This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!

[Earburner]

A spirit is a guided force. You are just wrong.

Ref. post #306, page 16:

Silly me! Of course, what was I thinking?
All "religious" minded people expect religious answers and explanations to their questions, and not that which is factual and practical.

But, maybe you really are interested in how God created man's ability to breathe "the breath of life" (Oxygen), for surely people like Adam, Noah, Moses etc. did not know, but rather explained it in childish terms, from out of their ignorance (see post #306).

Muscles of Respiration

The muscles of respiration are also called the 'breathing pump muscles', they form a complex arrangement in the form of semi-rigid bellows around the...

www.physio-pedia.com

 

[Trekson]

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Acts 4:27
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Acts 10:38
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.


There seems to be some discrepancy.

In your verses, the use of the word "anointed" means to "consecrate to a religious position". To 'anoint" in Dan. 9:24, means to "rub with oil". Both words can mean both defs, but it's the context that decides.

 

[Trekson]

Who in recognized historic orthodox Christianity has claimed that Daniel 9:24 is not Messianic prophecy?

Apparently, a whole bunch of people. When I first heard that folks believed that I was a little shocked especially when compared to real Messianic prophecies like Is. 53. and the multiple explicit ones that Christ really did fulfill. If one was to just read it w/o any preconceived notions it doesn't even come across as Messianic.

 

[claninja]

Also, some want to apply a whole lot of things to "God's" word, the was never intended. Made up genre's like apocalyptic literature. Regarding prophecy audience relevance is irrelevant because the vast majority of prophecies were "never" for the times the prophet rec'd them. The HS should take priority over scholarly or translation consensus although the latter can be helpful at times. All the translators could do was interpret as best as they can. Almost any given Hebrew or Greek word can have multiple meanings depending on the stressors which the translators didn't have access to. While speaking, body language, hand gestures, emphasis can each change the word to a different meaning, which is why we have to try and connect it to the prophetic narrative we are given.

1.) calling “apocalyptic literature” a made-up genre just doesn’t hold up. That category isn’t arbitrary; it’s based on observable features in texts like Daniel and revelation : symbolic imagery, heavenly visions, angelic interpreters, cosmic language, etc. You don’t need to “impose” the genre as it’s inductive. Ignoring it is like ignoring poetry vs. narrative and pretending everything should be read the same way.

2.) “audience relevance is irrelevant” is a huge interpretive mistake. Scripture was written to real people in real contexts. For example, prophets constantly address their contemporaries (“this generation,” “O Israel,” etc.). Even when prophecy has future elements, it still had meaning to its original audience. If you remove audience relevance, you can make the text say almost anything.

3.) the appeal to the Holy Spirit over scholarship sounds spiritual, but it creates a problem: it eliminates any objective control. If everyone can claim “the Spirit told me” or “the Spirit gave me better understanding than you”, then contradictory interpretations all become equally valid, as everyone and their mother on this forum seems to have a different interpretation. That’s exactly why careful study of language, context, and historical setting matters.

4.)on language: yes, Hebrew and Greek words can have ranges of meaning, but they are not infinitely flexible. Context limits meaning. Translators don’t just guess—they analyze grammar, syntax, and usage across thousands of occurrences. The idea that meaning is mostly lost because we lack tone or gestures is overstated; written language was designed to communicate clearly without those things. In otherwords, I’m assuming you are not fluent in ancient Hebrew nor Greek but rely heavily on translation experts to bring the Bible to you in English?

If audience, context, and language don’t control interpretation, but instead your personal position on prophecy controls it, then interpretation isn’t coming from the text, it’s being imposed on it. In essence you provided support for my argument that your framework (how you personally view prophecy) is your Bible, not necessarily the Bible itself.

 

[Trekson]

1.) calling “apocalyptic literature” a made-up genre just doesn’t hold up. That category isn’t arbitrary; it’s based on observable features in texts like Daniel and revelation : symbolic imagery, heavenly visions, angelic interpreters, cosmic language, etc. You don’t need to “impose” the genre as it’s inductive. Ignoring it is like ignoring poetry vs. narrative and pretending everything should be read the same way.

