A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[Truth7t7]

Grammatical referents.

"He" refers back to "prince" refers back to "Messiah the Prince".

100% "False" as post #260 above clearly shows, the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is (The Little Horn) as Daniel 8:9-11 clearly shows, simple, clear, easy to understand

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[rwb]

There are many spiritual princes spoken of in Daniel

Then again, the one having the likeness of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19And he said, “O man greatly beloved, fear not! Peace be to you; be strong, yes, be strong!”

So when he spoke to me I was strengthened, and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”

20Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come. 21But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

Yes, but not all have been translated from the Hebrew נָגִיד nâgîyd, naw-gheed'. In this verse prince of Persia comes from שַׂר sar, sar as do the princes of Israel Daniel prays for (9:6).

שַׂר sar, sar - a head person of any rank or class

נָגִיד nâgîyd - a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes

Throughout Daniel makes this distinction when speaking of any prince or princes, but in 9:25-26 this distinction of prince is not found. This is one reason for believing both Messiah the Prince, and the prince of the people who was to come are one and the same. The prince of the people who came is Messiah the Prince the prophet Daniel writes of. He came to His people who were the ones who would destroy again the re-built city and sanctuary though abominations that made them desolate. Their final act of abominations was to cut off (crucify) the Son of God who was sent to be the Saviour.

 

[rwb]

No it doesn’t. Where do you see anything about an antichrist in Daniel 9? The prince that was to come was a person, the person responsible for leveling Jerusalem for killing their Messiah.

It wasn't the prince (the Messiah) who was to come who destroyed the city and sanctuary, it was His people, apostate Jews. Through spiritual abominations the city and sanctuary had been made desolate. For this reason, the city and sanctuary were destroyed in the days of Daniel, and this will also be the reason why the re-built city and sanctuary would be physically destroyed in 70 AD. The nation of Israel had altogether become apostate, through spiritual wickedness. Rejecting the Son of God was their final act of spiritual rebellion against God.

 

[amigo de christo]

7 heads wearing 7 diadems

and the beast he is the eighth king and is OF the seven .
Notice the beast had a mortal wound and its wound is healed .
Notice when speaking of the beast
it says , the beast that was and IS NOT and Yet IS ..................
HE is of the sev en and goes into perdition .
Whose deadly wound was healed .
What nation is the question . and a good question it is my friend .
What city and who is that city . The Harlot sits over it .
For years there had been a king dom and it had been destroyed .
And back in twenty thirteen the call was made
LET US HEAL THE WOUND . They cried SEND fire from heaven , asking for miracles .
You ever get the feeling THEY BEING SET UP big time my friend .
For by means of those miracles he had decieved them in the sight of the beast .
HE causes them by means of said miracles to worship said beast , said beast whose deadly wound was healed .
You e ver get the feeling that they getting set up for the wrong one my friend .
If that seems hard to beleive
then go to and behold their interreligious dialgoue for what they claim
is the peace plan of GOD . And you see whether or not it be of GOD .
A hint , OH IT FLAT OUT DENIED the very gospel of JESUS CHRIST
when it lied to all religoins and christendom cliaming all religoins are coming to God in diverse and different ways .
IT DENIED the fact THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO G OD and that YE MUST BELIEVE ON HIM
to be reconciled and have PEACE with GOD . seems to me its peace plan be of another god
who simply desires them to be as one for what they all believe and will beleive is OF GOD .
ONLY last time i checked , NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH
and who is a liar , but HE who denies JESUS CHRIST .
WHO is calling GOD a liar , HE who believes NOT that JESUS is the CHRIST .
but their dialgoue DENIED THIS VERY FACT and sold a lie . ONLY satan would do such a t hing . only
the prince of lies would have done such a thing and by peace DESTROY many .

