A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree it’s absurd to think both princes are the same

Why do you say that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In this passage of Daniel 9 there is no mention of any other Messiah, prince or he that is NOT Christ! Messiah the Prince is Christ, the prince of the people is Christ, he who shall confirm the covenant is Christ! Stop defending Preterits by saying a viable pov is anyone other than Christ in this passage of Daniel 9.

I'm fine with that view and agree with your view. I'm NOT defending preterists! That is a LIE! Why do you insist on lying about me? Repent of your LIES! I'm showing how it's viable to see verse 26 as possibly referring to both the Messiah, Jesus, and to Titus, without that meaning that verse 27 has to refer to Titus. And you are not honest enough to address what I'm saying about that and you instead want to LIE about me and claim that I'm trying to defend preterists! NO, I am NOT defending preterists AT ALL. Stop your LIES!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The consummation was the consummation (completion) of the seventy weeks. During that seventy-week period came the end of earthly Jerusalem and the Old Covenant.

The seventy weeks marked the beginning of the end for Daniel's people (the Jews) and his holy city (earthly Jerusalem). During those seventy weeks, Israel would fill up the measure of her transgression by rejecting and crucifying Christ. At the same time, Christ would be anointed as King of kings and Lord of lords, bringing in the New Covenant and the heavenly Jerusalem.

Why would the consummation not refer to the previously mentioned physical destruction of the city and the sanctuary which came about because of the Jews having cut off the Messiah and continuing to mostly reject Him right up until the city and the sanctuary were destroyed?

 

[rwb]

I'm fine with that view and agree with your view. I'm NOT defending preterists! That is a LIE! Why do you insist on lying about me? Repent of your LIES! I'm showing how it's viable to see verse 26 as possibly referring to both the Messiah, Jesus, and to Titus, without that meaning that verse 27 has to refer to Titus. And you are not honest enough to address what I'm saying about that and you instead want to LIE about me and claim that I'm trying to defend preterists! NO, I am NOT defending preterists AT ALL. Stop your LIES!

You have a nasty habit of calling people liars!!! Why would you defend Preterit doctrine when you say you're NOT Preterit? That's like saying a little bit of biblical error is OKAY. Doctrinal purity means something to serious students of the Word of God!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have a nasty habit of calling people liars!!!

When people lie, what do you call them? No matter how many times I tell you I'm not a preterist, you keep falsely accusing me of being one. That is a lie. So, if you don't like being called a liar, then stop lying about me.

Why would you defend Preterit doctrine when you say you're NOT Preterit?

I don't! I just read one of your posts where you acknowledge that what happened in 70 AD was God's wrath and judgment against the Jews. Does that make you a preterist? Somehow, in your mind, my believing that makes me a preterist.

That's like saying a little bit of biblical error is OKAY. Doctrinal purity means something to serious students of the Word of God!

Where did I say that a little bit of biblical error is okay? Nowhere. Why can't you just be honest instead of slandering me? A Christian should not have so much trouble just being honest with people. I care about defending the honor of the Word of God every bit as much as you do, if not more! You talk about doctrinal purity while you have a belief that blatantly contradicts the Word of God by believing the God created Satan and demons to be evil despite scripture clearly saying that EVERYTHING God created was very good (Genesis 1:31). You talking about doctrinal purity seems rather ironic.

 

[IndianaRob]

Those of Old had a futurist view that all that is written shall be fulfilled when the promised Messiah the Prince would physically come. My view is only futurist, pertaining to the last day when Christ shall come again the second time. During this time, we have been in since the coming of Christ in human flesh, all the prophets foretell would come to pass within this time/age/day have been, are being, and shall finally be completely fulfilled when Christ comes again.

I believe Scripture tells us that when we physically die Christ does not come to us, we go to be with Him in heaven a spiritual body. That is not when our physical body shall be raised and changed. Our mortal body of flesh will not be raised or resurrected immortal and incorruptible until Christ comes again.

