Search results

Revelation 1:5 AKJV 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,

I think you're skating around the issue here, Doug. You believe that Daniel and all OT saints are among the dead in Christ, right? And you say they will be resurrected before the great tribulation, right? So, how do you reconcile that with what it says here: Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall...

If Jesus has nothing to do with the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 (only talking about verse 24 itself here) as you seem to be saying, then tell me how reconciliation for iniquity can be accomplished apart from Jesus.

The feeling is mutual. For one thing that wording is a bit awkward and can potentially be taken in multiple ways. Can you acknowledge that? It could be taken to mean the covenant itself lasts for 1 week, as you do, but it also can be taken to be saying it will take 1 week to confirm a covenant...

LOL. Let's see how he gets around this one. And you know he will try.

He is mentioned shortly after that. Should that be ignored? How else can reconciliation be made for iniquity besides Jesus sacrificing Himself on the cross? Just because He is not specifically mentioned in verse 24 doesn't mean the things mentioned in that verse have nothing to do with Him.

Can something only be true in scripture if it's explicitly spelled out to you? If so, why did Paul indicate that spiritual discernment is required to understand God's word (read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16)? Can you show me where the prophecy says that the covenant lasts for seven years rather than it...

Excellent point. I would say this is indeed 100% undeniable evidence for post-trib and against pre-trib. Or, at least against Doug's particular view since he believes that the dead in Christ include all of the OT saints (not all pre-tribs believe that). So, let's just spell this out in a more...

Congratulations on agreeing with a pre-trib dispensationalist's interpretation of Daniel 9:27. You must be proud.

So, what is your explanation for them not capitalizing the word "prince" in Revelation 1:5 then? They made a mistake?

Did you somehow miss that he is not interested in discussing anything with you? Yet, you respond to him, anyway? LOL.

Are you just pretending to be dense or....? I'm talking about the duration of the covenant, not about who confirms it. No one who believes it's talking about Jesus is claiming that it only has a 7 year duration (instead we say it is eternal), yet that is how you are coming across, acting as if...

I'm simply asking you to tell me who claimed that Jesus confirmed a seven year covenant rather than confirming an eternal covenant over a seven year period. Is this your way of trying to get around that? I can talk to two people at once even if you can't understand how. So, feel free to tell me...

Are you too afraid to acknowledge the point I made in my post? Can you not acknowledge that the reasoning you were using to conclude that "the prince" of Daniel 9:26 could not be Jesus was faulty? You acted as if the fact that it's not capitalized in an English translation proves that it can't...

LOL. Let's stop this nonsense, shall we? Let me just ask you this. Can you acknowledge that your understanding of Daniel 9:27 is your opinion and not a fact? I can acknowledge that in regards to my understanding of it. No matter how confident we are that our interpretations of that verse are...

You keep saying that someone is claiming to believe that Jesus confirmed a seven year covenant. No one is saying that. So, that is a lie. I'd call it a mistake instead of a lie, but you keep saying it even after being corrected. So, it's a lie. That would be you, obviously.

Don't try to tell me what I'm saying. I'm telling you what I'm saying. If you don't accept my explanation of what I believe, that's on you.

What's going on here is that there's nothing that says it can't jump around in time. You are making up your own rules about how scripture can be worded. It's not unusual for Bible prophecy to sometimes jump around in time. What that passage is doing is talking about things that would happen to...

So, is it your belief that the Bible was originally written in King James English? The King James translators decided to capitalize "Prince" in verse 25 and not to capitalize "prince" in verse 26, but there was no basis for doing so since the Hebrew word they translated is the same in each...

No, your claim is false. Again, it's symbolism. The beast doesn't have a literal body any more than it has literal heads and horns. But, go ahead and insist on not recognizing symbolic text while assuming everything is literal if that's what you want to do. It results in you having false...