A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[David in NJ]

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 .

They are offering "strange fire"

Even when they attempt to use the "coals from the tabernacle"

And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his firepan, and they put fire in it, and they put incense on it, and they brought near before the face of YHWH strange fire, which He had not commanded them.

 

[David in NJ]

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.

Thank You and i have to work now

Hopefully able to return later

 

[covenantee]

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.

Which post by @WPM are you referring to?

 

[CrowCross]

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.

By posting that verse you seem to be saying unless people agree with your interpretation...which obviously, wink wink, is the Word of the Lord...as you get all the bible right.....they are participating in witchcraft????

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

But, Truth7t7 said none of Daniel 9:26-27, including the reference to the Messiah being cut off, relates to Christ's death on the cross. I believe you should consider removing your love emoji response from that post.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

@WPM never said that. He just believes that the prince to come in verse 26 refers to Titus. He believes the "He" in verse 27 is referring to the Messiah, Jesus Christ, just as all Christians who actually have discernment do.

You quoting 1 Samuel 15:23 here is completely inappropriate. You are unhinged.

 

[covenantee]

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

Here's what @WPM believes about Daniel 9:27:

Daniel 9:26-27 says, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (mashiyach) be cut off, but not for himself, 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. And he (Christ) 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.”

 

[David in NJ]

But, Truth7t7 said none of Daniel 9:26-27, including the reference to the Messiah being cut off, relates to Christ's death on the cross. I believe you should consider removing your love emoji response from that post.

i did not know that

 

[rwb]

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.

The question focuses on who the people of the prince that shall come is? Yes, the prince that shall come is the same he who shall confirm the covenant in vs 27. The prince that shall come is NOT Titus coming with the Roman Army as WPM and others believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i did not know that

He believes that the 70 weeks are 490 literal days that occur in the future and that the prophecy has nothing to do with Christ's death at all.

 

[rwb]

Here's what @WPM believes about Daniel 9:27:

Daniel 9:26-27 says, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (mashiyach) be cut off, but not for himself, 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. And he (Christ) 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.”

This is confusing because WPM said that he believes the prince of the people who shall come is Titus with the Roman Army. How could it be Titus with the Roman Army since the prince of the people that shall come is the same he that shall confirm the covenant with many of vs. 27.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The question focuses on who the people of the prince that shall come is?

Verse 26 focuses on that rather than on the prince to come. It's the people of the prince to come who destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince himself. So, the last individual in focus is the Messiah mentioned just before that. That's who verse 27 is referring to regardless of who the prince to come in verse 26 is. I agree that it's referring to Messiah the prince, but if it was Titus or some other Roman leader from 70 AD, that doesn't change the meaning of verse 27.

Yes, the prince that shall come is the same he who shall confirm the covenant in vs 27. The prince that shall come is NOT Titus coming with the Roman Army as WPM and others believe.

I agree, but there's nothing that says if it is Titus then verse 27 can't be referring to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. That's my point.

 

[rwb]

Verse 26 focuses on that rather than on the prince. It's the people of the prince who destroy the city and the sanctuary, not the prince himself.

EXACTLY!

So, the last individual in focus is the Messiah mentioned just before that. That's who verse 27 is referring to regardless of who the prince to come in verse 26 is. I believe it's the Messiah, but if it was Titus or some other Roman leader from 70 AD, that doesn't change the meaning of verse 27.

Who do you think he of vs 27 is if not the same prince of the people that shall come? Of course, making the prince that shall come Titus with the Roman Army changes who he of vs 27 is. I call it Preterit gymnastics! Trying to force the physical destruction into this passage of Daniel to force fit Preterit doctrine.

 

[rwb]

I agree, but there's nothing that says if it is Titus then verse 27 can't be referring to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. That's my point.

More Preterit gymnastics. Just spin and twist he of vs 27 to be Christ while saying the prince that shall come is Titus, even though the passage clearly says the prince that shall come is the SAME he who shall confirm the covenant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Who do you think he of vs 27 is if not the same prince of the people that shall come?

I have to wonder sometimes how carefully you read what people say. I made it very clear multiple times that the "he" in verse 27 is about Jesus confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant and its sacrifices and offerings obsolete.

Of course, making the prince that shall come Titus with the Roman Army changes who he of vs 27 is.

