A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[rwb]

Please read the post I just made (post #357) to see how the Hebrew grammar can be understood. The "he" in verse 27 does not have to refer to the prince in verse 26, but can refer to the Messiah in verse 26 instead. Hebrew grammar allows for either possibility. That's why I believe his view is viable even though I no longer see it that way and agree with you on this. And I don't think it's worth making that big of a deal about it because he still agrees that Jesus is the one who confirms the new covenant in verse 27.

How is that a viable understanding? Whether 'he' refers to Messiah in vs 26 or the prince that shall come, you still haven't explained how 'he' that shall confirm/strengthen the covenant can be anyone other than Christ! Where in Scripture, not history past can we find Titus or anyone else besides Christ the Messiah confirming/strengthening THE covenant?

Post #307 WPM "He is not the same, in my opinion! There is two princes - one the Messiah, and the other Titus. From my studies, and I have read a lot on this, my position would be the traditional Protestant view over the years."

Titus is NOWHERE found in this passage, he is read INTO the Bible using extrabiblical sources by those who defend the doctrine of Preterism.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How is that a viable understanding? Whether 'he' refers to Messiah in vs 26 or the prince that shall come, you still haven't explained how 'he' that shall confirm/strengthen the covenant can be anyone other than Christ!

I'm not saying it can be anyone other than Christ! You continue to not understand anything I say! Why? I don't believe you are reading what I'm saying very carefully.

Where in Scripture, not history past can we find Titus or anyone else besides Christ the Messiah confirming/strengthening THE covenant?

NOWHERE! I'm not saying that!

Post #307 WPM "He is not the same, in my opinion! There is two princes - one the Messiah, and the other Titus. From my studies, and I have read a lot on this, my position would be the traditional Protestant view over the years."

Titus is NOWHERE found in this passage, he is read INTO the Bible using extrabiblical sources by those who defend the doctrine of Preterism.

He is NOT saying that Titus is referred to in verse 27! Can you not understand that?

 

[rwb]

I am not a preterist. You whine a lot about how people talk to you and then you LIE about people by calling them preterists when they are not.

No, this is how you whine when I label you Preterit for promoting and defending the Preterit doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, this is how you whine when I label you Preterit for promoting and defending the Preterit doctrine.

I do not promote the preterist doctrine. That is a LIE. Why do you think it's okay to lie? Do you not know that it's a sin? I disagree with preterists on most of their understanding of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation. You obviously don't even know what a preterist is. I'll just call you a preterist since you also believe that some Bible prophecy has been fufilled.

 

[Truth7t7]

There is no mention of any future temple being built in Isaiah 66:1-4. Read the text carefully.

Isaiah 66:1 Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?

God is not saying any temple will be built in the future. He is saying heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool, so how can anyone think they can build a house/temple for Him to dwell in when He has no need for one? That's all He's saying there. He's not saying that anyone ever was actually going to do that. He's speaking facetiously there and showing that He has no need for anyone to build Him a dwelling place. There is no mention there of any temple being built in the future.

Yes I believe the worthless daily sacrifice was stopped in 70AD, and this is the very reason many reformed preterist claim "Titus" was Daniel's little horn and Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 and the great tribulation Matthew 24:21 were fulfilled in the 70AD Roman Destruction of Jerusalem and its temple

It's my belief Israel-Jerusalem will build a 3rd temple on the temple mound presently held by the Muslims with their Mosque on the site, I believe the Jews will take this site and build the 3rd temple, this will cause a world disturbance and Armies will surround Jerusalem in the time of the gentiles
.
Its my belief that Isaiah 66:1-4 speaks directly of this future temple, that will have renewed animal sacrifice for sin, and yes this is a complet abomination to the cross of Calvary

Will A 3rd Temple Be Built In Jerusalem?

