Amillennialism

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You have to be careful to pay attention to people who misuse the language in order to "score" a "point". In this case at-in-christ comes up short again. He simply doesn't get it.

The word people used in Daniel is the Hebrew (am), which is an ethnic denotation. It does not refer to the kingdom or empire that the “people” lived under.

1640a (‘am) people.
The term seems to be derived from the common Semitic root ‘āmam (cf. e.g. UT 19: no. 1864) meaning "to comprehend or include." Although there is some overlapping in meaning with its two main synonyms gȏy and le’ōm) (see synomyns under gȏy), the unique emphasis of 'am lies in its reference to a group of "people as viewed by one of themselves," or to "people in general."

The noun 'am appears in some important phrases: 'ammi lo'-'ammi and 'am ha'āres ("my people," "not my people" Hos 2:23 [H 25] and "people of the land").

The term 'am is often used in a general sense in the OT to refer to a group of people, larger than a tribe or clan, but less numerous than a race (le’ōm). When the reference to a large group, without reference to any specific characteristic or relationship, translators have, in instances, correctly rendered 'am as "folk" or "men." In the Aramaic portions of Ezr and Dan the term is used with this general sense in all but two instances (Ezr 7:13; 7:16).
However, 'am is predominantly used to express two basic characteristics of men considered as a grouping: 1) relationships sustained within or to the group and 2) the unity of the group.

-- Pages 675 and 676 of the TWOT Vol II


So when we look at the actual language, from an expert, in this case: Gerald Van Groningen, Ph.D., President, Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois; we find that the word at-in-christ insists 'am means an ethnic designation means no such thing at all!

You can't trust a person with an agenda to tell you what the Bible means, nor what the Hebrew language means.

As the Romans would typically allow some of the better men in their conquered territories to enlist in their ranks, there is no one "race" of people.

However, the 60,000 arrayed against Jerusalem under Titus Caesar are united under his command, and thus that becomes the overriding factor of "people."

Thus, people, 'am, refers to the Romans who did sack Jerusalem and it was their soldiers - and not their auxiliaries - who started and fueled the fire which destroyed the Temple.

 

[Trekson]

InChrist, You said: “Let me give you perfect example.” Matthew 16:22
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

Now is that the word of God? No its not

Matthew 16:22
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Matthew by the way bearing witness to this event wrote what the holy spirit needed him to write concerning this event.”

I see what you’re saying but look at your example differently. Did this exchange actually happen? Yes! Did the bible record the truth of this event? Yes? Even though it wasn’t the “word of God” is the reporting of the event true and factual? I think the answer to this is YES and that’s all we need to take away from Rev. 6. As I explained before, two wraths at different times both of Godly origins.

You seem to ignore the scriptures as they are pointed out to you but that self-imposed blindness will only block you from the truth of His word. Case in point



You wrote: “I’m sorry but that is not the case. Rosh Hashanah needed by the two witnesses does not occur in the 6th seal. Nor does this fit with Jewish wedding ceremonies…”

There is nothing about Rosh Hashanah that needs two witnesses. This feast is also known as Israel’s ‘Dark day” and this aspect of its prophetic significance is only found in the 6th seal per Amos 5:18-20, Zeph. 1:14-16, Joel 2:31, Is 13:9-10, 34:4,8, Joel 3:15, Acts 2:20 and Rev. 6:12-17

You said, “Then you have a problem as Paul is borrowing from the prophecy of Zechariah 14:5”

No, it’s not a problem at all as the word saints in Zech. 14 is speaking of living Jewish people. Most people mistakenly consider this to be 70th week timing but the timing is really post millennium and is speaking of the final battle at the end of the millennium. In this passage if you want to go by the definition of saints that reads “Holy ones”…that would be US, the church/army of God!

Your verse and following quote: Daniel 9:25

"Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.


“The words “unto the Messiah” reveal to us with absolute clarity and certainty to what point in the life-time of Yeshua the Messiah the measure of 69 sevens (483 years) must reach. The very word Messiah -- means the Anointed. Now when, during the Messiah’s life-time, was he anointed? It was at the river Jordan where Christ was baptized…Christ ministry begins the 70th week.”

