Search results

But, Truth7t7 said none of Daniel 9:26-27, including the reference to the Messiah being cut off, relates to Christ's death on the cross. I believe you should consider removing your love emoji response from that post.

Well, good for you. He admits that he's not always clear. He's often not very clear to me. It makes sense that you might be able to understand his points better than I can at times because you are a preterist like him. I never said that it does. I'm more than willing to discuss possibilities of...

Abraham's bosom could not have been the third heaven/paradise because Jesus said no one had been in heaven except for Him as of the time He said this... John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Jesus is talking about the third...

Do you acknowledge that Jesus is also the God and King of the Gentiles throughout the earth with Jew and Gentile believers together as His "one body"? Romans 3:29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, Ephesians 2:11 Therefore...

So, do you believe that Daniel 9:26-27 at least refers partly to the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the temple or not? Apparently not, since in other posts you claim that what happened in 70 AD is never referenced in the Bible. So, why do you say "God sent the Roman Army to make a...

Hey, let's just go back and forth telling each other we're wrong 100 more times as if we're just little kids arguing. Sound like a good idea? I'm sure it does to you, but not to me. You are insisting on having the worst interpretation of any verse in the Bible that anyone has ever had. So be it...

Read the whole discussion. He already acknowledged that he made a mistake with what he said because of being exhausted from work and because of health issues that he's having.

I disagree with your reasoning here. The verse is talking about the prince to come as of the time the prophecy was given, not a prince to come after the Messiah comes. I believe you're reading things into the text with your logic. Nowhere does it indicate that the prince to come has to be some...

Absolutely false. 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...

Yes, you've shown me your false interpretation several times. You are easily the most repetitive person on this entire forum. You say the exact same things over and over again. How about we just agree to disagree at this point instead of you repeating the exact same copy and paste spiel.

That's a viable view and the one I held before as well. Either way, we know that it's talking about Jesus confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant obsolete in verse 27.

Well, this is a relief that you weren't trying to change the text, but just made a typo. I could not comprehend how you thought that saying "the prince of the people to come" is no different than "the people of the prince who shall come". Wow. You were boggling my mind there, dude. Not sure...

No, that is not the same at all. The first one indicates that it's the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary and the second one indicates that it's the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary, as you have claimed. That is very different and not the same.

I agree with him on that, but even if verse 26 is referring to a different prince than Messiah the prince, the last individual focused on before verse 27 is the Messiah. It's the people of the prince to come that are in focus in verse 26, not the prince himself. So, verse 27 is referring to the...

Wow. No, it does not. What are you trying to pull here? You should know better than to be dishonest like this. Here is the verse from the KJV: 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...

LOL. You have a way with words, buddy. Why do you divert attention away from Hebrews 8 to 10 that speaks of Christ confirming the new covenant and making the old covenant and its animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete? You deny that Daniel 9:24-27 is all about Jesus Christ even though it so...

It does not say "the prince of the people", so why are you acting as if it does? It says "the people of the prince that shall come". The prince that shall come had previously been identified as Messiah the prince and He came exactly when the prophecy said He would right after the end of the 69th...

So, you think they will be resurrected then? Or are you still going to insist they were taken to the heaven where Jesus resides (the third heaven/paradise) despite Jesus saying no one had been there except Him as of the time He spoke in John 3:13?

They weren't taken there bodily. Their souls and spirits would have been taken to Abraham's bosom when they physically died.

Can you tell me in which post you gave your interpretation of John 5:28-29? That's what Jesus said. Do you think Jesus knew what He was talking about when He said there is a singular hour coming when all of the dead will be resurrected or not? Wrong. I'm an amillennialist, but not a partial...