Daniel 9:25 - the messiah the prince

[jeffweeder]

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.

 

[jeffweeder]

Post 130.

What are you afraid of?

He may know that if he answers the question regarding when God warned The Jews of the coming destruction with NT scripture, it will totally destroy his argument. Selah

 

[claninja]

• " 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!

Where in Matthew 24 does Christ re-contextualize the disciples question about the physical to actually mean a spiritual temple?

 

[grafted branch]

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.

The Jerusalem from above which is free. Not the Old covenant one unto bondage. All of this took place at the Cross

So is the Jerusalem that now is (in 48AD) that Agar answered to, is it the new covenant Jerusalem?

 

[claninja]

So is the Jerusalem that now is (in 48AD) that Agar answered to, is it the new covenant Jerusalem?

Exactly, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar as a a simile for his day. Sarah and Hagar CO-EXISTED, one birthing the child according to the promise, the other according to the flesh. In the simile these women represent the covenants of God. Hagar represents the old covenant, its children in slavery, and the physical city of Jerusalem IN PAUL’S DAY, while Sarah represents the heavenly Jerusalem. Again: co-existence

@TribulationSigns argument that they can’t CO-EXIST is contrary to Paul

 

[TribulationSigns]

He may know that if he answers the question regarding when God warned The Jews of the coming destruction with NT scripture, it will totally destroy his argument. Selah

Per Covenantee's weak post, #130, you guys got the wrong Jews and wrong Judea. The Olivet Discourse was not prophesied for Jews who became Christians in Judea at all!

Matthew 24:15-19
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
(17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
(18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Of course, you are reading historic Judea into this because you do not have spiritual understanding what Christ actually talked about.

The New Covenant was instituted by Christ at the Cross. Therefore, the physical temple and Jerusalem were no longer holy, Selah! God's dwelling place was no longer in that physical building in Jerusalem in 70AD. Yet you insisted that the temple in 70AD was still holy place? Really? Didn't you read the Scripture?

1 Corinthians 3:16–17

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Paul is speaking to the congregation as a whole ("ye" is plural). The church is God's Holy Temple with the believers as builders of the Holy Temple.

1 Corinthians 6:19–20

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God... therefore glorify God in your body."

Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, each believer is also described as a temple becasue the Holy Spirit dwells within them. The Church is now the holy place through believers. So were the so-called Judea Christians! Now, are you saying that "Judea Christians" are fleeing from themselves at that time?

Funny! This is why Daniel wrote, "(whoso readeth, let him understand:)." It means that it does not seems what it says but take spiritual discerned with what God actually talked about here. The holy place was not in Jerusalem in 70AD. It was already desolate long before Romans came.

LOL!

Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

So is the Jerusalem that now is (in 48AD) that Agar answered to, is it the new covenant Jerusalem?

New Covenant was not established in 48AD. It was established when Christ died with his blood. Can't you read Scripture at all?

Heb 9:15-17
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The testament is same as covenant. The New Covenant was not able to become a force or confirmed until Christ died first! That took place at the Cross.

Of course, it did not take place in 48AD. LOL

Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Exactly, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar as a a simile for his day. Sarah and Hagar CO-EXISTED, one birthing the child according to the promise, the other according to the flesh. In the simile these women represent the covenants of God. Hagar represents the old covenant, its children in slavery, and the physical city of Jerusalem IN PAUL’S DAY, while Sarah represents the heavenly Jerusalem. Again: co-existence

@TribulationSigns argument that they can’t CO-EXIST is contrary to Paul

LOL!

 

[claninja]

New Covenant was not established in 48AD. It was established when Christ died with his blood. Can't you read Scripture at all?

Heb 9:15-17
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The testament is same as covenant. The New Covenant was not able to become a force or confirmed until Christ died first! That took place at the Cross.

Of course, it did not take place in 48AD. LOL

Selah!

LOL!

@grafted branch didn’t say the new covenant was established in 48ad. Your response is clearly a misunderstanding

 

[TribulationSigns]

@grafted branch didn’t say the new covenant was established in 48ad. Your response is clearly a misunderstanding

Not at all. Its you who are misunderstood my point. I was explaining how and when the New Covenant was established, because that directly answered his question.

Galatians 4:24–26

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

The Old Covenant ended at the Cross, and the New Covenant began at the Cross through Christ's blood (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6–13; Hebrews 9:15–17).

That does not mean everyone immediately embraced the New Covenant, didn't they? Of course not, many Jews still continued practicing under the Old Covenant—whether in 48 AD, 70 AD, 1948 AD, or even today. Their continued observance did not keep the Old Covenant alive; it simply demonstrated the "blindness in part" that has happened to Israel (Romans 11:25). Paul identifies earthly Jerusalem with the covenant of bondage, while the children of God belong to the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:24–26). Hello?!

So there is no misunderstanding on my part. You're confusing the establishment of the New Covenant with people's refusal to leave the Old Covenant. Those are two entirely different issues.

 

[covenantee]

Per Covenantee's weak post, #130, you guys got the wrong Jews and wrong Judea. The Olivet Discourse was not prophesied for Jews who became Christians in Judea at all!