Boy, you are really messing up your timelines and showing your misunderstanding of this passage. As I showed you before when Messiah “comes” is when He fulfills Zech. 9:9. The passage NEVER speaks of the act of His being anointed, it’s just telling us who He is! He can’t both “come” and be “cut off” at the end of the 69th week unless Zech. 9:9 is in effect. There is no opportunity for His 3 ½ year ministry in your understanding of this passage!!!

Your words: “Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Belonging to Joseph (that is, to Ephraim) and all the Israelites associated with him.'

The church is NOT in this picture. We are not Israelites and we aren’t Jews, what we are is part of the family of God and until the millennium that’s all the born again Jews are as well. Remember: “There is neither Jew nor Greek (gentile)”

Your question: “Tell me, is there anything in Prewrath that has the remotest grounding in hebrewism and follows any patterns of God?”

Well to be perfectly blunt NO because they are irrelevant. Yes, the three fall feasts have prophetic significance, however the wraths of the Lamb and of God and the Great Trib. will be a time like no other, there are NO patterns that will be followed because there are NO patterns at all, they are just in your imagination. Perhaps, when God is dealing with the Jewish 144,000 + in their 1260 days of hiding, He may show them how the OT foretold all these things and use some to teach them about the NT but to use your word, “hebrewisms” are absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary in relating to how God deals with His church.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

(1) He” is a pronoun which must refer to a specific preceding noun,
(2) Prince simply informs us about the “peoples” relationship with him. Not his origins.
(3) The prince is not the subject to the sentence.
(4) The word “prince” is an improper antecedent for the pronoun “he” in verse 27.
(5) Traditional grammatical analysis within Daniel 9:26-27 does not unseal the “he” of verse 27.
(6) You have no grounds grammatically to dismiss the "he" is not the Messiah nor do I have grounds to prove grammatically the "he" is the Messiah.

(1) An incorrect, false statement. The third-person, singular, masculine conjugation of gabar refers to a male person, not a noun.

(2) Another grammatically incorrect statement.
...and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
This is the second statement in a compound sentence joined by the conjunction "and".
When this sentence is diagrammed:

• the subject is people
• the verb is will destroy
• the object is doubled by the conjunction "and"
• the first object is city
• the second object is sanctuary
• the subject, people, is modified by a prepositional clause: of the prince.
• the object of the prepositional clause is further modified by who is to come.

The only person who would qualify as the antecedent to the conjugation of gabar is the prince: nagiyd.

In the Hebrew, this portion of Daniel 9:26 looks like this:
לוֹ וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא

Now Retrobyter (Roy) used to argue that an object of a preposition could never be the antecedent.
However - in the Hebrew, there is no modifying preposition to prince.
That is added in translation.
Indeed עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא just reads: "people prince come"
- and "come" is modified by הַ ha- which can act as a definite article "the", but it can also act as an interrogative article meaning whether-or.

The antecedent to the third-person, singular, masculine conjugation of gabar is the prince - not the Messiah.

(3) Never said he was.

(4) That is a factually and grammatically incorrect statement. Hebrew goes back to the last person mentioned to identify the third-person, singular, and masculine implicitly derived pronoun "he" for the verb conjugation.

(5) Another outright falsehood. at-in-christ is on a mission to destroy. He'll even be insulting and mean-spirited to achieve his goal.

(6) I do have grounds - he is incorrect again. Notice that the third person singular pronoun here goes all the way back to second statement in rebuttal #(5).
Furthermore, not only is at-in-christ finally truthful that he has no grounds grammatically to refer the "he" implicit in the conjugation of gabar back to the Messiah -
- AT NO TIME DID JESUS EVER PREVAIL BY MIGHT A LIMITED-TIME COVENANT.

Even IF you want to use "confirm" for gabar, which is not what gabar means; no one has been able to demonstrate a Biblically-accurate quid-pro-quo Covenant at the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Furthermore - WHICH Covenant did Jesus supposedly make stronger? And HOW did He do that?
No one can show this. Saying prophecy is fulfilled is NOT to make a Covenant, nor does it make any of the OT Covenants stronger.
And that's ONLY if you want to insist on a flawed translation of gabar...
And still you have that first hurtle to surmount - Jesus NEVER made or confirmed a limited-time covenant of just seven years.