I believe the life we receive from Christ is eternal, and even physical death cannot take away the eternal life we possess when we have been born again. For that reason, Scripture shows us that when our body of flesh dies, our spirit returns to God who gave it. Also, Paul indicates that when we are absent from our physical body, we shall be present with the Lord. Paul tells us that man possesses both natural body and spiritual body, and that when our natural body is dead it is raised a spiritual body. That's why Paul looked forward to the day when he would be absent from his mortal body of flesh and death, to be with the Lord in heaven as spiritual body. Only that which is spiritually alive through Christ's Spirit in us can ascend to heaven after physical death because our eternal life we receive when we have been born again exists through spirit and not flesh & blood. Since flesh & blood (mortal man) cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, our flesh must wait in death until the last day when our body too will be changed from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

1 Corinthians 15:44-50 (KJV) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

2 Corinthians 5:6-9 (KJV) Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

Philippians 1:20-24 (KJV) According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Where does the idea of a temporary spiritual body come from?

When I look at Scripture, it seems to give two states: being "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord", I don't see a temporary body described in between — it looks more like when we're with Christ, we are in the resurrection body.

So I'm genuinely curious what passages point you to an in-between temporary body. Not trying to trap you, I just want to see where you're getting it, because that middle step is the part I'm not finding.

 

[rwb]

When people lie, what do you call them? No matter how many times I tell you I'm not a preterist, you keep falsely accusing me of being one. That is a lie. So, if you don't like being called a liar, then stop lying about me.

I'm not lying when I say you are supporting and defending Preterit doctrine when you claim the prince that shall come comes from a Preterit point of view is a viable option apparently because you fear offending WPM. You cannot mix biblical truth with that which is not biblical truth. The only reason to argue Titus is a viable option for the prince that should come, is to force fit 70 AD's destruction into the prophesy. One little minor addition to this viability is how does the Preterit and apparently you also fit 70 AD into the 490 year timeframe when all that was written would be fulfilled? If the prince to come points to Titus with his Army in 70 AD, do Preterits and yourself just add 30-40 additional years to the 490 year timeframe? No one who says you appear to be a Preterit when you support and defend Preterit doctrine is lying. You need to wake up and start defending truth if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not lying when I say you are supporting and defending Preterit doctrine when you claim the prince that shall come comes from a Preterit point of view is a viable option apparently because you fear offending WPM.

You don't have to be a preterist to see it that way. That's where you are flat out wrong. You acknowledge that what happened in 70 AD was God's wrath and punishment against the unbelieving Jews, right? So, what is wrong with believing that the Bible prophesied that event? That's not preterist doctrine, that's Bible truth. No one is obligated to agree with the preterist false claim that Jesus came in 70 AD just because of acknowledging that what happened in 70 AD was prophesied in the Bible. That's ridiculous.

You cannot mix biblical truth with that which is not biblical truth

I am simply saying that how part of verse 26 should be interpreted is debatable and the way WPM interprets it does not preclude him from concluding that the "he" in verse 27 refers to Messiah the prince, which obviously is Jesus. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here by acting as if I'm promoting the viability of preterism, which I absolutely am not. I disagree with a vast majority of their interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation, but you'd prefer to just ignore that and act like I'm one of them just because I believe that what ended up happening in 70 AD is prophesied about in the Bible.

. The only reason to argue Titus is a viable option for the prince that should come, is to force fit 70 AD's destruction into the prophesy.

Force? It's undeniable that Jerusalem and the temple were physically destroyed in 70 AD, so why would the Bible never prophesy that event? It ended the Jews way of life and their religion as they knew it and it showed that God was even willing to take out His wrath on the Jews. Therefore, everyone should take note and realize that no one is immune from God's wrath if they rebel against Him as most of the Jews of that time period did.

One little minor addition to this viability is how does the Preterit and apparently you also fit 70 AD into the 490 year timeframe when all that was written would be fulfilled?

What happened in 70 AD was a consequence of the Jews cutting off (crucifying) the Messiah and rejecting Him and rejecting the new covenant that His blood put into effect.

If the prince to come points to Titus with his Army in 70 AD, do Preterits and yourself just add 30-40 additional years to the 490 year timeframe?

Of course not.