Isaiah 66:1-4 strongly suggest a rebuilt house/temple dedicated to God by the Jews, with renewed animal sacrifice, this will be an "Abomonation" to the Lord and the cross of Calvary, God will send them a strong delusion

Point Of Interest: The word "Delusion" is used 2 times in the KJV, and they are both associated with a house/temple, and it appears that the scripture presented could be "Parallel Readings" of the same event?

Isaiah 66:1-4KJV

1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11KJV

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Truth7t7]

I do not promote the preterist doctrine. That is a LIE. Why do you think it's okay to lie? Do you not know that it's a sin? I disagree with preterists on most of their understanding of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation. You obviously don't even know what a preterist is. I'll just call you a preterist since you also believe that some Bible prophecy has been fufilled.

Can't believe you get away with your foul actions and words on this board, like running around calling posters outright liars, not to mention your many other written actions and words, and you stand "Alone" with my claims, there's nobody on this board like you, the truth

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[rwb]

I'm not saying it can be anyone other than Christ! You continue to not understand anything I say! Why? I don't believe you are reading what I'm saying very carefully.

But you are defending WPM who says it is Titus! If you don't want to be linked with him, stop defending the error! In this passage of Daniel 9 there is no mention of any other Messiah, prince or he that is NOT Christ!

NOWHERE! I'm not saying that!

Than why are you defending someone who does say that?

He is NOT saying that Titus is referred to in verse 27! Can you not understand that?

I quoted him, you can read it for yourself. If WPM is not saying Titus is 'he' in vs 27, am I to understand that he is saying Titus is Messiah, or the prince of the people? If Titus is the prince of the people that too does not come from the text but has to be read into the text from extrabiblical sources which is the only way the Preterit can force their doctrine INTO the Bible.

 

[Truth7t7]

Total nonsense. Isaiah 66:1-4 absolutely makes no mention of any temple actually being built. It's God facetiously asking how could anyone build a house for Him when heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool? He's just illustrating how He doesn't need anyone to build a house/temple for Him, that's all. You're reading things into the text that aren't there. Also, you try to turn a reference to God's temple into some fake temple of God instead, which is another case of twisting the text.

Please Respond Question?

1.) Does Isaiah 66:3 below reference animal sacrifice taking place

Point Of Interest: The word "Delusion" is used 2 times in the KJV, and they are both associated with a house/temple, and it appears that the scripture presented could be "Parallel Readings" of the same event?

Isaiah 66:1-4KJV

1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11KJV

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[rwb]

I do not promote the preterist doctrine. That is a LIE. Why do you think it's okay to lie? Do you not know that it's a sin? I disagree with preterists on most of their understanding of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation. You obviously don't even know what a preterist is. I'll just call you a preterist since you also believe that some Bible prophecy has been fufilled.

You promote and defend Preterit doctrine but you don't believe you are a Preterit? And you call me a liar? Gee, wouldn't be calling me a Preterit be an insult for you? I mean since you've called not only I but many of the people posting in these forums much worse, belittling, laughing at others, implying we are stupid, gnostic, deceived etc. etc. etc. why stop at Preterit you can and do so much worse!

 

[Truth7t7]

You promote and defend Preterit doctrine but you don't believe you are a Preterit? And you call me a liar? Gee, wouldn't be calling me a Preterit be an insult for you? I mean since you've called not only I but many of the people posting in these forums much worse, belittling, laughing at others, implying we are stupid, gnostic, deceived etc. etc. etc. why stop at Preterit you can and do so much worse!

I Agree 100%

 

[Truth7t7]

Not to mention. Take the KJV, for instance. The translators put Prince in verse 25 in Caps but did not do that with the prince meant in verse 26. Obviously, had the translators taken the 2nd prince to be meaning the prince in verse 25, they would have put that prince in caps as well. If nothing else it seems to prove the translators didn't take both to be the same person. What is the earliest known KVJ translation of those verses? Maybe this is not the case in the earliest ones?