 

[inchrist]

.

You seem to ignore the scriptures as they are pointed out to you but that self-imposed blindness will only block you from the truth of His word. .

Im not ignoring anything, im addressing it...the sinners statement in the 6th seal is NOT the word of God compared to the 7th trumpet " your wrath has come" is from the word of God declared by an angel. Big difference in credibility.

No, it’s not a problem at all as the word saints in Zech. 14 is speaking of living Jewish people. Most people

The word is not saints - the word is holy ones....start with that first because it seems to you that holyones only means church saints.

Boy, you are really messing up your timelines and showing your misunderstanding of this passage. As I showed you before when Messiah “comes” is when He fulfills Zech. 9:9.

No...... he came and presented himself before that. Christ himself testified he was the messiah when he returned to Galilee in the power of the spirit where, according to Isaiah 9:1-2, the “Great Light” was to arise -- see also Matthew 4:12-16.

On the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue in Nazareth and read these prophetic words from the Book of Isaiah:

“The spirit of the LORD is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor”; and then, having sat down, and the eyes of all being fastened intently upon him, he said, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:16-21).

Therefore, Christ declared himself to be the “Anointed” one -- the Messiah -- at that time.

The church is NOT in this picture. We are not Israelites and we aren’t Jews, what we are is part of the family of God and until the millennium that’s all the born again Jews are as well. Remember: “There is neither Jew nor Greek (gentile)”

Incorrect
Ruth was a Moabite (from the worst of all pagan nations). Yet, she became a Jew when she sojourned back to Bethlehem-Judah with her mother-in-law Naomi. She was“grafted into the tribe” of Judah by faith.

Ezekiel 47:22 it tells us that any “stranger” may join the tribe of his choosing, simply by “sojourning” with a member of any of the Twelves Tribes of Israel. Once we begin to sojourn with any of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, we are able to “inherit” land with that tribe and as an inheritance.
..................
But he is a Yahuwdiy (Jew),which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,
..............



Further I posted much earlier the following to you which you clearly do not understand, which by the way I dont blame you but rather blame Dispensationalism.

This is a prophetic promise to Ephraim

but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Ephraims inheretance is the christian nations, how? By the spreading of the gospel that was sent out to Ephraim, where ever Ephraim was, gentiles started to convert to Christianity.

This is why God called Ephraim my firstborn son. Jeremiah 31:9

Because in order to be called the firstborn son of God one must be born of Christ. Ephraim is to be born of Christ...it is the house of Christians.


Ephraim and the gentiles are part of the same house. The house of Judah for the time being rejects the Messiah.

There is neither Jew nor Greek (gentile)”

Yes but remember the septure belongs to Judah.

Well to be perfectly blunt NO because they are irrelevant.

Im sorry but God does not do things in vain, or without purpose. The Old Testament Holy Days were not just some sort of Divine make-work project to keep the Israelites "busy" while they were out wandering in the desert.

All of the Old Testament Holy Days (Passover, Days of Unleavened Bread, The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of Trumpets, The Day of Atonement, The Festival of Tabernacles and the Last Day) were, and continue to be, living symbols of the stages of God’s Plan of Salvation for all humanity. Those events are now in progress....

Irrelevant you say....I would love for to explain that to Jesus as we continue to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the Millennium.


For you to completely dismiss Hebrew thought with western thought shows how bankedrapt prewrath is....we are dealing with a Hebrew God who spoke to Hebrews who gave us a hebrew book...its not american or british or german or Japanese or Zulu nor is their thought as they are set apart.

As I said to you before, how would you feel if I took the american civil war and taught the battles over the african continent. Makes no sense. Just as much sense to have sinners telling you the wrath of God has come as though its the word of God.

Yes, the three fall feasts have prophetic significance, however the wraths of the Lamb and of God and the Great Trib. will be a time like no other, there are NO patterns that will be followed because there are NO patterns at all

Christ is like no other but guess what....there were prophetic types before Christ arrived.

There is nothing about Rosh Hashanah that needs two witnesses.

Im not surprised you stated that....as to you its irrelevent for you to learn Gods holy convocations.

Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple.

And guess what in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins we find Rosh Hashanah idioms.

And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; - your two witnesses.

Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming. -- no man knows [Rosh Hashanah]

 

[inchrist]

So when we look at the actual language, from an expert, in this case: Gerald Van Groningen, Ph.D., President, Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois;

I'm sorry with all due respect to Dr G Van Groningen was a professor of Old Testament and homiletics, he has no expertise to that of Wilhelm Gesenius, the Hebrew lexiconographer who wrote the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon or that of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum a Jew who completed his dissertation, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, was the culmination of 13 years of research for which he earned his Ph.D.

Thus, people, 'am, refers to the Romans who did sack Jerusalem and it was theirsoldiers - and not their auxiliaries - who started and fueled the fire which destroyed the Temple.

False, a soilder acting against orders does not act on behalf of an army.


Sara Elise Phang, Ph.D., author of Roman Military Service, ideologies of discipline in the late Republic and early Principate

States the following:
What had been an army of Italians was increasingly becoming an army of provincials owing no particular allegiance to, or common bond with the Senate or the urbs Roma…

No allegience to the City Roma.

 

[inchrist]

(1) An incorrect, false statement. The third-person, singular, masculine conjugation of gabar refers to a male person, not a noun.

(2) Another grammatically incorrect statement. ...and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
This is the second statement in a compound sentence joined by the conjunction "and".
When this sentence is diagrammed:

• the subject is people
• the verb is will destroy
• the object is doubled by the conjunction "and"
• the first object is city
• the second object is sanctuary
• the subject, people, is modified by a prepositional clause: of the prince.
• the object of the prepositional clause is further modified by who is to come.

The only person who would qualify as the antecedent to the conjugation of gabar is the prince: nagiyd.

In the Hebrew, this portion of Daniel 9:26 looks like this:
לוֹ וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא

Now Retrobyter (Roy) used to argue that an object of a preposition could never be the antecedent.
However - in the Hebrew, there is no modifying preposition to prince.
That is added in translation.
Indeed עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא just reads: "people prince come"
- and "come" is modified by הַ ha- which can act as a definite article "the", but it can also act as an interrogative article meaning whether-or.

The antecedent to the third-person, singular, masculine conjugation of gabar is the prince - not the Messiah.

(3) Never said he was.

(4) That is a factually and grammatically incorrect statement. Hebrew goes back to the last person mentioned to identify the third-person, singular, and masculine implicitly derived pronoun "he" for the verb conjugation.

(5) Another outright falsehood. at-in-christ is on a mission to destroy. He'll even be insulting and mean-spirited to achieve his goal.

(6) I do have grounds - he is incorrect again. Notice that the third person singular pronoun here goes all the way back to second statement in rebuttal #(5).
Furthermore, not only is at-in-christ finally truthful that he has no grounds grammatically to refer the "he" implicit in the conjugation of gabar back to the Messiah -
-

You missing the point completely, neither the words "Prince" nor "he" unseals the identity of who the "prince" or "he" is in Daniel 9:26-27....its a grammatic dead end.....I don't know how to make that more clear to you??? Which makes "prince" an improper anticident to "he" and since "prince" is an anticident it would revert back to Daniel 9:25 Messiah the Prince

And the reason for all this is repetition is avoided by the use of the pronouns. At this point its called check mate

AT NO TIME DID JESUS EVER PREVAIL BY MIGHT A LIMITED-TIME COVENANT.

Who said it was a limited time covenant?

This period is marked as Christ work for his bride, like the prophetic templates of Jacob, Leah and Rachel.

Out of the entire bible no where is covenant and the antichrist EVER associated with one another.

And by the way "people" in Daniel 9:26 is refering to israelites


Daniel 9:24
Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

Since Daniel 9:26 still has the same people and the same holy city in view.

What you have presented is by far the worest kind of replacement theology I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

at-in-christ is on a mission to destroy. He'll even be insulting and mean-spirited to achieve his goal.

This is all you in all your glory...