No, it doesn't. Not necessarily. In the reference to the people of the prince who was to come, it's the people in focus there, not the prince. So, the last individual focused upon is the Messiah and that is the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27. So, no matter how you look at it, verse 27 is referring to the Messiah.

I call it Preterit gymnastics! Trying to force the physical destruction into this passage of Daniel to force fit Preterit doctrine.

It clearly refers to the physical destruction of the city and the sanctuary and Jesus referred to it as well. You don't have to be a preterist to believe that. Jesus made the temple spiritually desolate up until the consummation of the physical destruction and desolation of the temple.

 

[amigo de christo]

They are offering "strange fire"

Even when they attempt to use the "coals from the tabernacle"

And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his firepan, and they put fire in it, and they put incense on it, and they brought near before the face of YHWH strange fire, which He had not commanded them.

and what happened to the sons of Aaron when they too offered up strange fire .
And now a word .
AND HOW MUCH WORSE when this s trange fire of today , TRODS THE SON RIGHT UNDER FOOT .
So now let us hear a word from the weather man or i should say the whether man .
The forecast is clear with lots of joy , singing and praises unto CHRIST on HIS day
But unto all that sung the song of a harlots love , it will be FIRE RAINED DOWN UPON THEM WITH LOTS OF BRIMESTON
on the day OF JESUS CHRIST .
SO its simple really . IT depends on the whether . WHETHER OR NOT ONE actually BELIEVED GOD
THUS BELIEVED CHRIST , THUS WOULD have BELEIVED HIS WORDS
For one forecast is real real good on HIS DAY
but the other forecast calls for SUDDEN DESTRUcTION upon them all ON HIS DAY .

 

[Davidpt]

The question focuses on who the people of the prince that shall come is? Yes, the prince that shall come is the same he who shall confirm the covenant in vs 27. The prince that shall come is NOT Titus coming with the Roman Army as WPM and others believe.

There is another way to read verse 26 and 27 which makes it even clearer there are 2 princes in those verses rather than one. IMO, verse 26 and 27 can also be read in the following manner, A) and B).

A)
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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

Thus it is Christ that fulfilled the midst of the week 2000 years ago. Is anyone that agrees that Christ fulfilled the midst of the week going to then dispute that verse 26 and 27 can be read in this manner? Be sure to remember that if you have a dispute with B) being read in that manner but don't have a dispute with A) being read in that manner. In my view it's called cherry picking, thus not being consistent if one has no dispute with reading A) in that manner but has disputes with reading B) in that manner.

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

thus it is a future prince and the people of this prince that fulfills the remainder of the 70th week. Granted, just to be fair, some interpreters flat out deny that all of verse 27 pertains to the 70th week. They agree there is a gap after the midst of the week per that verse. They disagree that after the gap, the final half of the 70th week begins, the fact they disagree that the remaining clauses in verse 27 are pertaining to the remainder of the week. They see that meaning outside of the 70th week.

IOW, in my view, there is a gap after Christ fulfilled the midst of the 70th week. That gap involving the NT church age until the time of 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Which then involves the beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and the strong delusion God sends. Which then, in my view, is involving the 42 month reign of the beast and Matthew 24:15-26.

For instance, compare the following.

the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders(2 Thessalonians 2:9)

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men(Revelation 13:13)

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect(Matthew 24:24)

The book of Revelation identifies the one meant in Revelation 13:13 as the false prophet. The very same thing Matthew 24:24 is involving, false prophets. And 3 accounts have great signs and wonders in common

It seems to me the text itself distinguishes Messiah's work from the final desolation. That's why I don't see how verse 27 can be entirely assigned to a future antichrist. When I compare Daniel 9 with Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, I see a consistent pattern----Christ fulfills the middle of the week through His death, while the remaining desolation belongs to the final rebellion before Christ's return.

During the 70th week Christ confirms the covenant with many in the following manner. The first half He confirms it bodily during His 3.5 year ministry then via His bodily death followed by His bodily resurrection.

In the 2nd half He continues to confirm the covenant with many, spiritually, since He is no longer bodily present. And the way He does that is because not everyone falls away and worships the beast(2 Thessalonians 2:3). The ones that don't = the ones Christ is still confirming the covenant with during the final half of the 70th week.

Nowhere per my interpretation, which is not my interpretation alone, thus there are others that interpret it in a similar manner, do I ever have a future AC fulfilling the midst of the 70th week. For the life of me I cannot see why some are having issue with this?