I Agree 100%, The 54 KJV translators were top scholars of their time,they knew well that "the prince to come" wasn't deity Jesus Christ

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Truth7t7]

Be careful not to judge others for what you are guilty of!

Matthew 7:1-2 (KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


No, what you're doing is trying to protect the Preterit doctrine that both you and he cling to.



No! I am proving how unbelievably unreasonable you become when replying to anyone who dares disagree with you or WPM.

We'll said I agree 100%

 

[Davidpt]

But you are defending WPM who says it is Titus! If you don't want to be linked with him, stop defending the error! In this passage of Daniel 9 there is no mention of any other Messiah, prince or he that is NOT Christ!



Than why are you defending someone who does say that?



I quoted him, you can read it for yourself. If WPM is not saying Titus is 'he' in vs 27, am I to understand that he is saying Titus is Messiah, or the prince of the people? If Titus is the prince of the people that too does not come from the text but has to be read into the text from extrabiblical sources which is the only way the Preterit can force their doctrine INTO the Bible.

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.
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.


Roger, it seems simple. In verse 26 there are 2 subjects.

1) Messiah---singular

2) the people of the prince that shall come---plural

In verse 27 the pronoun belongs to a subject that is singular. Obviously, the people of the prince that shall come is not singlular, it is plural. Therefore, the only one in verse 26 that can fit the singular pronoun is 1), the Messiah.

Therefore, it doesn't matter who one takes the prince that shall come to be meaning. He is not the subject, his people are the subject. A plural subject cannot fit a pronoun that is singular. Personally, I take the prince that shall come to be meaning a future AC. But it doesn't affect verse 27 and the one who fulfills the midst of the week though. It is the singular subject in verse 26 that fulfills the midst of the week. Nor does it affect verse 27 and the one who fulfills the midst of the week if that person takes the prince to come to be meaning Titus. It doesn't matter. It might matter if the prince that shall come is the subject of the clause in question. Except he isn't.

IMO, what is absurd is for anyone to take the prince that shall come to be meaning the Messiah. When the prince in question shall come, the Messiah already came and went and ascended back into heaven regardless when he comes, be that in 70 AD, or be that in the future.. Shall come = something future, in relation to the Messiah being cut off, not something past.

That would be like someone insisting, that if in July 2026 one says "I shall come over to your house and mow your yard for you sometime in August 2026", that this is speaking of a past event rather than a future event. Therefore, unless one agrees with Preterist theology, that Christ came in judgment in the first century, that person is not going to insist the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. And the ironic thing about it, both you and @Spiritual Israelite appear to be insisting that the prince that shall come is meaning Christ then you attacking @Spiritual Israelite calling him a Preterist when you are one yourself if you take the prince that shall come to be meaning Christ.

Where do you all assume Christ comes to in the future, remember, shall come = future, after he has already ascended and not even returned yet? Preterists insist He came in 70 AD, but not bodily. Niether of you are thinking things through very well here if you are insisting that the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. Except I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I have of convincing you all that it is absurd to insist the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. Only Preterists would take the prince that shall come to mean Christ. That way it agrees with their interpretation of Matthew 24:30, for one. How two smart ppl like you all cannot see that, is mind boggling. Only Preterists have something to gain per their theology by making the prince that shall come to be meaning Jesus. No one else does.

The fact the pronoun in verse 27 requires a singular subject also 100% debunks that a future AC fulfills the midst of the week. Only a subject that is singular in verse 26 can fulfill that. A plural subject certainly can't. And in this case as well, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I have convincing anyone who insists a future AC fulfills the midst of the week, that it is the Messiah that does that, not a future AC. And I don't even play the lottery. Maybe I need to go out and buy a ticket though.

