Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

[covenantee]

Glad you agree with me despite that you still don't get it. So far, you really have not refute my position. Go have fun playing in 70AD Sandbox that won't get you any closer to the Gospel truth.

Were the Judaean Christians wrong to literally heed Jesus' literal warnings, literally act upon them, and literally preserve their lives?

 

[jeffweeder]

Glad you agree with me despite that you still don't get it.

Do you agree that God never brings judgement without first warning that particular generation to repent?

Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God does nothing Without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets.

How did God warn the people of Jesus day of the impending doom of AD70?

 

[grafted branch]

What are you talking about? Losing salvation? What does this has to do with Luke 13. You were not listening very well.

You’re putting forth the idea that Jerusalem is a congregation, a spiritual city and that house becomes desolate because they didn’t know the time of their visitation.

If a person can’t loose their salvation, the congregation that person belongs to never becomes completely desolate. A congregation of 100 people where 50 are saved and 50 aren’t only becomes more desolate if the saved leave or more unsaved join. If one saved person remains the congregation still wouldn’t be completely desolate, it would be 99% desolate.

If a person can loose their salvation, then, if whatever causes salvation to be lost happens to that congregation, that congregation becomes desolate without anyone leaving it or joining it.

How can a congregation become desolate by not knowing the hour of their visitation? Answer, Jerusalem isn’t a congregation necessarily, it’s an allegory for the covenant (Galatians 4:21-26). Those under the old covenant didn’t have to do anything other than reject Jesus as the Messiah, which the old covenant pointed to, to loose access to God in the temple.

 

[claninja]

Destroy a literal city and temple though? It all depends on whether one thinks the NT can shed light on the OT in this case.

Shouldn’t we begin by examining the New Testament passages that explicitly reference Daniel?

In Matthew 24:1–2, Jesus foretells the destruction of the physical temple. In response, the disciples ask, in part, “When will these things be?” (Matthew 24:3). Jesus then begins answering their question in Matthew 24:4.

When we arrive at Matthew 24:15, Jesus refers to “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel,” placing this reference within His answer to the disciples’ question concerning the destruction of the temple.

Since there is no explicit re-contextualization within Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in which the temple is identified as the “body of Christ” or a “spiritual temple,” the natural reading is that Jesus continues to speak about the physical temple the disciples had just pointed out. If one argues that Jesus has shifted the referent to a spiritual temple, the burden is to demonstrate where, WITHIN Matthew 24 itself, such a re-contextualization occurs.

Additionally, I think it’s important to examine the Greek terminology used in Daniel 9:27 LXX. The passage contains the term ἱερὸν, which is also the term used in Matthew 24:1 when referring to the temple the disciples observed:

and (καὶ) will strengthen/confirm (δυναμώσει) covenant (διαθήκην) with many (πολλοῖς) week/seven (ἑβδομάς) one (μία), and (καὶ) in (ἐν) the (τῷ) half (ἡμίσει) of the (τῆς) week (ἑβδομάδος), will be taken away/removed (ἀρθήσεται) my (μου) sacrifice (θυσία) and (καὶ) offering/libation (σπονδή), and (καὶ) upon (ἐπί) the (τό) holy place/sanctuary (ἱερὸν) [the] abomination (βδέλυγμα) of desolations (τῶν ἐρημώσεων)…

The term ἱερόν can denote a sacred place or temple. In New Testament usage, ἱερόν commonly refers to the temple precinct or the temple as a whole. In Matthew 24:1, ἱερόν clearly refers to the physical temple complex standing in Jerusalem.

Therefore, the connection between Matthew 24 and Daniel 9:27 is: Jesus invokes Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” while discussing the destruction of the physical temple.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Do you agree that God never brings judgement without first warning that particular generation to repent?

Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God does nothing Without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets.

