Search results

Debunked regurgitant. From Daniel 9:27 Hebrew: 3617 [e] kā·lāh כָּלָה֙ the consummation N‑fs "kalah: completion, complete destruction, consumption, annihilation" There's no Jesuitized futurized end times "ultimate end".

You have clearly shown in post #104 that you continue to perpetuate aberrant Jesuit futurism's fantasies and fallacies. Simple grammatical referback referents confirm that all of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27 are Messiah the Prince. Thus Christ Himself is your "bad guy". It doesn't get more...

Amen brother.

Your other king is talking. :D

You're unable to disprove any Scripture or history that I cite. Your only alternative is to spout nonsense. The blinded Jesuit futurist mind is oblivious to the realities of Scripture and history. You obviously have two kings. The other one is your imagination. :D Your obdurate refusal...

What is replaced, and what does the replacing?

Revelation 1 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Roman commander Titus: "We have certainly had God for our assistant in this...

A predictable surfeit of institutional dogma bereft of supporting Scripture. Apostasy definition. No mention of baptism. Scripture? So Ribera and Lacunza were not of His Church in their apostate teaching of error. I concur.

The Roman armies served as the people of Messiah the Prince to accomplish His purposes of judgment and destruction upon Jerusalem and Israel. As the Roman commander Titus recognized, "We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out...

You know how to imagine and misspell. That's all.

Messiah the Prince didn't stay cut off. Remember? He arose. Remember? He returned to Heaven. Remember? Then 40 years later He, Messiah the Prince, destroyed Jerusalem and Israel, using the Roman armies (Luke 21:20) as His people to bring judgment and desolation upon the city and the...

You're in error. The only Prince in the passage is Messiah.

Certainly it's relevant. But it's also very useful to resolve one issue at a time. We've resolved what King James believed. When Daniel refers to "the Prince that shall come", was Messiah the Prince who did come, some 535 years after Daniel prophesied that He would?

It's not just "some translations". It's the original KJV against which others should be judged. King James got it right. Messiah is the only Prince in the passage.

Original 1611 KJV. Daniel 9 26 And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations...

Evidently you think that apostasy was an overnight rather than centuries-long phenomenon. The pope was not labeled "antichrist" until 991 by Bishop Arnulf. See those centuries?

Yes, the whole wide world is aware that you're the word of god, and you alone. Where can we come to worship you? What did you say is the name of your cult? :D Your claim is the classic trademark thereof.

You don't know the name "Messiah"? The only individual identified as a prince in the passage.

I have the united unanimous witness of the historic defenders of the true faith on my side. You don't.

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic that it will be one "he". But historicism recognizes that it was the apostate papacy, headed by the succession of papal "he's". Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century. He was talking about the Rome which was...