I'm not sure with your limited capacity you can read what either I or the Bible says.Your lack of understanding and intelligence prevents you from seeing simple facts

 

[inchrist]

Hi Wormwood, I agree that the faithless and unbelieving will have no part of God's promises but there is no reason not to believe that there will come a time when all that is left of the nation of Israel will be made up of believers to inherit the kingdom. I believe the 144,000 is who will come to their senses to fulfill the prophecy of Zech. 12:8-10 - "In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

There are many prophecies about God redeeming Israel and the millennial future they will have. God will arrange things so that the nation He created will one day worship and adore Him as a nation. Yes, we are grafted in but only for while. This opportunity will last only until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. The latter part of Rom. 11 speaks of the restoration of the nation of Israel and no that is not code for the church. The nation of Israel still has a God appointed destiny to fulfill and when it is fulfilled they will all be followers of Christ.

By the way zech 12 is Yom Kippur language fits with Rev 19 which is also Yom Kippur event.

So if you ever do debate with a traditional post trib who has the resurrection and rapture at Rev 19...you can tell them Rosh Hashanah and Yom kippur do not occur on the same day

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I'm sorry with all due respect to Dr G Van Groningen was a professor of Old Testament and homiletics, he has no expertise to that of Wilhelm Gesenius, the Hebrew lexiconographer who wrote the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon or that of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum a Jew who completed his dissertation, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, was the culmination of 13 years of research for which he earned his Ph.D.

I'm sorry, atin-christ, but Wilhelm Gesenius of the 19th century wrote about "people" and it's nothing like you make it out to be. I'll publish what he wrote later; it's not different at all from what is found in the more highly acclaimed Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament - which is today's leading source for the Hebrew. Wouldn't you like to be at least up-to-date?

I'm sorry too that you go to the Pre-Trib author Arnold Fruchtenbaum for your reference, because he is not a language scholar, nor an expert in Hebrew, despite being a Jew - and has not written any comprehensive word study of the Hebrew language which purports anything like what you allege.

Again, you come up short on facts, and long on knives to press your attack.

 

[Trekson]

InChrist, Your words, "Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple. And guess what in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins we find Rosh Hashanah idioms. And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; - your two witnesses. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming. -- no man knows [Rosh Hashanah]"

Because of cloudy conditions the "witness" aspect was changed back in the OT to make it a two day holiday. I mean they weren't stupid all they had to do was the math as they were on a lunar cycle. Your example doesn't say how many people made that cry and not knowing the day or the hour is stretching things a bit.

 

[inchrist]

InChrist, Your words, "Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple. And guess what in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins we find Rosh Hashanah idioms. And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; - your two witnesses. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming. -- no man knows [Rosh Hashanah]"

Because of cloudy conditions the "witness" aspect was changed back in the OT to make it a two day holiday. I mean they weren't stupid all they had to do was the math as they were on a lunar cycle. Your example doesn't say how many people made that cry and not knowing the day or the hour is stretching things a bit.

What complete utter nonsense

The Temple guard verified that at least two witnesses were present before he summoned a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the ruling princes would inquire of the first two witnesses, and when the sighting was certain, he gathered the elders and alerted the High Priest.

The High Priest stood on the Temple Mount and called out to the two witnesses below, “Come up hither!” The gate would be opened and the two witnesses ascended the Temple Mount to appear before the High Priest and declare the sighting of the new moon.

When both witnesses provided the confirming evidence, the High Priest ordered “Sound the trumpets!”

not knowing the day or the hour is stretching things a bit

Thats like saying turkey day is a stretch for thanksgiving.....No one knows the day is an idiom for Rosh Hashanah...not only have you declared Gods holy convocations are irrelevant but please dont try and pass off as though your an export all of a sudden on all the idioms associated with the Feasts, since its been irrelevant for you to even learn them

 

[inchrist]

I'm sorry too that you go to the Pre-Trib author Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Well then I would suggest you condemn Thomas Ice since I have no doubt you got your resource from him concerning the antecedent.....how disparate are you?

Wouldn't you like to be at least up-to-date?

Why isnt Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon good enough for you? Have you developed and published your own Lexicon?

Or the fact that 1900 times the Hebrew word am appears in the King James Version, over 99% of the time, it is translated as “people”, referring to bloodline

Or that ONLY seventeen times is the word translated as “nation”.