 

[rwb]

At least TWO

Prince #1 = Messiah the Prince

prince #2 = "the prince of the people"

Why do you doubt that they are one and the same? Isn't the Messiah the Prince also the prince of the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary? Listening to Daniel's prayer for his people seems to make it clear the first physical destruction through the Babylonian Army was the result of spiritual abomination that made the nation desolate long before the physical destruction came. The same is true of the re-built city and sanctuary. Isn't that why when speaking to the disciples from the Mt of Olives, Christ says they/we would understand abomination of desolation when we read what was spoken by the prophet Daniel?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think the people of the prince was Titus army.

That's a viable view and the one I held before as well. Either way, we know that it's talking about Jesus confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant obsolete in verse 27.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

100% "False" as you've clearly been shown "Several Times" that the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is Daniel's (Little Horn) the prince that shall come

Yes, you've shown me your false interpretation several times. You are easily the most repetitive person on this entire forum. You say the exact same things over and over again. How about we just agree to disagree at this point instead of you repeating the exact same copy and paste spiel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Daniel 9:26-27 has absolutely nothing to do with the Cross of Calvary

Absolutely false.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.

You are saying that even the part I highlighted here has nothing to do with the cross of Calvary. Unbelievable lack of discernment on your part. The above that I highlighted is clearly referring to Christ's crucifixion. Do you deny that the following verse refers to His crucifixion as well?

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

@David in NJ You agreed with his post. Do you also deny that Daniel 9:26 is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

 

[rwb]

Are you saying that the “prince that shall come” is Jesus? I hope not because that would be saying that Christian’s (the people of Jesus) would be the ones to destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Sadly, this is true! In the days of Daniel, the people of the prince who was to come were Jews. They became apostates before God, turning away from Him they made the city and sanctuary abominable and desolate. Daniel understood this as the reason God sent the Babylonians to destroy both city and sanctuary and prayed for the Jewish people. The prophet Daniel is told the city, and sanctuary will be re-built but the Jews would again make the holy city, and holy sanctuary abominable and desolate, again turning away from God, rejecting Messiah the Prince sent to be the Saviour. The same fate of the first city and sanctuary became the fate of the nation in 70 AD. That too was because the Jews once again made the city and temple abominable and desolate [spiritually], long before the physical destruction.

The church that Christ came to build through preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ, according to what is written, will also become abominable and desolate before God. Therefore, the same fate awaits the church as it exists on this earth. But we have God's promise, although the many shall fall and become abominable and desolate there is always a remnant from both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant who shall be eternally saved.

Sadly, history repeats itself! What has been shall be again, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[rwb]

"the people of the prince who is to come" = "the prince of the people that shall come"

SAME

No David, they are not the same. You're trying to make the prince who is to come the one who destroys the city and sanctuary. The verse does not say that. It says the people of the prince who was to come are the ones who destroy the city and sanctuary. IOW the Jewish people themselves, who are the people of Messiah the Prince who was to come are those who destroyed the city and sanctuary SPIRITUALLY, which is why God sent the Babylonians to destroy them physically.

Daniel 9:26 (KJV) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.

 

[covenantee]

100% "False" as post #260 above clearly shows, the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is (The Little Horn) as Daniel 8:9-11 clearly shows, simple, clear, easy to understand

Jesus Is The Lord

Your imagination

If there were a little horn in Daniel 9, it would be explicitly identified as such, as it is in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

There's no little horn in Daniel 9.

You'll have to dream up something else.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What you seem to be overlooking is what the text says and actually means in relation to when it is actually fulfilled in real time.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary



Daniel 9:26 says---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Regardless of whether you understand this as referring to 70 AD or to a future event, the sequence matters.

If this refers to 70 AD, then the Messiah had already come, completed His earthly ministry, been cut off, risen, and ascended. Yet the text does not say the prince who came or the prince who had come. It says the prince that shall come, and it is his people who destroy the city and the sanctuary.

I disagree with your reasoning here. The verse is talking about the prince to come as of the time the prophecy was given, not a prince to come after the Messiah comes. I believe you're reading things into the text with your logic. Nowhere does it indicate that the prince to come has to be some other prince besides the Messiah that was to come. I allow that it could be referring to Titus, the leader of the Roman armies, but there's nothing in the text which dictates that it has to be some other prince to come than Messiah the prince to come.