 

[IndianaRob]

Yes I believe the worthless daily sacrifice was stopped in 70AD, and this is the very reason many reformed preterist claim "Titus" was Daniel's little horn and Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 and the great tribulation Matthew 24:21 were fulfilled in the 70AD Roman Destruction of Jerusalem and its temple

It's my belief Israel-Jerusalem will build a 3rd temple on the temple mound presently held by the Muslims with their Mosque on the site, I believe the Jews will take this site and build the 3rd temple, this will cause a world disturbance and Armies will surround Jerusalem in the time of the gentiles
.
Its my belief that Isaiah 66:1-4 speaks directly of this future temple, that will have renewed animal sacrifice for sin, and yes this is a complet abomination to the cross of Calvary

Will A 3rd Temple Be Built In Jerusalem?

Isaiah 66:1-4 strongly suggest a rebuilt house/temple dedicated to God by the Jews, with renewed animal sacrifice, this will be an "Abomonation" to the Lord and the cross of Calvary, God will send them a strong delusion

Point Of Interest: The word "Delusion" is used 2 times in the KJV, and they are both associated with a house/temple, and it appears that the scripture presented could be "Parallel Readings" of the same event?

Isaiah 66:1-4KJV

1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11KJV

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Whether it was Titus or some future person who causes the daily sacrifice to end, my point in asking those questions is to show that there are two separate "end of daily sacrifices" events.

One is the physical stop — when the sacrifices are literally, forcibly prevented (the temple destroyed/desecrated). The other is when Jesus ended them at the cross — not physically, but by making them obsolete.

Daniel 8:11 is the physical stop (the sanctuary cast down, sacrifice taken away by force). Daniel 9:27 is when Jesus caused them to cease.

 

[shepherdsword]

|

Since all you're doing is consulting AI, I'll do the same. Read this...

My question to the AI: Does Hebrew grammar allow for the possibility that the "he" in Daniel 9:27 could be referring to "the Messiah" in the previous verse rather than "the prince that shall come"?

Yes. Hebrew grammar absolutely allows for that possibility. It does not settle the question either way.
The key issue is that the subject of Daniel 9:27 ("he shall make a firm covenant...") is expressed only by a third-person masculine singular pronoun implied in the verb (wĕhigbîr, "and he shall make strong/confirm"). Hebrew often omits explicit subject pronouns because the verb itself indicates the person, gender, and number.

The question is: Who is the antecedent?

In Daniel 9:26, there are two possible masculine singular antecedents:

1. The Messiah ("Messiah shall be cut off...")
2. The prince who is to come ("the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary")

From a grammatical standpoint, either is possible.

Why "Messiah" is grammatically possible​

Several factors support the possibility:

• "Messiah" is the primary individual introduced in verse 26. The prophecy has been centered on the Messiah throughout verses 24–26.
• The phrase "the people of the prince who is to come" shifts the focus from the prince himself to his people as the ones who perform the destruction. The prince is introduced only indirectly through a genitive construction ("people of the prince"), not as the acting subject.
• Hebrew frequently resumes the main subject of a discourse after a subordinate phrase or parenthetical statement.

Why "the prince who is to come" is also grammatically possible​

Advocates of this view point out that:

• "Prince" is the nearest masculine singular noun before verse 27.
• Hebrew often uses the nearest suitable antecedent, although this is far from an absolute rule.
• The flow can be read as introducing this prince in verse 26 and continuing with him in verse 27.

Hebrew grammar does not require the nearest antecedent​

This is an important point. Unlike what is sometimes claimed, Hebrew has no rule stating that a pronoun must refer to the nearest antecedent.
Hebrew regularly refers back to a more prominent or more central subject rather than simply the closest noun. Context and discourse prominence are often more important than proximity.

What do Hebrew scholars say?​

Many Hebrew grammarians acknowledge that the grammar itself does not decide the issue. The decision is made primarily by one's interpretation of the passage rather than by grammatical necessity.
For example:

• Those holding a Messianic interpretation argue that Christ confirms the covenant and causes sacrifice to cease through His atoning death.
• Those holding a futurist interpretation argue that the coming prince (often identified as the Antichrist) makes a seven-year covenant and later breaks it.