In my view, the final clause of verse 27 belongs with the future prince rather than with Messiah's ministry while He was still bodily present---And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---does not belong with this part---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

There is clearly a gap between those events. Anyone that disagrees, they disagree with the text itself, not with me. By placing a gap between the 69th and 70th week instead, this in turn makes a future AC fulfilling the midst of the week rather than Christ.

Where I come from Scripture is supposed to interpret Scripture. In the event I'm not doing that here, that according to some, well there are a whole lot of coincidences in that case one needs to explain.

 

[covenantee]

This is confusing because WPM said that he believes the prince of the people who shall come is Titus with the Roman Army. How could it be Titus with the Roman Army since the prince of the people that shall come is the same he that shall confirm the covenant with many of vs. 27.

Yes, I have the same question myself. I haven't yet asked him for clarification.

 

[covenantee]

Who do you think he of vs 27 is if not the same prince of the people that shall come?

I concur that they are one and the same when the grammar is honored.

Messiah.

 

[covenantee]

I went through the first two posts in the beginning of your thread, and from what I can see, this is not a study on spiritual discernment but rather a defense of a particular hermeneutical method (how the Bible should be interpreted). You argue that many passages that most Christians understand as having both a literal historical meaning and a spiritual significance should instead be interpreted almost entirely symbolically.

There are some things I agree on and others where I think you go well beyond what scripture itself allows.

Here are several biblical truths you expounded on: Spiritual understanding comes from the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 2:14. The Old Testament contains types and shadows that point to Christ. Jesus often explained the deeper spiritual meaning of Scripture. Believers are described as living stones 1 Peter 2:5. Jerusalem, the Temple, and Israel can at times represent God's covenant people. Scripture should interpret Scripture.

These are all sound biblical principles.

Then there are these, in which I would begin exercising discernment.

You repeatedly set the spiritual against the literal.​

The Bible does not do this. Biblical prophecy often has a literal historical fulfillment while also having spiritual significance.

Jesus really did die; he also fulfilled the role of the Passover Lamb. Jerusalem was literally judged.

That judgment also carried spiritual meaning. The Temple was literally destroyed in AD 70. Yet believers are also God's spiritual temple. These are not either/or. They are often both.

Your assuming that almost everything is symbolic.​

For example, you write that Christ was not talking about literal Jerusalem but only about the spiritual congregation. Yet Jesus actually wept over the physical city. Luke 19 predicts events that historically happened. The Romans literally surrounded Jerusalem. The city literally fell.

The people literally died. That historical judgment also illustrated spiritual judgment.

One does not cancel the other.

You dismiss other believers as lacking spiritual discernment.​

Throughout your posts you have said things like they cannot discern, they are spiritually blind, they are indoctrinated, they only see literally, and they fall back on paradoxes

Scripture tells us that we are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

A person may disagree with another's interpretation without implying that the other lacks the Holy Spirit.

You equate disagreement with spiritual blindness.​

Many faithful Christians throughout history have disagreed over the following: Revelation, prophecy, Israel, the millennium, AD 70, symbolism

Disagreement does not automatically mean one side is spiritually blind.

You are building a doctrine on illustrations.​

Take Mark 8. The healing of the blind man is primarily about Jesus healing blindness. It certainly illustrates spiritual blindness. But to make "men as trees" become the controlling key for interpreting revelation stretches the passage beyond its purpose. Illustrations should support doctrine.

They should not become doctrine.

You appear to begin with this assumption:

Everything physical points to something spiritual; therefore, the physical meaning is usually not God's primary meaning. That is not actually the hermeneutic Jesus or the apostles consistently used.

For example, Jesus literally rose from the dead; that literal resurrection also has spiritual implications. The two are inseparable.

Likewise, Israel existed. Jerusalem existed. The temple existed. These historical realities also teach spiritual truths.

The New Testament doesn't erase the historical meaning; it often deepens it.

The approach you have taken has existed throughout church history, but it can become problematic when it consistently overrides the plain historical meaning of the biblical text.

However, true spiritual discernment is shown not only by insight into Scripture but also by humility James 3:13–18. A person may have genuine insight into biblical symbolism while still overextending that symbolism or speaking too dismissively of fellow believers. That combination is something worth discerning carefully…

Thanks for restoring essential perspectives to this, Angelina.