You seem to naively think that Christ went through all this lengthy explanation just for the people (particular generation) He was addressing? You also seem to think that what Christ said has no bearing on us (the future generation 2000 years later)? For example, it was all about physical stones falling down. If that's the case, we can just rip Matthew 24 out of the bible, because it's no use to us. But the truth is, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. So no, you are wrong. There is nothing odd about it at all. God has always given His prophets fair warning before He brings his judgment on His people. And did you know that we, Christians, with the power of the Holy Spirit are also His prophets?:

Amos 3:7

• "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

That revelation comes from the Spirit of Truth. The Lord's chosen either tell the people about it or they have read it in the scriptures as prophecy. Time and time again God has done this. Where do you see the oddity in this? Have you read Ezeliel and God's lengthy explanation about the building of the physical temple, and how it is "Really" a warning to the people of Israel? The Temple was merely an illustration of uprightness. ..there is nothing odd about it at all. In fact, it is very typical when we compare scripture with scripture to discern God's interpretations.

By the way, those words to Ezekiel are applicable to some future generation 2,000 and more years in the future also. ..not at all odd.

How did God warn the people of Jesus day of the impending doom of AD70?

Show me the verses where God actually warned about physical destruction of 70AD. And what the context talks about. Etc.

 

[Davidpt]

Shouldn’t we begin by examining the New Testament passages that explicitly reference Daniel?

In Matthew 24:1–2, Jesus foretells the destruction of the physical temple. In response, the disciples ask, in part, “When will these things be?” (Matthew 24:3). Jesus then begins answering their question in Matthew 24:4.

When we arrive at Matthew 24:15, Jesus refers to “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel,” placing this reference within His answer to the disciples’ question concerning the destruction of the temple.

Since there is no explicit re-contextualization within Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in which the temple is identified as the “body of Christ” or a “spiritual temple,” the natural reading is that Jesus continues to speak about the physical temple the disciples had just pointed out. If one argues that Jesus has shifted the referent to a spiritual temple, the burden is to demonstrate where, WITHIN Matthew 24 itself, such a re-contextualization occurs.

Additionally, I think it’s important to examine the Greek terminology used in Daniel 9:27 LXX. The passage contains the term ἱερὸν, which is also the term used in Matthew 24:1 when referring to the temple the disciples observed:

and (καὶ) will strengthen/confirm (δυναμώσει) covenant (διαθήκην) with many (πολλοῖς) week/seven (ἑβδομάς) one (μία), and (καὶ) in (ἐν) the (τῷ) half (ἡμίσει) of the (τῆς) week (ἑβδομάδος), will be taken away/removed (ἀρθήσεται) my (μου) sacrifice (θυσία) and (καὶ) offering/libation (σπονδή), and (καὶ) upon (ἐπί) the (τό) holy place/sanctuary (ἱερὸν) [the] abomination (βδέλυγμα) of desolations (τῶν ἐρημώσεων)…

The term ἱερόν can denote a sacred place or temple. In New Testament usage, ἱερόν commonly refers to the temple precinct or the temple as a whole. In Matthew 24:1, ἱερόν clearly refers to the physical temple complex standing in Jerusalem.

Therefore, the connection between Matthew 24 and Daniel 9:27 is: Jesus invokes Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” while discussing the destruction of the physical temple.

If there was an AOD involving the 2nd temple 2000 years ago, what then was the AOD? Assuming there was one, well it should no longer be a mystery 2000 years later as to what it was. Except not all interpreters that insist an AOD involved the 2nd temple 2000 years ago can even agree with each other as to what the AOD was. Why should it be a multiple choice question if it has already been fulfilled?

If this AOD indeed happened 2000 years ago, every single interpreter that insists it did would be in full agreement with each other and that there would only be one choice to choose from, not multiple choices.

But if an AOD involving the 2nd temple never actually happened 2000 years ago to begin with, no wonder interpreters that insist it did happen can't all agree with each other as to what it was. That's typically what happens when an alleged fulfilled prophecy is false to begin with. The prophecy itself is not false. The claim that it has already been fulfilled is what is false. Otherwise, every single interpreter that insists it was already fulfilled would all agree 100% with each other as to what it was and what it looked like at the time.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You’re putting forth the idea that Jerusalem is a congregation, a spiritual city and that house becomes desolate because they didn’t know the time of their visitation.