2.) “audience relevance is irrelevant” is a huge interpretive mistake. Scripture was written to real people in real contexts. For example, prophets constantly address their contemporaries (“this generation,” “O Israel,” etc.). Even when prophecy has future elements, it still had meaning to its original audience. If you remove audience relevance, you can make the text say almost anything.

3.) the appeal to the Holy Spirit over scholarship sounds spiritual, but it creates a problem: it eliminates any objective control. If everyone can claim “the Spirit told me” or “the Spirit gave me better understanding than you”, then contradictory interpretations all become equally valid, as everyone and their mother on this forum seems to have a different interpretation. That’s exactly why careful study of language, context, and historical setting matters.

4.)on language: yes, Hebrew and Greek words can have ranges of meaning, but they are not infinitely flexible. Context limits meaning. Translators don’t just guess—they analyze grammar, syntax, and usage across thousands of occurrences. The idea that meaning is mostly lost because we lack tone or gestures is overstated; written language was designed to communicate clearly without those things. In otherwords, I’m assuming you are not fluent in ancient Hebrew nor Greek but rely heavily on translation experts to bring the Bible to you in English?

If audience, context, and language don’t control interpretation, but instead your personal position on prophecy controls it, then interpretation isn’t coming from the text, it’s being imposed on it. In essence you provided support for my argument that your framework (how you personally view prophecy) is your Bible, not necessarily the Bible itself.

Apocalyptic literature by its name rejects all prophecies that are hard to relate to or are unfulfilled. It puts it in the category of fiction at worst or gross over exaggeration at best. It's a name given by people who don't possess the HS for understanding thus as scriptures says, "it sounds like foolishness to them". What was the audience relevance to the first prophecy given in Gen. 3:15, that took over 4000 yrs. to fulfill? Many parts of Rev. weren't understandable to the early church because it dealt w/ topics that only the modern latter day generations could understand because of the technology it was speaking of. Regarding language, I didn't claim it was "mostly lost" and no, in many cases, especially regarding prophecy, they were given for the understanding of the people who would live through their fulfillments. No, it doesn't end up being a personal position like this OP for instance. It's not an opinion, it's a reality that most folks haven't figured out yet or deny because it conflicts w/ their personal opinions. I didn't 'figure it out" because I'm smarter, wiser, more spiritual than anyone else. I asked God questions and the HS answered and I "listened" and it aligns w/ the prophetic narrative. Does He always supply an answer? Most of the time, no but every 5 yrs. or so He does respond w/ a little nugget that pushes me towards a different direction or perspective. The problem most folks have, imo, as a result of their studies they come up w/ an understanding of prophecy and they will never be shaken from that position whether it is proved to be erroneous or not. They will defend it to the death and that rigidity is the problem. They are no longer open to what the HS might want to share w/ them in that regard or anything new beyond what they already believe, especially if it's another person sharing, yet in every other christian topic they are open to a wide variety of teachers and preachers regarding life and soul changing topics and some of them may conflict but in most cases, they don't respond to those differences w/ the same kind of unchristlike manner and attitudes. Some of the rudest people I have ever run across are on prophecy forums like this. I don't care if someone disagrees w/ me, folks can still be nice and polite about it.

 

[Zao is life]

Just the reality of what the bible actually teaches and not what folks want it to teach so they can maintain their false theology. Let's try a different look. Dec. 31, 11:59;59sec. pm, is 2025, Jan. 1, 12:00:01 one second after midnight is 2026, a child is born, they were born 'after" 2025. Jesus was never anointed as King, like David was which will be the fulfillment of Dan. 9:24, "to anoint the most holy".

The passage in Daniel 9:24-27 is about the Messiah and the coming of the Messiah, and the covenant He would make. Only in verses 26-27 is information given as to who would destroy the city and the sanctuary - the people of the prince who the prophecy said shall (would) come.​

 

[Zao is life]

No digging necessary. The Judaean Christians fled. Evidence in the text, and evidence on the ground.