Matthew 24:15-19
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
(17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
(18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Of course, you are reading historic Judea into this because you do not have spiritual understanding what Christ actually talked about.

The New Covenant was instituted by Christ at the Cross. Therefore, the physical temple and Jerusalem were no longer holy, Selah! God's dwelling place was no longer in that physical building in Jerusalem in 70AD. Yet you insisted that the temple in 70AD was still holy place? Really? Didn't you read the Scripture?

1 Corinthians 3:16–17

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Paul is speaking to the congregation as a whole ("ye" is plural). The church is God's Holy Temple with the believers as builders of the Holy Temple.

1 Corinthians 6:19–20

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God... therefore glorify God in your body."

Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, each believer is also described as a temple becasue the Holy Spirit dwells within them. The Church is now the holy place through believers. So were the so-called Judea Christians! Now, are you saying that "Judea Christians" are fleeing from themselves at that time?

Funny! This is why Daniel wrote, "(whoso readeth, let him understand:)." It means that it does not seems what it says but take spiritual discerned with what God actually talked about here. The holy place was not in Jerusalem in 70AD. It was already desolate long before Romans came.

LOL!

Selah!

You're afraid of the Judaean Christians' exposure of your bilge, bunk, and bafflegab.

They were immeasurably smarter than you. Unlike you, they believed Jesus' literal warning literally, and escaped. Not one of them was a hyperspiritualized gnostic.

Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, you were being crucified.

Was it fun?

 

[grafted branch]

Not at all. Its you who are misunderstood my point. I was explaining how and when the New Covenant was established, because that directly answered his question.

Galatians 4:24–26

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

The Old Covenant ended at the Cross, and the New Covenant began at the Cross through Christ's blood (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6–13; Hebrews 9:15–17).

That does not mean everyone immediately embraced the New Covenant, didn't they? Of course not, many Jews still continued practicing under the Old Covenant—whether in 48 AD, 70 AD, 1948 AD, or even today. Their continued observance did not keep the Old Covenant alive; it simply demonstrated the "blindness in part" that has happened to Israel (Romans 11:25). Paul identifies earthly Jerusalem with the covenant of bondage, while the children of God belong to the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:24–26). Hello?!

So there is no misunderstanding on my part. You're confusing the establishment of the New Covenant with people's refusal to leave the Old Covenant. Those are two entirely different issues.

Are you admitting there was a literal city called Jerusalem, after the cross, that had a temple with literal stones, one upon another, and it represented the old covenant?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Are you admitting there was a literal city called Jerusalem, after the cross, that had a temple with literal stones, one upon another, and it represented the old covenant?

No, the focus has NEVER been on physical stones. Even in the Old Covenant, God’s covenant relationship was always with His people — the congregation of Israel — not with buildings or earthly materials. The tabernacle and temple were only symbols of God's presence among His covenant people. Didn't you read the Scripture?

Exodus 25:8 — “And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.”

Notice God said He would dwell among them, not merely within a building.

Israel was called the congregation of the Lord:

Numbers 16:9 — “...to separate you from the congregation of Israel...”

Deuteronomy 9:10 — “...the tables of stone... which the LORD made with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.”

The physical temple was never the covenant people. The people were! That is why God could warn Israel that the temple would not protect them if they were unfaithful:

Jeremiah 7:4, 12 — “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these... But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh...”

God was rebuking the idea that physical structures guaranteed His favor.

Under the New Covenant, the same principle continues: God’s dwelling is with His people, now fulfilled in Christ and His congregation.

2 Corinthians 6:16 — “For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them...”

Ephesians 2:21-22 — “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

So the argument was never about whether Jerusalem had literal stones after the cross. The issue is that God's covenant has always been about His people, not a physical structure. The Old Covenant congregation looked forward to Christ; the New Covenant congregation is united in Christ.

Therefore, those (ethnic Jews) who cling to the old covenant shadows AFTER Christ’s fulfillment remain in blindness, because they reject the substance that those shadows pointed to. Like most Jews do in Israel and the world today! Hello?

Colossians 2:17 — “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Selah!

 

[claninja]

Not at all. Its you who are misunderstood my point. I was explaining how and when the New Covenant was established, because that directly answered his question.

Galatians 4:24–26

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

The Old Covenant ended at the Cross, and the New Covenant began at the Cross through Christ's blood (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6–13; Hebrews 9:15–17).

That does not mean everyone immediately embraced the New Covenant, didn't they? Of course not, many Jews still continued practicing under the Old Covenant—whether in 48 AD, 70 AD, 1948 AD, or even today. Their continued observance did not keep the Old Covenant alive; it simply demonstrated the "blindness in part" that has happened to Israel (Romans 11:25). Paul identifies earthly Jerusalem with the covenant of bondage, while the children of God belong to the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:24–26). Hello?!

So there is no misunderstanding on my part. You're confusing the establishment of the New Covenant with people's refusal to leave the Old Covenant. Those are two entirely different issues.