Yes and a mountain.

If a person can’t loose their salvation, the congregation that person belongs to never becomes completely desolate. A congregation of 100 people where 50 are saved and 50 aren’t only becomes more desolate if the saved leave or more unsaved join. If one saved person remains the congregation still wouldn’t be completely desolate, it would be 99% desolate.

If a person can loose their salvation, then, if whatever causes salvation to be lost happens to that congregation, that congregation becomes desolate without anyone leaving it or joining it.

I think you are confused. You are questioning how can some Jews of the Old Congregation lose their salvation when they do not know that their congregation as fall.

How can a congregation become desolate by not knowing the hour of their visitation?

Because the congregation do not know that Christ was their Messiah the Prince that was prophesied. Only some remanent do.

Answer, Jerusalem isn’t a congregation necessarily, it’s an allegory for the covenant (Galatians 4:21-26). Those under the old covenant didn’t have to do anything other than reject Jesus as the Messiah, which the old covenant pointed to, to loose access to God in the temple.

See, the Bible is a Spiritual book, not a seismologist's ledger, not physical nation, physical temple. God's not interested in splitting literal mountains, except to make the point about the cleaving of the Kingdom that a way be made for the remnant to escape.

Zechariah 14:4

• "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Matthew 17:20

• "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Casting out devils is associated with Matthew 17 because it is a kingdom He Christ spoiled, bound Satan so that He might free the captivity of Israel. It is the faith o Christ that moves this mountain, and the mountain in view is not a physical mountain, but a spiritual one! Mountains in God's Word represent Kingdoms. And the kingdom that was removed by the faith of Christ was the one that suffered violence, and that the violent took by force. This kingdom was split in two to signify judgment, making a valley that a way could be made for the remnant to escape into the New Testament congregation. Selah!

The destruction of the kingdom (mountain) cast ito the sea creates a valley that God's people therein might escape. This was fulfilled in Christ Jesus by His Faithfulness and His cross. Selah. The problem is that you are thinking that Christ is talking about physical Mount Olives, physical temple, etc. It is spiritual discernment.

Let me explain...

His feet did stand upon the mount of olives, and the mount "did" cleave. The problem is, a lot of people don't accept that the Bible is a very Spiritual book that has to be understood Spiritually. Sadly, understanding Scripture "Spiritually" has become almost like a "dirty word" or a "plague" to them. Nevertheless, mount or mountain represents a Kingdom. Period. For example, Christ came to the Mount of Olives, indeed rode into Jerusalem on a colt as King from the Mount of Olives.

He preached on the mount of Olives, prayed on the mount of Olives, was betrayed by Judas with a kiss on the mount of Olives, indeed left earth from the Mount of Olives. And by His coming (and the consequent rejecting of Him by His people) He destroyed the mountain or Kingdom. The valley that was left was for the remnant to flee. This is not physical but Spiritual, just as nearly all of God's prophecies are. Why would this be any different. Take for example the prophesy of Isaiah 40.

Isaiah 40:3-4

• "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
• Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:"

Seriousily, who takes this literally/physically? No one! But they would "IF" it suited their purpose. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with literal/physical mountains and valleys being made low by physical earthquakes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with building a physical highway in the physical desert. But this is The Way God speaks in His prophecies to show us Spiritual truths that many of you do not receive! For example, Elijah didn't physically come back to Earth to do this, nevertheless, this prophesy was very "literally" fulfilled by John The Baptist. He was Spiritually "the Elijah" (Luke 1:17) prophesied to come. Selah!

...that some people (even today) do not understand this does not make it null and void or unfulfilled. Likewise with the dividing or cleaving of the Mountain.

Daniel 11:4

• "And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those."