To attempt to equate that to a decapitated orphaned undetermined 70th week is beyond absurd.

Evidence: The word BEFORE (the birth-pains) in Luke, and the words NOT YET (in relation to the birth-pains) in Matthew.

Like @Trekson regarding Daniel's seventy weeks, you have decided to just dig your heels in and ignore the evidence in the text.

The Judean Christians fleeing and the events of the 1st century would all take place BEFORE the birth-pain signs, as Jesus said, and as Luke wrote.

The Judean Christians will need to flee again immediately before Christ returns, as Jesus said, and as Matthew wrote.

 

[covenantee]

Evidence: The word BEFORE (the birth-pains) in Luke, and the words NOT YET (in relation to the birth-pains) in Matthew.

Like @Trekson regarding Daniel's seventy weeks, you have decided to just dig your heels in and ignore the evidence in the text.

The Judean Christians fleeing and the events of the 1st century would all take place BEFORE the birth-pain signs, as Jesus said, and as Luke wrote.

The Judean Christians will need to flee again immediately before Christ returns, as Jesus said, and as Matthew wrote.

The first flight wasn't good enough for you. They have to do it again. Those poor Judean Christians will be tired of fleeing.

Talk about dug in.

 

[covenantee]

Apparently, a whole bunch of people. When I first heard that folks believed that I was a little shocked especially when compared to real Messianic prophecies like Is. 53. and the multiple explicit ones that Christ really did fulfill. If one was to just read it w/o any preconceived notions it doesn't even come across as Messianic.

Apparently not one, since you can't cite him or her.

The verse is pure Messiah, as your inability to cite one denier demonstrates.

 

[covenantee]

In your verses, the use of the word "anointed" means to "consecrate to a religious position". To 'anoint" in Dan. 9:24, means to "rub with oil". Both words can mean both defs, but it's the context that decides.

"Messiah" means "Anointed One".

There's your context.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Ref. post #306, page 16:

Silly me! Of course, what was I thinking?
All "religious" minded people expect religious answers and explanations to their questions, and not that which is factual and practical.

But, maybe you really are interested in how God created man's ability to breathe "the breath of life" (Oxygen), for surely people like Adam, Noah, Moses etc. did not know, but rather explained it in childish terms, from out of their ignorance (see post #306).

Muscles of Respiration

The muscles of respiration are also called the 'breathing pump muscles', they form a complex arrangement in the form of semi-rigid bellows around the...

www.physio-pedia.com

You are thinking psuche, eh?

 

[Trekson]

The passage in Daniel 9:24-27 is about the Messiah and the coming of the Messiah, and the covenant He would make. Only in verses 26-27 is information given as to who would destroy the city and the sanctuary - the people of the prince who shall come.

Dan. 9:25-26a gives info about his arrival and his crucifixion which was prophetically fulfilled in a span of 2-3 days. That's it! Nothing else is Messiah related. The info was given as timeline indicators but it seems most folks miss that.

 

[Trekson]

Apparently not one, since you can't cite him or her.

The verse is pure Messiah, as your inability to cite one denier demonstrates.

Mostly it's historicists who believe that because otherwise their theology falls flat. I believe it was you who made the comment about the nations of Dan. 2 and Dan. 7 were "all" fulfilled in the linear prophetic time but that's not true either as the 5th kingdom of Dan. 2 and the 4th kingdom of Dan. 7 has not yet arrived. They are the same future kingdom.

 

[Trekson]

"Messiah" means "Anointed One".

There's your context.

Nope, still not the correct use of the word anointed to match vs. 24. He was the one anointed (consecrated or set aside) to be the one and only perfect sacrifice. When the millennium begins he will be anointed (by the rubbing on of oil) to be King and Messiah of the world. Just as Saul, David and many other kings were.

 

[Zao is life]

Apocalyptic literature by its name rejects all prophecies that are hard to relate to or are unfulfilled.

You talk such nonsense - sometimes based nothing more than you own invented semantics.