Both interpretations can legitimately claim grammatical possibility. The disagreement is over context and theology, not because Hebrew grammar excludes one option.

Conclusion​

Your summary from earlier remains accurate:

• Hebrew grammar allows the "he" in Daniel 9:27 to refer to the Messiah.
• Hebrew grammar also allows it to refer to the prince who is to come.
• Grammar alone does not determine which interpretation is correct. The decision depends on how one understands the flow of the prophecy and the broader biblical context.

This is why respected commentators and Hebrew scholars have defended both positions over many centuries. The debate is interpretive rather than grammatical.

The end of the AI commentary is the last sentence above. Read the conclusion carefully. We cannot get to the truth of this matter based on what translation we are reading or based on Hebrew grammar alone. Do you understand that?

I did this same study some time back. It came to pretty much the same conclusion. The Hebrew grammar allows for it to refer to either one. The way you interpret it is all a form of McGurk effect. Each will see it in accordance with their paradigm.

 

[rwb]

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.
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.


Roger, it seems simple. In verse 26 there are 2 subjects.

1) Messiah---singular

2) the people of the prince that shall come---plural

In verse 27 the pronoun belongs to a subject that is singular. Obviously, the people of the prince that shall come is not singlular, it is plural. Therefore, the only one in verse 26 that can fit the singular pronoun is 1), the Messiah.

Therefore, it doesn't matter who one takes the prince that shall come to be meaning. He is not the subject, his people are the subject. A plural subject cannot fit a pronoun that is singular. Personally, I take the prince that shall come to be meaning a future AC. But it doesn't affect verse 27 and the one who fulfills the midst of the week though. It is the singular subject in verse 26 that fulfills the midst of the week. Nor does it affect verse 27 and the one who fulfills the midst of the week if that person takes the prince to come to be meaning Titus. It doesn't matter. It might matter if the prince that shall come is the subject of the clause in question. Except he isn't.

IMO, what is absurd is for anyone to take the prince that shall come to be meaning the Messiah. When the prince in question shall come, the Messiah already came and went and ascended back into heaven regardless when he comes, be that in 70 AD, or be that in the future.. Shall come = something future, in relation to the Messiah being cut off, not something past.

That would be like someone insisting, that if in July 2026 one says "I shall come over to your house and mow your yard for you sometime in August 2026", that this is speaking of a past event rather than a future event. Therefore, unless one agrees with Preterist theology, that Christ came in judgment in the first century, that person is not going to insist the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. And the ironic thing about it, both you and @Spiritual Israelite appear to be insisting that the prince that shall come is meaning Christ then you attacking @Spiritual Israelite calling him a Preterist when you are one yourself if you take the prince that shall come to be meaning Christ.

Where do you all assume Christ comes to in the future, remember, shall come = future, after he has already ascended and not even returned yet? Preterists insist He came in 70 AD, but not bodily. Niether of you are thinking things through very well here if you are insisting that the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. Except I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I have of convincing you all that it is absurd to insist the prince that shall come is meaning Christ. Only Preterists would take the prince that shall come to mean Christ. That way it agrees with their interpretation of Matthew 24:30, for one. How two smart ppl like you all cannot see that, is mind boggling. Only Preterists have something to gain per their theology by making the prince that shall come to be meaning Jesus. No one else does.

The fact the pronoun in verse 27 requires a singular subject also 100% debunks that a future AC fulfills the midst of the week. Only a subject that is singular in verse 26 can fulfill that. A plural subject certainly can't. And in this case as well, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I have convincing anyone who insists a future AC fulfills the midst of the week, that it is the Messiah that does that, not a future AC. And I don't even play the lottery. Maybe I need to go out and buy a ticket though.

