reason why He replied that way (if you were you would not be saying the things you say about it), so I don't need to, and shouldn't talk to you about it any more after this, either.

So stick to your words now and sat nothing more.

Why are you so foolish and unhinged when it comes to this topic? You are obviously looking for a fight here. If you insist on me embarrassing you and your false beliefs regarding this topic, then so be it. I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[covenantee]

Only Lk. 21:21-24 was specifically about 70ad. There are over 200,000 christians in Israel today and they still have sabbath laws that could affect one's efforts to get out town. He was speaking to the 3-4 disciples as founding fathers of the church. Prophecy is hardly ever for the generation that receives it, and btw the way they were futurist dispensationalists because they actually understood what it meant and not the false notions pedaled by the anti-dyspy crowd.

They understood that it meant to flee, which is exactly what they did.

If they'd been dispensational futurists, they'd have remained in Jerusalem and perished.

But they were waaaaaay smarter than you.

Thank God for the preservation of the Judaean Christian Church.

 

[Zao is life]

You are 100% incapable of refuting my interpretation, as you've already proven several times. So, you can say this all you want, but your words are meaningless.


YAWN.


Why are you resorting to lying? Do you think that helps your case? I have never said that "He was concerned for that temple of stone". That's nonsense. No, He was concerned that His followers would get caught up in the destruction going on in the city if they did not flee to the mountains as He said they needed to do.


Yes, because He said when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then that would be the time to flee to the mountains. And that is what happened just before 70 AD.


Say what now? That seems like the same question with different words. They fled to the mountains around 70 AD because of what Jesus had told them. What is hard to understand about this?


HELLO?! Is anybody there? That is what I believe as well. What in the world did I ever say to give you the impression "that Jesus was concerned with their concern for the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem"? I never said anything like that. Why do you resort to misrepresenting my view when it comes to this topic?

No, I don't ignore that. So, you have chosen to misrepresent me once again. You just lose your mind when it comes to this topic for some reason.


LOL! You use so many words to say nothing. According to your perspective, it was pointless for Jesus to even tell them that the temple buildings would be destroyed in the first place. But, He did. So, to think that He would not then be willing to answer a question related to that is just plain ridiculous.


LOL. Where was the temple? In Jerusalem. He said when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies that they should flee to the mountains. Why? Because the city and the temple were about to be destroyed when that happened.


LOL!


Nothing more to say about? Only according to you. Why would I think that He would mention the destruction of the temple buildings only to refuse to answer a question about that afterwards? That makes no sense and you are doing NOTHING to make that make any sense.


Yeah. And what was the next thing recorded after that? His disciples asking Him "When will these things be?". He had just referenced "these things" in relation to the temple buildings, so they were obviously asking Him when would these things (the temple buildings) be destroyed as He had just told them they would be.


Uh huh. Impressive use of bold and a large text there for no reason at all. Well done.


Do you understand what the temple meant to the Jews at that time? The disciples had to be shocked at what He said. You think they would just say "Oh, wow. That's crazy. Anyway, let's move on to the next topic."? Get serious. I would certainly have wondered when that would happen if being told that and that's why the disciples asked Him when it would happen. It was a natural question to ask after being told something shocking like that.


Uh huh. So?


Another lie from you. Why is it that all you can to is make up lies about me when it comes to this topic? Are you even the same person who I'm on the same page with when it comes to other topics and when it comes to passages like Daniel 9:24-27? I don't see you making things up or lying about people when you talk about that topic.


Yes, I am. Unlike you, I can acknowledge that the disciples would have naturally wondered when the temple buildings would be destroyed after being told such a shocking thing as that. The Holy Spirit confirms that to me. I don't need someone like you who is so lacking in spiritual discernment about certain topics to tell me whether or not I'm relying on the Holy Spirit when it comes to this topic.


LOL. Look how arrogant you are. Do you think the Holy Spirit is leading you to be arrogant like this as if you have all the answers? Why are you doing such a horrible job of backing up your claims if what you believe about this is the truth. The Holy Spirit is certainly a much better communicator than you are.


Why are you so foolish and unhinged when it comes to this topic? You are obviously looking for a fight here. If you insist on me embarrassing you and your false beliefs regarding this topic, then so be it. I'll be happy to oblige.

You're a mocker and a troll and you have given yourself that name already so good luck with your choice of words. You clearly have no ears to the Word of God except what your head knowledge has given you. I was going to react even more, but better to leave you where your not-so Christlike talk will take you when you sleep.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're a mocker and a troll and you have given yourself that name already so good luck with your choice of words.

Says the guy who misrepresented my beliefs multiple times in your previous post. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Typical of you.

You clearly have no ears to the Word of God except what your head knowledge has given you. I was going to react even more, but better to leave you where your not-so Christlike talk will take you when you sleep.

Go ahead and react more, buddy. Let's see your true colors. Do you think it's Christ-like to misrepresent what I believe as you did multiple times in your post? Is that something Jesus would encourage you to do? Clearly not. Do you want to prove how un-Christ-like you are when it comes to this topic by continuing to claim that I believe that Jesus was concerned about the temple rather than the safety of His followers, which I've never said?

 

[covenantee]

Sorry, but the covenant and person spoken of in 27 was never and will never be Christ because it's not talking about a religious covenant.

You've been shown that the antecedents/referents of "he" in verse 27 grammatically resolve back to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.
Making Him The Covenant Confirmer.
Do you understand grammar?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You've been shown that the antecedents/referents of "he" in verse 27 grammatically resolve back to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.
The Covenant Confirmer.
Do you understand grammar?

He doesn't even know what the word "after" means, so there's no real hope in him understanding grammar.