The word apokalupsis is a Greek word which in the book with that word (the apokalupsis of Jesus Christ) is the origin of the words "apocalyptic literature". It basically means to take off the cover, to disclose, or to unveil.

You are claiming that we have no right to say that in apocalyptic literature many things are symbolized or metaphor is being used to describe things and people which are not the things or people being spoken about, such as candle sticks being churches, seed that is sown in the ground being the words of God, many waters being the voice of Christ, lightnings and thunderings being the voice of God the Father,

etc etc.

The only debate among Christians is about what certain symbols represent vs. what they don't, and whether or not some of the the things written about in apocalyptic literature have already taken place - but your debate is a non-debate, based on nothing more than your own invented semantics regarding the words "apocalyptic literature" and your false claim that the 70th week written about in Daniel 9:24-27 has not been fulfilled yet.

Your OP is based on your own personal opinion - not facts. What you say about it could only be classed as a fact if we were all in as much agreement about it as we are about what those "weeks" represent and what their starting point was.

Pity these boards don't have a "shaking my head in disbelief" emoticon.​

 

[Zao is life]

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

There are no prophecies about the duration of his ministry

The duration of Christ's ministry is indeed given in Daniel 9:26-27, but you have failed to see it - and will continue to fail to see it because you continue to refuse to believe facts.

Daniel 9:26
"And AFTER [H0310 'achar] threescore and two weeks (which followed the first seven weeks) shall Messiah be cut off [karath H03772], but not for himself.

1. The Hebrew word 'achar ALWAYS means AFTER, for example:

Genesis 5:4:
And the days of Adam after ['achar H0310] he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.

There is NEVER any exception: AFTER means AFTER.

2. The Hebrew word [karath H03772] is used multiple times in scripture - often in reference to the cutting off of a person or a people, etc; and MANY times it's used in reference to the cutting of a covenant.

With reference to the cutting off of the Messiah (Daniel 9:26), it means both. So let's look at the word, and then look at some examples in scripture:

H03772 karath kaw-rath' a primitive root; to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication, to destroy or consume; specifically, to covenant (i.e. make an alliance or bargain, originally by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces):--be chewed, be con-(feder-)ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league ((covenant)), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.

Here are some examples:-

Genesis 9:11:
And I will establish my covenant [b'riyth H01285] with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off [karath H03772] any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Genesis 15:18:
In the same day the LORD cut [karath H03772] a covenant [b'riyth H01285] with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

Genesis 21:27:
And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them cut [karath H03772] a covenant [b'riyth H01285].

Genesis 17:14:
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off [karath - H03772] from his people; he hath broken my covenant [b'riyth H01285].

Genesis 41:36:
And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land not be cut off [karath - H03772] through the famine.

Exodus 12:15:
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off [karath - H03772] from Israel.

Exodus 8:9:
And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to cut off [karath - H03772] the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?

Exodus 23:32:
Thou shalt cut [karath H03772] no covenant [b'riyth H01285] with them, nor with their gods.

THE CUTTING OFF OF THE MESSIAH CIRCA AD 30 WAS THE CUTTING OF THE NEW COVENANT IN HIS BLOOD:

We know that the Messiah was not cut off by God - He was cut off by the people (all those who wanted Him cut off from the people), who also killed Him, or supported the actions of those who killed Him.

Daniel 9:26-27

BECAUSE of the FACT that the prophecy stated that it would be AFTER the first 69 weeks that Messiah would be cut off, the only correct way to understand verses 26-27 is as follows:

Daniel 9:26-27 FIRST OF THE TWO TOPICS:

"And AFTER (seven) + threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off [karath H03772] but not for himself (God cutting the New Covenant in His blood); and he (Messiah) shall strengthen (strengthen and establish) the (new) covenant [H01285 b'riyth] with MANY for (the) one (remaining) week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

("For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins." - Matthew 26:28).