Do you understand this? "How" can a kingdom be broken? Certainly not physically, but only spiritually in the sense of its power to rule is gone. And here again, we have a kingdom cleaved in fours, but again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a land ruled by a King physically splitting apart, nor with seismic activity occurring in a mountain. It is Spiritual language "illustrating" rule has been broken up.

Matthew 12:25

• "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:"

Kingdoms are divided, and mountains represent kingdoms. The Bible is a Spiritual Book, not a book detailing the prophesied very Physical collapse of bricks or stones or mountains in 70AD, nor of the very physical creation of valleys, highways in the Desert or living waters (H20) flowing in the middle east, blah blah blah. Sadly, that is something that some people will just never learn, no matter how much I explain it to many of you with supporting Scriptures. Because it is Spiritually discerned, thus any aversion to Spiritual discernments will leave one without it.

And many people fail to understand "in that day" encompasses the whole appearance and passion of Christ. The day of the Lord is both a day of Salvation and of Judgment. A valley for the remnant and a desolation for the wicked congregation.

Mark 11:1-2

• "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,
• And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him."

Christ came to and stood on the mount of Olives both literally and Spiritual. He began his triumphant entry into Jerusalem as King from the Mount of Olives. No insignificant things. And it was twofold. To be the "Suffering Servant" and to ultimately be rejected because the people wanted a Physical/literal King, rather than the Spiritual King He was. For example, he came to Jerusalem as a King, but they rejected Him. Even so, the stone the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. Thus, even though the mountain was divided (the Kingdom didn't stand), its power and rule taken away from Israel, the great valley was for the remnant that escaped. It all occurred at the Cross and the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament Church. Nothing about 70AD.

Selah!

 

[grafted branch]

See, the Bible is a Spiritual book, not a seismologist's ledger, not physical nation, physical temple. God's not interested in splitting literal mountains, except to make the point about the cleaving of the Kingdom that a way be made for the remnant to escape.

Ok, I’m not disagreeing with most of your post but I think you might be spiritualizing when it should be literal in some cases.

In Galatians 4:25 Agar answereth to Jerusalem which now is. Galatians was written approximately 48AD. Which Jerusalem (congregation, spiritual city) was in existence in 48AD that Agar answered to? Jerusalem couldn’t allegorically be the old covenant if the old covenant was gone after the cross, right? And if the destruction of physical Jerusalem in 70AD has nothing to do with scriptures, then has there been some kind of Jerusalem that Agar is still answering to today, right? So how are you interpreting what that Jerusalem is?

 

[claninja]

If there was an AOD involving the 2nd temple 2000 years ago, what then was the AOD? Assuming there was one, well it should no longer be a mystery 2000 years later as to what it was. Except not all interpreters that insist an AOD involved the 2nd temple 2000 years ago can even agree with each other as to what the AOD was. Why should it be a multiple choice question if it has already been fulfilled?

If this AOD indeed happened 2000 years ago, every single interpreter that insists it did would be in full agreement with each other and that there would only be one choice to choose from, not multiple choices.

But if an AOD involving the 2nd temple never actually happened 2000 years ago to begin with, no wonder interpreters that insist it did happen can't all agree with each other as to what it was. That's typically what happens when an alleged fulfilled prophecy is false to begin with. The prophecy itself is not false. The claim that it has already been fulfilled is what is false. Otherwise, every single interpreter that insists it was already fulfilled would all agree 100% with each other as to what it was and what it looked like at the time.

Your response doesn’t actually address my original argument. My point was that in Matthew 24 Jesus is answering the disciples’ question about the destruction of the physical temple, and nowhere in the discourse does He explicitly re-contextualize the temple to mean His body or a spiritual temple. Instead of engaging that argument, you’ve shifted the discussion to whether interpreters agree on the historical identity of the abomination of desolation.

But that argument also rests on a premise that Scripture never establishes: that the Bible explicitly defines the historical identity of the abomination of desolation. IT DOESN’T. Nowhere will you find “the AOD is specifically X.” Since no text defines it in a clear manner, it is entirely unsurprising that interpreters disagree over its identification.