And um.... I have over 2000 yrs of Intelligent scholars to pick from...is that another problem for you?...or should I only choose from who you deem as fit?...and i provided you scholars in the field of Roman history who dismiss your utter nonsense.

Prewrath is a fabrication of imaginations....that has no grounding in hebrew thought and a disregard that bares false witness to events surrounding the destruction of the temple

A soilder who disobeys orders does not act on behalf of an army how more so than an entire legion

...I have debunked every thing you have thrown at me with ease

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

...I have debunked every thing you have thrown at me with ease

Only in your own mind; as I have shown, everything you offer up in the way of real work - has been consistently shown not to be what you purport it to be!
However, you are completely unable to correct your errors, and instead, remain wallowed in your own muddy thinking.

For instance - your ancient, written without even the benefit of electrical light, lexicon by Gesenius reference does NOT agree with you.

In reference to a prince, or leader, 'am means the common people. The people common to Titus, and later to the prince who will come are the Roman soldiers. Rome is ubiquitous, being made up of many people, literally, a "sea" of people.

עם (with conjunctive accents) and עם (with distinctives, or with the art.) with suff. עמי, comm. (but rarely f. Ex. 5:16; Jud. 18:7), a people, so called from their being collected together, see the root עמם No. 1 (Arab. ىف The common people). It is very often used of Israel, as being the people of God, עם יהוה Exod. 15:13; Deut. 32:36; קרוש עם the holy people, Deu. 7:6; נתלה עם the people peculiarly belonging to God, Deut 4:20, etc.; and in opposition to נּוים (see נּוי); but the pl. Isa 8:9; Psal. 33:10, and האדץ עמי Deut 28:10, etc. is used of all peoples. Specially it is used –

(1) of single races or tribes, e.g. זבלא עם Jud. 5:18; pl. often of the tribes of Israel (comp. the δημοι of the Athenians), Gen 49:10; Deut. 32:8; 33:3, 19; Isa 3:13; Hos 10:14; Ps. 47:2; and even used of the race or family of any one, especially in the plural םי עמי the kindred, relatives of any one, i.q. פ׳ אנשי (see איש No.1, h) Lev 21:1, 4; 19:16, עמין אל נאםך to be gathered to one’s people, i.q. elsewhere is called, to be gathered to one’s fathers (see אםך Niphal). (Hence has arisen its use in the singular of single relatives; whence Arab. ٿ an uncle, and the pr.n. עמיאל kinsman of God, אליעם to whom God is kinsman.) Poet. Used of any peculiar race of men, as עני עם the afflicted people, Ps. 18:28; comp. עךיק נןי just men, Gen 20:4.

(2) Opp. To princes, leaders, or the king; it denotes the citizens, the common people (compare opp. To leaders Il. Ii. 365; xiii. 108; xxiv. 28), 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Kings 11:17; 23:21; Eze 7:27; soldiers Jud. 5:2; hence followed by a genit. the companions or servants of a leader or lord; i.q. אנשין (see איש No. 1 h); Cant. 6:12, נדיכ עמי מךנּבות “the chariot of the companions of the prince; (י- being, I consider, in this place not a suffix, but paragogic, and a mark of the constr. state). Eccl. 4:16; also used of the servants of a private masters, 1 Ki 19:21; 2 Ki. 4:41. Elsewhere –

(3) when an individual speaks, my people is the people to which I belong; Isaiah 53:8 [?]; Ruth 1:16; whence עמי נּני the sons of my people; i.e. my countrymen, Gen .23:11; poet. עמי נּת id. (see נּת No. 5), Lam. 2:11; 3:14; 4:3, 6. With the art. It is used –

(4) also of the whole human race, i.q. חאךם Isa. 40:7; 42:5; 44:7; and to this may also be referred the words spoken in bitter irony, Job 12:2, עס אתם בי אמנם “surely ye are the whole human race, and with you wisdom will die.
Poet. used of a troop, herd of animals, Prov. 30:25, 26; Ps. 74:14; compare נּלי No. 2; also Gr. δήμος.