Historically, who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple? The Romans.

Who was ultimately responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? The Jews who demanded that Jesus be crucified. The city and the sanctuary were destroyed as part of God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. So, there's more than one way to look at this. But, to me, this doesn't matter all that much because, either way, I believe verse 27 is clearly referring to Jesus confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant sacrifices and offerings obsolete.

If you identify the coming prince as Christ, then the Romans become the people of Christ in this passage.

Not necessarily, as I explained above. There is a sense in which any people doing God's will, whether they realize it or not, can be considered His people. I mean, He is the One who creates all people. Look at this...

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

This parable is about God's offer of salvation through the preaching of the gospel that started in Jerusalem long ago. The Jews, for the most part, rejected Christ and the offer of salvation. So, the king in this parable, representing God the Father, "sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city". That's referring to what happened in 70 AD. It refers to the armies that destroyed the Jews and Jerusalem as God the Father's armies. They were not Christians, but they were still used by God to take out His wrath on the rebellious Jews for rejecting His Son.

So, the Roman armies could be considered the people of Messiah the prince in the sense that they were used to deliver God's wrath when the city and the sanctuary were destroyed.

There is also a consistency issue with your broader eschatology.

No, there is not. My eschatology can not be pinned down narrowly the way it can for futurists like you or for preterists.

You reject the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30 because you understand Christ's coming there to refer to His future second coming at the end of the age, not His coming in judgment through the Roman armies in 70 AD.

Yet if Daniel 9:26 identifies Christ as the prince that shall come whose people destroy Jerusalem, then the passage naturally lends itself to the very idea that Christ came in judgment against Jerusalem through the Romans in 70 AD---the same basic framework Preterists use in Matthew 24.

No, it says the PEOPLE of the prince would destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince himself.

So there seems to be a tension in your position.

There is not.

On the one hand, you reject Christ coming in judgment through the Romans in Matthew 24:30. On the other hand, your reading of Daniel 9:26 appears to require Christ to be the prince associated with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

That does not equate to a coming of Christ in 70 AD. But, again, I'm not against the idea of it referring to a Roman leader like Titus. I think that's a viable view as well. Either way, verse 27 is not referring to Titus or some future Antichrist, it's referring to Jesus Christ confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant obsolete.

How do you reconcile those two positions without applying two different standards to two passages?

See above.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No David, they are not the same. You're trying to make the prince who is to come the one who destroys the city and sanctuary. The verse does not say that. It says the people of the prince who was to come are the ones who destroy the city and sanctuary. IOW the Jewish people themselves, who are the people of Messiah the Prince who was to come are those who destroyed the city and sanctuary SPIRITUALLY, which is why God sent the Babylonians to destroy them physically.

Daniel 9:26 (KJV) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.

Read the whole discussion. He already acknowledged that he made a mistake with what he said because of being exhausted from work and because of health issues that he's having.

 

[rwb]

I think the people of the prince was Titus army.

That's because you're reading this without understanding why God sent the Babylonians to destroy the city and sanctuary. Daniel's heartfelt prayer tells us WHY. Because the people of Messiah, the Prince who was the one to come had become an abomination before the LORD, making both city and sanctuary a complete desolation spiritually long before being physically destroyed. The same truth applies to the re-built city and sanctuary. The Jewish people once again became an abomination of desolation before the Lord. That's why God sent the Roman Army to make a complete end of them.

 

[Truth7t7]

That's a viable view and the one I held before as well. Either way, we know that it's talking about Jesus confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant obsolete in verse 27.

No it's not, the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is Daniel's (Little Horn) as you've been clearly shown several times

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No it's not, the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is Daniel's (Little Horn) as you've been clearly shown several times

Hey, let's just go back and forth telling each other we're wrong 100 more times as if we're just little kids arguing. Sound like a good idea? I'm sure it does to you, but not to me. You are insisting on having the worst interpretation of any verse in the Bible that anyone has ever had. So be it. Move on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's because you're reading this without understanding why God sent the Babylonians to destroy the city and sanctuary. Daniel's heartfelt prayer tells us WHY. Because the people of Messiah, the Prince who was the one to come had become an abomination before the LORD, making both city and sanctuary a complete desolation spiritually long before being physically destroyed. The same truth applies to the re-built city and sanctuary. The Jewish people once again became an abomination of desolation before the Lord. That's why God sent the Roman Army to make a complete end of them.