Therefore, disagreement among interpreters is not evidence that the prophecy was never fulfilled. It simply reflects that the prophecy requires interpretation. If you want to argue that Matthew 24 is not speaking about the destruction of the second temple, or that Jesus re-contextualizes the temple to mean something else, then that case needs to be made from the text of Matthew 24 itself and not from the existence of differing interpretations regarding the abomination of desolation.

Whatever the precise identity of the abomination of desolation may be, if Jesus is referring to the destruction of the second temple in Matthew 24, then the abomination He alludes to belongs to that event. The historical identification may be debated, but the discourse itself places it within the context of the temple’s destruction.

 

[covenantee]

Show me the verses where God actually warned about physical destruction of 70AD. And what the context talks about. Etc.

Matthew 24
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Jesus warned, the Judaean Christians heeded and acted and survived.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Ok, I’m not disagreeing with most of your post but I think you might be spiritualizing when it should be literal in some cases.

Ha! Very unlikely.

In Galatians 4:25 Agar answereth to Jerusalem which now is. Galatians was written approximately 48AD. Which Jerusalem (congregation, spiritual city) was in existence in 48AD that Agar answered to? Jerusalem couldn’t allegorically be the old covenant if the old covenant was gone after the cross, right? And if the destruction of physical Jerusalem in 70AD has nothing to do with scriptures, then has there been some kind of Jerusalem that Agar is still answering to today, right? So how are you interpreting what that Jerusalem is?

Oh brother, you still think God was talking about physical Jerusalem or physical stones of the temple in Galatians 4:25?

Wow...

What part of the gospel is concerned with literal or physical stones falling and being laid even with the ground? That's not the message of Good News or judgment that God is putting forth. The gospel is all about the spiritual connotation of the stones of the Temple (Lamentations 4:1-2; Luke 3:8, 19:40; 1st Corinthians 3:12; 1st Peter 2:5) and city (Isaiah 41:1-2; Luke 19:44) of God. People!!! Not the damn buildings! Don't you understand that the prophecy spoke of all the stones of the whole city, not just the Temple? Don't you understand that prophecy was NEVER literally fulfilled? Don't you not know that there are stones left standing "one upon another" in the city to this very day? So how then is this to be taken literally and claimed it took place in AD 70?

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Not physical stones! Children as the stones of Jerusalem! This is when Christ said, "Destroy THIS Temple and in three days I will raise it up." The context matters! It was here that Scripture says it was the priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him. Jesus was the spiritual Temple they would destroy, not the literal temple, and not the literal city. Spiritually, Christ was the Holy Temple, and the congregation, his people, was the Holy City! Hello?! Listen... this Old Covenant Jerusalem, which was still in bondage because it didn't recognize the time of its visitation. Not literally, but allegorically. A physical city itself can't recognize anything, but spiritually it can, and it can fall because it's speaking of people, not physical stones:

Galatians 4:24-26

• "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
• For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
• But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

The stones of old Covenant Jerusalem, versus those of New Covenant Jerusalem. People, People, People! Not talking about physical stones here. Those still in bondage vs those who were set free from spiritual bondage in Spiritual Jerusalem. What we read in Luke 19:41-46 of the time of their visitation is the divinely appointed superintendence of the Lord when God offered up Christ for their sins to bring salvation, grace, and redemption, and judgment to Israel. Don't you not understand the "context" of Luke chapter 19, as Christ told them the city would be laid even with the ground and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, and then threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple? How then is it to be taken literal when it was then that Christ said, "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up" speaking allegorically about His body which is His congregation! Inconsistency is the hallmark of error!