Plur. עמים constr. עמי (more rarely in the Aramean manner עממים constr. עמי Neh. 9:22, 24; Jud 5:14); peoples, nations; also the tribes of Israel; see above No. 1, the kindred, relatives of any one’ see above No. 2.

http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/Gesenius/

 

[Trekson]

No one knows the day is an idiom for Rosh Hashanah..

If you think just because similar words are used to describe completely separate occasions and every time their used after that they must be speaking of the same thing is well, just plain weird, no wonder you're confused. I'm beginning to see what Marcus was talking about.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I'm beginning to see what Marcus was talking about.

There is an aspect of Rosh ha-Shannah, the Returning Anew, which does align with the aspect whereby no one knows when the Day of the Lord will come.

There is an idiom as the "unknown day" which refers to this sighting, which could be obscured, which kept the announcement of this one Appointed Time variable: hence not completely knowable in advance.

The mistake atin-christ makes in my opinion is to try to force the whole of the end-times into the same exact day-for-day calendar - that is his error. Paul wrote in Colossians 2:17 -...a festival or a new moon...things which are a mere shadow of what is to come- which suggests not to use a strict 1:1 correlation between the Festivals and the end-times.

Prophecy of the end-times is not predicated per se on the Festivals, or Appointed Times. However, I think the overall pattern is fulfilled, albeit over a much longer period than just one Fall Season.

 

[inchrist]

For instance - your ancient, written without even the benefit of electrical light, lexicon by Gesenius reference does NOT agree with you.

Refuted.

Firstly I have been very honest with the hebrew word "am" so for the third time I'll post this again

1900 times the Hebrew word am appears in the King James Version, over 99% of the time, it is translated as “people”.

Only seventeen times is the word translated as “nation”.

Secondly you state the following

Rome is ubiquitous, being made up of many people, literally, a "sea" of people.

Yes, however concerning the destruction of the temple and the legions involved refutes your postions

So Vespasian sent his son Titus [who], came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood" (Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3).

From the Kings in that neighborhood....Titus can not be the Prince of the syrians and surrounding neighborhood as they have their own kings. In otherwords the syrians do not belong to Rome

Thirdly Titus never gave the order for the temple to be destroyed...therefore it was not an order of Rome.

"Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet he saved, he came in haste and endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire…yet were their passions too hard for the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had of him who forbade them, as was their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them, too hard for them also…And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar’s approbation" (Josephus, Wars of the Jews)

A soilder who disobeys an order does not act on behalf of the army....therefore the arab legions did not ACT on behalf of Titus NOR were they even his people as THEY had their own KINGS.

Sara Elise Phang, Ph.D., author of Roman Military Service, ideologies of discipline in the late Republic and early Principate

States the following:
What had been an army of Italians was increasingly becoming an army of provincials owing no particular allegiance to, or common bond with the Senate or the urbs Roma…

The Arabs who made up the legions had no allegiance to or common bond with Rome....therefore this does not fit the definition the common people of Rome

If they have no allegiance to Rome they are therefore no citizen of Rome.

Forthly if Daniel's intention was to have the Romans in mind he would of used the words mamlakah (kingdom or empire) or goy (nation).

You are therefore refuted.

Now lets address the following
(2) Opp. To princes, leaders, or the king; it denotes the citizens, the common people

As you can see, the hebrew word am for people is used for a single races or tribes, and is normally associated with israel

In all the examples given in (2)Opp. To princes, leaders, or the king; it denotes the citizens, the common people it donates to Israel, being a singles race and tribe of Israelites.

Also "people" in Daniel 9:26 is refering to israelites, since this word is nornally associated with Israel

As staying in context.....

Daniel 9:24
Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

.....Daniel 9:26 still has the same people and the same holy city in view. Which still fits with the definition (2) Opp. To princes, leaders, or the king; it denotes the citizens, the common people

You are therefore again refuted.

Only in your own mind; as I have shown, everything you offer up in the way of real work - has been consistently shown not to be what you purport it to be!
However, you are completely unable to correct your errors, and instead, remain wallowed in your own muddy thinking.

What you have presented is revised History, replacement theology of its worest kind, and showen an inability to stay in context, and fabricated a complete mess concerning when the 69th week ends, further denying Christ work that is to be completed in the 70th week for His bride.