No one who says you appear to be a Preterit when you support and defend Preterit doctrine is lying. You need to wake up and start defending truth if you want to be taken seriously.

Says the guy who holds to false Calvinist doctrines and denies that Satan and demons are fallen angels! I don't need to take this from the likes of you. You are most certainly not one who has any authority or credibility to talk about biblical truth.

 

[rwb]

Where does the idea of a temporary spiritual body come from?

Temporary? The spirit that returns to God after physical death is very much eternally alive, otherwise Christ would not have said the life we receive in Him when we have been born again is eternal and shall never die.

So I'm genuinely curious what passages point you to an in-between temporary body. Not trying to trap you, I just want to see where you're getting it, because that middle step is the part I'm not finding.

I've already given you verses that teach our spirit indwelt with the Spirit of Christ does not die when our physical body does but returns to God in heaven. Solomon indicates that the spirit/breath of life of man goes upward (alive if born again), apparently to heaven, while the spirit or breath of life of the animal world goes down, or returns to the earth.

In the Revelation John indicates after the body of flesh has died, believers are still living soul in heaven but without physical form. Christ teaches that we who have part in the resurrection (Christ's resurrection) in life, shall be as are the angels of God in heaven. Having no form but spirit beings. And since we have Christ's promise that when we have been born again with His Spirit within us, the Spirit will not depart from us until we have been bodily resurrected/raised up and changed when Christ comes again. Because when we have been born again, we have partaken of the resurrection life of Christ, and we can never die, even though our mortal body shall.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 (KJV) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Revelation 6:9-10 (KJV) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Revelation 14:1-4 (KJV) And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Matthew 22:28-32 (KJV) Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 (KJV) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[IndianaRob]

Why do you say that?

There have to be two princes here. Verse 26 says "the people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

If that's the same prince as verse 25, then it's saying Jesus' people destroyed Jerusalem and the temple which can't be right. His people didn't do that.

It was Titus who destroyed it in AD 70. Titus was a prince, the emperor's son, and his armies were "the people of the prince."

 

[IndianaRob]

Why would the consummation not refer to the previously mentioned physical destruction of the city and the sanctuary which came about because of the Jews having cut off the Messiah and continuing to mostly reject Him right up until the city and the sanctuary were destroyed?

Let me restate my position, because I muddied it earlier. I actually agree with you that the consummation is the physical destruction of the city and sanctuary in AD 70.

What I was trying to say was I don't think that destruction falls inside the seventy weeks. I think the weeks ended at Pentecost. The destruction in verse 26, after "Messiah be cut off," is an aside: the punishment that came because they cut off the Messiah.

That's why verse 27 says "even unto the consummation." That phrase reaches forward from the end of the weeks out to that later destruction. If it fell inside the seventy weeks you wouldn't need "even unto".

 

[IndianaRob]

Temporary? The spirit that returns to God after physical death is very much eternally alive, otherwise Christ would not have said the life we receive in Him when we have been born again is eternal and shall never die.



I've already given you verses that teach our spirit indwelt with the Spirit of Christ does not die when our physical body does but returns to God in heaven. Solomon indicates that the spirit/breath of life of man goes upward (alive if born again), apparently to heaven, while the spirit or breath of life of the animal world goes down, or returns to the earth.

In the Revelation John indicates after the body of flesh has died, believers are still living soul in heaven but without physical form. Christ teaches that we who have part in the resurrection (Christ's resurrection) in life, shall be as are the angels of God in heaven. Having no form but spirit beings. And since we have Christ's promise that when we have been born again with His Spirit within us, the Spirit will not depart from us until we have been bodily resurrected/raised up and changed when Christ comes again. Because when we have been born again, we have partaken of the resurrection life of Christ, and we can never die, even though our mortal body shall.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 (KJV) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Revelation 6:9-10 (KJV) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Revelation 14:1-4 (KJV) And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Matthew 22:28-32 (KJV) Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 (KJV) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

I assume that in your view, our spirit goes to heaven and there is no body for our spirit while in heaven until the future resurrection.

Am I representing your understanding correctly?

 

[Truth7t7]

I can’t go with that interpretation because John said Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the cross.

