Search results

While I do grasp what you are saying here and can actually relate, there is still the chance that both of you are wrong, meaning Jesus wasn't meaning these things in the literal sense to begin with. And one way I can know, but maybe not you or someone else, is simple. The holy place meant is not...

I'm going to let you win here since I feel you adequately proved your point per this example. But even so, the way I am now reading Daniel 9:26a, 26b, 27a and 27b, is like such. 26a 27a, 26b 27b. Reading it like that it can't get any clearer as to who all the pronouns in verse 27 are referring...

Let me see if I have this straight. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here the way you are reasoning these things then expecting others to be seeing it making perfect sense. On one hand you are arguing that the one cut off in verse 26 is the one meant in verse 27 fulfilling the midst of the...

Guess what? I don't take any of that in the literal sense, either. Obviously, Preterists take that in a literal sense, since they are taking this to mean Jerusalem and the 2nd temple before it is destroyed in 70 AD. Obviously, you are taking that in a literal sense as well, but not for the same...

While that might be true, it is a moot point if these things are pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that is involving, including a major falling away, if 2 Thessaonians 2:4 is not meaning in the literal sense to begin with. Assuming one agreed that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not meaning...

I fully 100% agree with that. But the question is, how does he do that? In a literal sense involving the rebuilding of a literal temple? Or in another sense altogether having zero to do with having to rebuild a literal temmple in order to accomplish this? In my view, clearly this is connected to...

And what did I say in regards to scholars? Did I not say that there are apparently some scholars, who, like you, conclude there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks yet insist that the last person mentioned in verse 26 is who the first pronoun in verse 27 is referring to? Per this scenario...

And what you are missing here is that I take this spiritual city and sanctuary to mean the ppl themselves, thus the saints that become saved during the church age, and then I apply what is recorded in Daniel 8 per the following, for example, to that of what is recorded in verse 26 in Daniel 9...

I want to focus on this below for now and see where that goes, if anywhere. If the prince to come is not in focus here, why even mention it then? Why not something like this instead? and the people that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a...

When I submitted my last post #38, I was unaware of your post here at the time. I'm getting ready to eat supper so I need to revisit your post here after I eat and then try and address some of it after that. Right now I can't give the full attention to your post that it at least deserves.

Since that post was getting too lengthy already, I will then use this post to show a logical way around the problems encountered with the prince that shall come and the he meant in verse 27. Instead of reading verse 26 and 27 like such... Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall...

Yet it matters if a nearest antecedent means anything. There has to be a nearest antecedent for the pronoun 'he' in verse 27, meaning this pronoun----And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week The last person mentioned in verse 26 is the prince that shall come. It then stands to...

And take notice the last time Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned in the OT, how that ends. No wonder God said he was his servant. Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I...

Now if you can just find something like that that calls them the people of God, the same way, for example, how Daniel 9:15 is meaning. After all, if Jesus is meant in verse 26 as the prince who is to come, and unless someone wants to dispute that Jesus is God, that means verse 26 should be...

I have to admit, I have been puzzled by this for decades now, as to how guests can also be the bride. And it was right there in front of my nose the entire time. Makes sense what you are saying here. Never even thought of it like that.

To show you are not being entirely realistic here even if you are correct that 'after' when it relates to time, if it is meaning 3.5 years later in this case, what about the following, for example? Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he...

I already agree there is a gap in the 70 weeks. I tend to think it's likely after the middle of the 70th week rather than between the 69th and 70th week, for the reasons I have been arguing. Correct me if I am wrong. Your view has at the end of the 69 weeks being palm Sunday, correct? That...

There are 69 weeks and a 70th week. In order to agree with verse 24, Christ has to be cut off during the 70 weeks. Lets say, for example, Christ is cut off during the 68th week, which of course isn't true, and that I am only using this to illustrate a point here. And that being this. That would...

All of that aside, seriously, what is so bad about placing a gap after the middle of the week in Daniel 9:27 since it doesn't appear to be reasonable to take the one meant in the middle of the 70th week to be meaning the AC no matter how one might try to reason it? Clearly, this part---and for...

The reason I began rethinking my view of where a gap is, is because of something @Spiritual Israelite said on another board awhile back. And that is, Jesus has to go to the cross during the 70 weeks if He is the one fulfilling any of verse 24. I never thought of it like that before. He's right...