Colossians 2:17 -...a festival or a new moon...things which are a mere shadow of what is to come....which suggests not to use a strict 1:1 correlation between the Festivals and the end-times.

It suggests no such thing....the feasts holidays are shadows of what is to come....hence Gods statement Holy Convocation

All of Gods feasts are a HOLY CONVOCATION.....in other words they are a HOLY REHEARSAL a HOLY SHADOWS of things to come.

Proof of this lies in the direct springfeasts which CHRIST fulfilled ay his first coming...now when it comes to the fall feasts which are unfulfilled regarding His second coming you wish to be inconsistent with its application?

Have a look out side Marcus and tell if heaven and earth has passed away?

evidence that we will be keeping the Feast days when Christ returns....

Zechariah 14:16-19
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


Isaiah 66:22-23
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

You are refuted again.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

"people" in Daniel 9:26 is refering to israelites, since this word is nornally associated with Israel

I'm so sorry for atin-christ. He just doesn't get it. He is stuck, and you can't fix his dilemma. His protestations are specious, and result in one big cipher.
The word for people here is associated directly with nagiyd, the prince - not the king, mashiyach who is Jesus; and that prince, then anti-Christ, is still to come.

It is HE who then prevails, gabar, a covenant with many for one 'seven'.
Jesus did not "confirm" any OT Covenant for only seven years.

"since the word is normally associated?" This is a faulty conclusion. No, people, 'am, is immediately followed by prince, nagiyd.
It is not describing the 12 tribes of Israel.
The word people here describes the Romans WHO DID ruin the city and the sanctuary.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Firstly I have been very honest with the hebrew word "am" so for the third time I'll post this again

One: we have a lie. atin-christ has been caught giving a false definition to the word 'am which means people.

Two: we have a fallacy in argument here: Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition): This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

.....Daniel 9:26 still has the same people and the same holy city in view. Which still fits with the definition (2) Opp. To princes, leaders, or the king; it denotes the citizens, the common people

No, another vapid non-rebuttal, in fact, it is a lie; a complete falsehood, "spin" as the modern parlance in political terms makes it out to be, untrue with the intent to deceive.
Such a person cannot be trusted to handle God's Word reliably with any credibility.
You might as well malign the Word about a day when God heals the wounds He has caused as a day of wrath as some erroneously teach Isaiah 30:26 to be.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Titus never gave the order for the temple to be destroyed...therefore it was not an order of Rome.

Oh, dear! You're right! Daniel 9:26 says ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMANDER OF THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE WHO SHALL COME -

...oh wait... it doesn't say that at all.
No, Gabriel gave Daniel a bit of prophecy unknown even at the later date critics would assign the writing of the book of Daniel in the 2nd century B.C. -
-- this is because critics hate the unerring near-term to the 5th century B.C. prophecy in that book which describes the Hellenistic domination of Israel --
and this prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple came true.

And it came true in a spectacular and devastating way when the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
And even though the fire was started by Roman soldiers - in the end, it was Titus who commanded that the entire structure, with its outlying buildings be razed.
The only thing left is one of the foundation walls to the complex: the West Wall.

So ends another non-rebuttal which ends up to be a dead end, null and void.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

(Colossians 2:16-17) suggests no such thing....the feasts holidays are shadows of what is to come....

No, you can rely absolutely on anything atin-christ says, right?
This reminds me of the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!"
Hahaha.

No, we're not supposed to read what Paul wrote in inspired text as meaning what it says.
No, we're only supposed to follow the commands of someone who misrepresents what Scripture says.
This is kind of sad actually.

Jesus fulfilled the Spring Festivals literally, and in order: the former rain.
However, while we can see how the Fall Festivals will be fullfilled: the later rain - we should expect a 1:1 completely literal fulfillment.

For instance, the eight days of the Days of Awe, when Jews humbly reflect upon God's Might in light of their sins, is not replicated with the Trumpet Judgments, the first Woe alone taking five months.
Indeed, to squeeze the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments into such a short period of time makes them lose their impact, because in some cases, it is only by the wearing down that time brings to the desolations upon the earth that God will wrought, that makes them so terrible as to destroy all the wicked!