Daniel 9:26-27 SECOND OF THE TWO TOPICS:

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 - and on the wing/s of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, and that (which has been) determined shall be poured upon the desolate.​

 

[covenantee]

Mostly it's historicists who believe that because otherwise their theology falls flat. I believe it was you who made the comment about the nations of Dan. 2 and Dan. 7 were "all" fulfilled in the linear prophetic time but that's not true either as the 5th kingdom of Dan. 2 and the 4th kingdom of Dan. 7 has not yet arrived. They are the same future kingdom.

You're talking complete nonsense.
Stop avoiding, and provide just one name of a historical denier of a Messianic Daniel 9:24.
Just one name.

 

[covenantee]

Nope, still not the correct use of the word anointed to match vs. 24. He was the one anointed (consecrated or set aside) to be the one and only perfect sacrifice. When the millennium begins he will be anointed (by the rubbing on of oil) to be King and Messiah of the world. Just as Saul, David and many other kings were.

So Jesus needs to be rubbed because His Father's anointing was insufficient.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Is that 10W-30 oil?

 

[CTK]

Nope, still not the correct use of the word anointed to match vs. 24. He was the one anointed (consecrated or set aside) to be the one and only perfect sacrifice. When the millennium begins he will be anointed (by the rubbing on of oil) to be King and Messiah of the world. Just as Saul, David and many other kings were.

Here is a cut / paste from the chapter 9 narrative within the Daniel commentary.​

​

The Anointing of the Most Holy​

When Daniel speaks of the purpose “to anoint the Most Holy” (Daniel 9:24), the language naturally points to consecration—an appointment set apart by God for a specific and sacred purpose. The Hebrew root for “anoint” (māshach) is the same from which the title Messiah is derived, meaning “the Anointed One.” This directs our attention not to a place, but to a Person.

The moment this anointing becomes visible in Scripture is found at the baptism of Jesus. As He comes up from the waters of the Jordan, the heavens are opened, the Spirit of God descends upon Him, and the Father declares, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16–17). This is not a symbolic gesture, but a divine affirmation and commissioning. Jesus is not anointed with oil, as in earlier times, but with the Holy Spirit Himself.

This understanding is confirmed by Jesus’ own words at the beginning of His ministry: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me” (Luke 4:18). Likewise, Peter later declares that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38). These passages point back to that moment at the Jordan as the beginning of His public mission.

In this light, the anointing spoken of in Daniel 9:24 finds its fulfillment in the baptism of Jesus, where the Messiah is revealed, empowered, and sent forth to accomplish the work set before Him. It marks the transition from promise to fulfillment—the moment when the One long foretold steps into His role as the Anointed of God.

 

[Trekson]

You talk such nonsense sometimes based nothing more than you own invented semantics.

The word apokalupsis is a Greek word which in the book with that word (the apokalupsis of Jesus Christ) is the origin of the words "apocalyptic literature". It basically means to take off the cover, to disclose, or to unveil.

You are claiming that we have no right to say that in apocalyptic literature many things are symbolized or metaphor is being used to describe things and people which are not the things or people being spoken about, such as candle sticks being churches, seed that is sown in the ground being the words of God, many waters being the voice of Christ, lightnings and thunderings being the voice of God the Father,

etc etc.

The only debate among Christians is about what certain symbols represent vs. what they don't, and whether or not some of the the things written about in apocalyptic literature have already taken place - but your debate is a non-debate, based on nothing more than your own invented semantics regarding the words "apocalyptic literature" and your false claim that the 70th week written about in Daniel 9:24-27 has not been fulfilled yet.

Your OP is based on your own personal opinion - not facts. What you say about it could only be classed as a fact if we were all in as much agreement about it as we are about what those "weeks" represent and what their starting point was.

Pity these boards don't have a "shaking my head in disbelief" emoticon.​

The apocalypse is real, it's the word "literature" that detracts if from being the authorized word of God. Yes, some symbolism is used and if one is a student of the bible, there not hard to figure out or the text explains them. But if one tries to symbolize let's say, the trumpet or vial judgements they are "taking away the words of the book of this prophecy" which doesn't bode well for those who do so.