Do you believe that in the "Future" Jesus Christ will return in the heavens, as human eyes on the earth witnesses the event?

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

[Truth7t7]

When Christ returns for His people, He won't be on this earth, but to gather from this earth all who belong to Him. Then Christ and His people shall live immortally upon the new earth forevermore.

Thanks for the clear explanation

 

[IndianaRob]

Do you believe that in the "Future" Jesus Christ will return in the heavens, as human eyes on the earth witnesses the event?

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

No I don’t. The second coming only happens once and it happened at the resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There have to be two princes here. Verse 26 says "the people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

If that's the same prince as verse 25, then it's saying Jesus' people destroyed Jerusalem and the temple which can't be right. His people didn't do that.

His people, the Jews, were responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary because of having rejected Christ. So, that's a viable way of looking at it.

It was Titus who destroyed it in AD 70. Titus was a prince, the emperor's son, and his armies were "the people of the prince."

First, the prophecy mentions Messiah the prince in verse 25, and then it mentions the Messiah (not Messiah the prince this time in verse 26 followed by the prince who was to come. It seems to reference the prince who was to come as if people would know who that was and a prince who was to come was already mentioned in the previous verse. So, I don't see that it has to be referring to the actual leader of the Roman armies who destroyed the city. Though Matthew 22:7 does refer to them as God's armies. I find either view to be viable. Either way, verse 27 refers to the Messiah, Jesus, and certainly not to some future Antichrist.

 

[IndianaRob]

His people, the Jews, were responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary because of having rejected Christ. So, that's a viable way of looking at it.


First, the prophecy mentions Messiah the prince in verse 25, and then it mentions the Messiah (not Messiah the prince this time in verse 26 followed by the prince who was to come. It seems to reference the prince who was to come as if people would know who that was and a prince who was to come was already mentioned in the previous verse. So, I don't see that it has to be referring to the actual leader of the Roman armies who destroyed the city. Though Matthew 22:7 does refer to them as God's armies. I find either view to be viable. Either way, verse 27 refers to the Messiah, Jesus, and certainly not to some future Antichrist.

In my opinion it doesn’t matter because all that matters is the “he” in verse 27 is Jesus.

 

[rwb]

There have to be two princes here. Verse 26 says "the people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

Carefully read the verse. It does not say the people of the prince that shall come "destroyed the city and the sanctuary." It speaks of people coming in the future shall when they come destroy the city and sanctuary. Apparently when they are destroyed by the people that shall come it shall be like an overflowing deluge, not of water but through spiritual apostasy that shall mean spiritually they will not recover but shall remain in spiritual apostasy to the end of the spiritual war with even greater desolations/devastations that have been determined/decreed/decided that shall come upon them.

Daniel 9:26 (KJV) 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 determined.

If that's the same prince as verse 25, then it's saying Jesus' people destroyed Jerusalem and the temple which can't be right. His people didn't do that.

It was Titus who destroyed it in AD 70. Titus was a prince, the emperor's son, and his armies were "the people of the prince."

How did Titus in 70 AD destroy the city and temple with a flood? That was a literal, physical war that did not destroy the city and sanctuary with a flood of water, which if physical destruction were in view it would have been.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In my opinion it doesn’t matter because all that matters is the “he” in verse 27 is Jesus.

That is the point I've been making as well, but the argument is being made that the "he" in verse 27 must refer to "the prince that shall come" in verse 26 and that is simply not the case. The Hebrew grammar allows that it can be pointing back to the last individual focused on in the previous verse as the subject, which was the Messiah. But, either way, the "he" in verse 27 is Jesus, but some people can't be satisfied if you don't agree with them completely in their understanding of verse 26 despite agreeing that verse 27 is talking about Jesus. I'm glad to see that you are not like them in that way.

 

[rwb]

I assume that in your view, our spirit goes to heaven and there is no body for our spirit while in heaven until the future resurrection.

Am I representing your understanding correctly?

Yes, that is exactly what I believe the Word of God shows us. How else if not through spirit could the life we receive when we have been born again be eternal life?