Luke 19:43-46

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Surely you knows that there are physical stones still standing one upon another in the city to this very day. How is that possible if it was meant to be taken literally, and it supposedly already occurred in AD 70? It does not make sense! Clearly because inconsistency concerning your faulty 70AD is the hallmark of error.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Oh I may add, 70AD theorists to see if you can follow this without it being too complicated! There is the Israel of God, which is Christ, from above (Matthew 2:15; Hos 11:1). There is the Israel of God which is the election on earth (Revelation 7:1-4). And there is an Israel of God that is the earthly representation of that Israel of God (Romans 11). Get that straight first! Because whether you like it or not, it is the truth. "Your arms are too short to box with God." Your rules of exegesis don’t line up with God's rules of exegesis. We have to determine what Israel God is talking about in prophesy by carefully comparing scripture with scripture, not by foolishly denying that an Israel of God can have unsaved people in it. Not anymore than denying that the Woman Jerusalem can have unsaved people in it.

Lamentations 1:16-17

• " For these things I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water, because the comforter that should relieve my soul is far from me: my children are desolate, because the enemy prevailed.
• Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them."

Imagine that! The woman's children are desolate because the enemy prevailed or overcame them. Duh! How can this Woman, this great city Jerusalem, that "REPRESENTS" the Jerusalem from above, be illustrated as a mentrous Woman whose children are left desolate? Well, it can only be because what I have said is true. Because God's ways are not your ways, and His way of interpreting the Woman Jerusalem is not your way of interpreting her. For God interprets righteously and is not mocked by private interpreters who contradict His word.

As for the two women you speak of in Galatians. These are two SEPARATE women, both representing a Covenant with Israel. Note, REPRESENTING a Covenant of the Lord with Israel! You're mixing apples and oranges and yet insisting it's all just apple juice. No, it's a confused concoction you are putting together. The Old Covenant represents the law unto bondage that Israel was under without Christ. The Covenant of law that is passed away. It's not even part of this conversation, it's all about bondage and law! We're talking about the "NEW" Covenant congregation Woman. A totally different Woman "representing" something different. There is an "external", and an "enternal" Covenant people within the New Testament Church. The old Covenant congregation is passed away, the New Covenant congregation remains, and is visibly represented by "THE CHURCH" consisting of saved and unsaved people. It is REPRESENTING this Jerusalem from above. The same New Covenant Jerusalem of Revelation chapter 11, where the elect are killed in her streets. A visible earthly corporate representation of the New covenant Church.

1st Corinthians 3:2

• "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

You cannot bring an Old Covenant Woman representation, into New Covenant times. The only woman relevant here, is the Woman Jerusalem from above, which is represented by the woman, Jerusalem here on earth. For example, the New Covenant Church isn't represented in the allegory of Hagar, but of Sarah! The Jerusalem from above which is free. Not the Old covenant one unto bondage. All of this took place at the Cross - the kingdom representative was already taken from congregation of Hagar with the Death of Christ and gave to the congregation in Sarah... in three days! This is where the covenant was take place at. It did not occur in 70AD!

 

[jeffweeder]

You seem to naively think that Christ went through all this lengthy explanation just for the people (particular generation) He was addressing?

What lengthy explanation are you talking about? You assume a lot.
Besides, you didn't answer my question.

How did God warn the people of Jesus day of the impending doom of AD70?

Ans...
God warned them personally through Jesus Christ in the scriptures already provided in this thread.
God raised many prophets in the past to speak to the people of their day.... for good reason.

I have nothing more to add on this subject.

 

[TribulationSigns]

What lengthy explanation are you talking about? You assume a lot.

Not when it is based on the Scriptures I quoted. You may disagree with the interpretation, but simply calling it “assumption” does not address the biblical evidence presented. The issue is not the length of the explanation; it is whether the Scriptures support the argument. If you believe the passages I cited do not mean what I explained, then show from Scripture where the interpretation is wrong. LOL.

Besides, you didn't answer my question.

Why not. Your question was not based on the text of God's Word. It was based on your private interpretation. For example:

How did God warn the people of Jesus day of the impending doom of AD70?

Ans...
God warned them personally through Jesus Christ in the scriptures already provided in this thread.
God raised many prophets in the past to speak to the people of their day.... for good reason.