So, do you believe that Daniel 9:26-27 at least refers partly to the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple or not? Apparently not, since in other posts you claim that what happened in 70 AD is never referenced in the Bible. So, why do you say "God sent the Roman Army to make a complete end of them", but at the same time claim that event of the physical destruction of the Jews and the temple is never prophesied anywhere in the Bible?

 

[Truth7t7]

Your imagination

If there were a little horn in Daniel 9, it would be explicitly identified as such, as it is in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

There's no little horn in Daniel 9.

You'll have to dream up something else.

As you've been shown several times, (The Little Horn) stops the daily sacrifice in Daniel 8:11 and the "He" in Daniel 9:27 does the very same thing, Daniel 8:9-11 & Daniel 9:26-27 are parallel teachings of the same event and you know it, I'm glad to see WPM doesn't agree with the false teaching that the "He" in Daniel 9:27 is Jesus Christ, honestly sad

1 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

[rwb]

What you seem to be overlooking is what the text says and actually means in relation to when it is actually fulfilled in real time.

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary



Daniel 9:26 says---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Regardless of whether you understand this as referring to 70 AD or to a future event, the sequence matters.

If this refers to 70 AD, then the Messiah had already come, completed His earthly ministry, been cut off, risen, and ascended. Yet the text does not say the prince who came or the prince who had come. It says the prince that shall come, and it is his people who destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Historically, who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple? The Romans.

If you identify the coming prince as Christ, then the Romans become the people of Christ in this passage. But that seems difficult to reconcile with the NT's ordinary use of Christ's people. For example, John 1:11 says----He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

That is speaking of Israel, not the Romans. The Romans are never described as Christ's people in the sense Daniel 9:26 would seem to require if Christ is the prince whose people destroy the city.

There is also a consistency issue with your broader eschatology.

You reject the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:30 because you understand Christ's coming there to refer to His future second coming at the end of the age, not His coming in judgment through the Roman armies in 70 AD.

Yet if Daniel 9:26 identifies Christ as the prince that shall come whose people destroy Jerusalem, then the passage naturally lends itself to the very idea that Christ came in judgment against Jerusalem through the Romans in 70 AD---the same basic framework Preterists use in Matthew 24.

So there seems to be a tension in your position. On the one hand, you reject Christ coming in judgment through the Romans in Matthew 24:30. On the other hand, your reading of Daniel 9:26 appears to require Christ to be the prince associated with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

How do you reconcile those two positions without applying two different standards to two passages?

David, ask yourself what and why Daniel prayed an incredibly heartfelt prayer to God for himself and his people while still in captivity after the first temple and city and been destroyed by the Babylonians. Tell me if you agree that the re-built temple and sanctuary would also be made abomination of desolation spiritually, and that is why God would again send an army (Roman) to make a complete end of them again? I believe we have to understand the WHY which is SPIRITUAL, not physical. It is the spiritual rejection of God and His Son (the Messiah the Prince who was in the time of Daniel to come) by the Jewish people that made them abominable and desolate before God, and for that reason the holy city and holy temple shall never rise again.

 

[David in NJ]

Absolutely false.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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.

You are saying that even the part I highlighted here has nothing to do with the cross of Calvary. Unbelievable lack of discernment on your part. The above that I highlighted is clearly referring to Christ's crucifixion. Do you deny that the following verse refers to His crucifixion as well?

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

@David in NJ You agreed with his post. Do you also deny that Daniel 9:26 is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

i FULLY AGRRE with "IT is written"

AGREE = AFTER the 69th Week MESSIAH will be CUT-OFF(His Death on the Cross)

Gotta go to work now