That didn’t answer his question at all. His question was about Hagar and its corresponding Jerusalem. Galatians is believed to have been written between 48-55ad.

So if Galatians written in 48ad, what is the “present day (48ad) Jerusalem, that’s in slavery, that corresponds to Hagar and mount sinai?

“25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.”

Is this present day (48ad- when Paul wrote Galatians) the physical city of Jerusalem or a spiritual city of Jerusalem?

 

[jeffweeder]

Of course, you are reading historic Judea into this because you do not have spiritual understanding what Christ actually talked about.

The New Covenant was instituted by Christ at the Cross. Therefore, the physical temple and Jerusalem were no longer holy, Selah! God's dwelling place was no longer in that physical building in Jerusalem in 70AD. Yet you insisted that the temple in 70AD was still holy place? Really? Didn't you read the Scripture?

You have a short memory.
I told you that the OC ended at the cross and God had left the building a page or 2 back. You were saying the OC passed in 70AD remember? Glad you have changed your mind.
What conclusion are you coming to now regarding the temple being destroyed in Matt 24, Luke 21 ? Can you tell us?

Please do not say I said something when I didn't - I clearly do not think it was still Holy.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That didn’t answer his question at all. His question was about Hagar and its corresponding Jerusalem. Galatians is believed to have been written between 48-55ad.

So if Galatians written in 48ad, what is the “present day (48ad) Jerusalem, that’s in slavery, that corresponds to Hagar and mount sinai?

“25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.”

Is this present day (48ad- when Paul wrote Galatians) the physical city of Jerusalem or a spiritual city of Jerusalem?

"Present-day Jerusalem?" What Jerusalem, exactly? LOL!

You are still fixated on a "physical city" that Paul is not even discussing in this passage. Galatians 4:23-26 does not say, “the physical buildings of Jerusalem,” “the stones of Jerusalem,” or “the geographic location of Jerusalem.” That is the assumption you are bringing into the text. Big mistake.

Paul himself tells us how to understand it: “Which things are an allegory” (Galatians 4:24). He is not giving a lesson about two earthly locations, or one earthly location and one spiritual location. Listen, he is contrasting two covenants and the people belonging to those covenants.

Notice the wording:

Galatians 4:25 — “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”

Who is "in bondage"? Not stones. Not buildings. Not a piece of land. Her children! Hello?! Paul is speaking about PEOPLE who remain under the old covenant system of bondage rather than the freedom found in Christ.

The same Jerusalem that had physical stones also represented the covenant people dwelling there. Scripture consistently uses cities as symbolic representations of their inhabitants. Don't you ever learn? For example:

Matthew 23:37 — “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee...”

Jesus was not speaking to bricks and stones that killed prophets. What about Bethelem? Jericho? Or other city in Israel that killed prophets too? Look, he was addressing the people of "Jerusalem" that represents His name, as a congregation of God as a whole who rejected God’s messengers.

Likewise, Paul is not saying, “the physical city of Jerusalem is Hagar.” He is saying the present covenant order represented by Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, because they have not embraced the freedom of Christ.

Paul then contrasts it with:

Galatians 4:26 — “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

Notice the contrast: one Jerusalem is “now” and in bondage; the other Jerusalem is “above” and free. Neither one is describing a pile of rocks and buildings. Paul is contrasting two spiritual realities and two peoples. Get it?

This is consistent with the rest of the New Testament:

Philippians 3:3 — “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus...”

Romans 2:28-29 — “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly... But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly...”

The obsession with forcing every mention of Jerusalem into a literal earthly city like you do misses Paul's entire argument. The issue in Galatians 4 is NOT about geography. It is covenant identity. God has always dealt with people, not with stones. The earthly temple, city, and covenant symbols were shadows; Christ and His people are the substance.

Colossians 2:17 — “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The question is not “Was there a physical Jerusalem in 48 AD?” Of course there was. The question is: What does Paul mean by Jerusalem in this allegory? And Paul answers it himself: he is talking about covenants and the children belonging to them — not a physical city.

Selah

 

[TribulationSigns]

You have a short memory.

No its you who are still in denial.

I told you that the OC ended at the cross

Good!

and God had left the building a page or 2 back.

Good!

You were saying the OC passed in 70AD remember?

Please show my quote that actually says this.

Glad you have changed your mind.

Never did.

Please do not say I said something when I didn't - I clearly do not think it was still Holy.

Really? Then you must accept the fact that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 cannot be applied to 70AD since you did not think it was holy. LOL.

You still haven't answered the question.

I gave the answer that you did not like. Go figure.

 

[jeffweeder]

Please show my quote that actually says this.

So you deny saying it?
I am not going to go look for it. Hopefully someone else remembers this and can chime in.

I gave the answer that you did not like. Go figure.

Which post?

 

[TribulationSigns]

So you deny saying it?
I am not going to go look for it.

Because it does not exist. I never said that exactly. Bet you did not read what I wrote correctly.

Which post?

The one you are blind to the Truth.

 

[jeffweeder]

Because it does not exist. I never said that exactly. Bet you did not read what I wrote correctly.

What did you write?