It is not in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that God warned the people about the "impending physical destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70." That is an assumption you are reading into the text.

What Jesus repeatedly warned about was the covenantal judgment that would come upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah. "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). That is covenant language, not a prediction centered on physical stones and buildings like you think.

If you claim God specifically warned of the "impending doom of AD 70," then produce the passage that explicitly says so like I asked! You was not able to! Simply asserting it does not make it biblical. Show the Scripture—not the assumption. Get it?

I have nothing more to add on this subject.

Then perhaps it's best to stay out of the hot kitchen if your doctrine can't stand being tested by Scripture. Biblical truth doesn't fear examination—only weak arguments do.

 

[jeffweeder]

Not when it is based on the Scriptures I quoted. You may disagree with the interpretation, but simply calling it “assumption” does not address the biblical evidence presented.

By assumption, I was referring to Which discourse you meant. You assumed that I would know what you were referring to LOL

The issue is not the length of the explanation; it is whether the Scriptures support the argument. If you believe the passages I cited do not mean what I explained, then show from Scripture where the interpretation is wrong. LOL.

I have already tried to do that LOL

Why not. Your question was not based on the text of God's Word. It was based on your private interpretation.

It's based on Jesus's warning of what would LITERALLY befall the city and temple. That = 70AD.

Like the Prophets before him they spoke a language that the common people would clearly understand, not some profound spiritual utterance that would have gone straight over their heads. LOL

Then perhaps it's best to stay out of the hot kitchen if your doctrine can't stand being tested by Scripture. Biblical truth doesn't fear examination—only weak arguments do.

Twisted scripture cannot test.
And you are still in the kitchen avoiding the questions. That is how weak your argument is.

 

[covenantee]

Not when it is based on the Scriptures I quoted. You may disagree with the interpretation, but simply calling it “assumption” does not address the biblical evidence presented. The issue is not the length of the explanation; it is whether the Scriptures support the argument. If you believe the passages I cited do not mean what I explained, then show from Scripture where the interpretation is wrong. LOL.



Why not. Your question was not based on the text of God's Word. It was based on your private interpretation. For example:



It is not in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say that God warned the people about the "impending physical destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70." That is an assumption you are reading into the text.

What Jesus repeatedly warned about was the covenantal judgment that would come upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah. "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:43). That is covenant language, not a prediction centered on physical stones and buildings like you think.

If you claim God specifically warned of the "impending doom of AD 70," then produce the passage that explicitly says so like I asked! You was not able to! Simply asserting it does not make it biblical. Show the Scripture—not the assumption. Get it?



Then perhaps it's best to stay out of the hot kitchen if your doctrine can't stand being tested by Scripture. Biblical truth doesn't fear examination—only weak arguments do.

Evidently post 130 is your hot kitchen.

 

[jeffweeder]

Sorry double post

 

[TribulationSigns]

It's based on Jesus's warning of what would LITERALLY befall the city and temple. That = 70AD.

There you go. Having the same blindness like the Jews thinking Christ was talking about the physical stones of the city and the temple. Even to this day! Sad. :-)

Twisted scripture cannot test.

You have not proved anything biblically. I am waiting for text proof.

And you are still in the kitchen avoiding the questions. That is how weak your argument is.

No, actually everyone fled. No one can gainsay or resist. They can't handle the Truth.

 

[covenantee]

There you go. Having the same blindness like the Jews thinking Christ was talking about the physical stones of the city and the temple. Even to this day! Sad. :-)



You have not proved anything biblically. I am waiting for text proof.



No, actually everyone fled. No one can gainsay or resist. They can't handle the Truth.

Post 130.

What are you afraid of?

 

[covenantee]

There you go. Having the same blindness like the Jews thinking Christ was talking about the physical stones of the city and the temple. Even to this day! Sad. :-)



You have not proved anything biblically. I am waiting for text proof.



No, actually everyone fled. No one can gainsay or resist. They can't handle the Truth.

Cowardice.

Trademark of a cult.