David, you're forgetting that everything Daniel is saying is future from him. The prince that shall come is the same Messiah the Prince the man Gabriel said would be coming after 490 years have passed. He is the anointed most Holy Messiah the Prince! All that comes to pass from the moment of Messiah the Prince coming is future, and points to what shall be when Messiah the Prince shall come. Also, future are the people of the prince that shall come and destroy the city and sanctuary. What prince if not Messiah the Prince that has been the subject of the man Gabriel from the beginning? The people of Messiah the Prince are Jews, because Messiah the Prince will be born a Jew and these future Jews will have already spiritually destroyed the city and sanctuary long before Messiah the Prince would come. These apostate future Jews will be the reason Messiah the Prince shall be cut off when they crucify Him in the future not the past. But through Messiah the Prince being crucified He (vs 27) shall confirm or strengthen the covenant. What covenant? By His sacrifice on the cross sacrifice and offerings cease, why? Because by His death the Old Covenant is finished and the New Covenant shall be ushered in. And because of these Jewish apostates, the nation (Jewish people) shall become desolate and remain such until the consummation or end of time.

And yes, it does matter to the Preterit who the prince that shall come (Titus). leading his people (Roman Army) to destroy the city and sanctuary. If Titus and the Roman Army cannot be read into the Bible through extrabiblical sources, then the doctrine of Preterits is error, and is NOT rightly dividing the WORD of truth. It is forcing the Bible to correspond to past historical events rather than allowing the Bible alone to instruct us.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Why do you have to resort to these LIES? I am not a preterist.

LOL

Calling it a lie doesn’t change the fact that your interpretation adopts a fundamental preterist framework. You may not identify yourself as a preterist, but you’ve embraced its central interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by dividing Christ’s prophecy between A.D. 70 and a future Second Coming. That’s the very hermeneutic preterism popularized.

The real issue isn’t what label you wear—it’s the source of your interpretation. Christ was speaking prophetically about His New Testament Church throughout this present age, culminating in His return at the end of the age. By forcing much of Matthew 24 into A.D. 70 with Titus and crying mothers with child, you are borrowing a preterist lens while denying that’s what you’re doing. Rejecting the label doesn’t erase your flawed interpretive method.

 

[rwb]

|

I did this same study some time back. It came to pretty much the same conclusion. The Hebrew grammar allows for it to refer to either one. The way you interpret it is all a form of McGurk effect. Each will see it in accordance with their paradigm.

Each will see it either FROM the Bible itself, or by reading it INTO the Bible from extrabiblical sources as the Preterit does.

 

[rwb]

LOL

Calling it a lie doesn’t change the fact that your interpretation adopts a fundamental preterist framework. You may not identify yourself as a preterist, but you’ve embraced its central interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by dividing Christ’s prophecy between A.D. 70 and a future Second Coming. That’s the very hermeneutic preterism popularized.

The real issue isn’t what label you wear—it’s the source of your interpretation. Christ was speaking prophetically about His New Testament Church throughout this present age, culminating in His return at the end of the age. By forcing much of Matthew 24 into A.D. 70 with Titus and crying mothers wuth chikd, you are borrowing a preterist lens while denying that’s what you’re doing. Rejecting the label doesn’t erase your flawed interpretive method.

There is only one thing I differ with you about here. I believe the prophet Daniel in chapter 9 is speaking prophetically about what shall become of the Jewish people when Messiah the Prince, would come to spiritually usher in the Kingdom of God as He sends His disciples who shall be from every nation of the earth, beginning with the Jews, to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ our Lord. It is in this manner the words spoken by Christ shall come to pass "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[TribulationSigns]

There is only one thing I differ with you about here. I believe the prophet Daniel in chapter 9 is speaking prophetically about what shall become of the Jewish people when Messiah the Prince, would come to spiritually usher in the Kingdom of God as He sends His disciples who shall be from every nation of the earth, beginning with the Jews, to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ our Lord. It is in this manner the words spoken by Christ shall come to pass "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Exactly what are you disagreeing with? Over which Scripture?