Aside from what you think was prophesied,
Do you believe that God's anointing of His Son was greater than His anointing of David, or less great than His anointing of David?
This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!
- Thread starter Trekson
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you believe that God's anointing of His Son was greater than His anointing of David, or less great than His anointing of David?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'd like to see that, too, since I don't recall at all saying anything about that.Copy/paste some of those details. I/we would like to see them.
You didn't. None of us including him knows what he's talking about.
Sounds to me like you're trying to make connections where there aren't any. In 70ad, Jerusalem wasn't a holy place and since the veil was torn there wasn't a holy place in the temple any more. I put in the context it's written and you take it out of the context, I don't know why. Daniel didn't say anything about what the Messiah would accomplish. You are adding that. Oh, and of course you must ignore the unfortunate reality that the seals of Rev. 6 parallel the signs given in Matt. 24, 25 yrs. "after" 70ad.
They are two different anointings. Christ's anointing was a consecration for service. The anointing prophesied in Dan. 9:24 will be an anointing w/ oil as King and Messiah of Israel, just as was done w/ Saul, David and other kings. Dan. 9:24 specifically states that the goals given were for Israel to accomplish. There is nothing in the context that suggests Messiah will do it for them. How, you may ask? Read the OP again.
jeffweeder
Well-Known Member
Doesn't say that.
How can Israel atone for sins? How can they anoint the most Holy place? etc
Heb 9
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
Only Jesus could achieve those points.
Salvation / atonement is found in nobody else.
If you read the OP again you can see how and why they do that. The scripture doesn't say "place" in Dan.9:24.
Earburner
Well-Known Member
Amen!!
The Bible clearly states that man himself cannot make or be an atonement before God for another man's sins. Therefore for one to think or believe that Dan. 9:24 is to be fulfilled by the so called Jews of "Jerusalem which now is", they are sadly mistaken and are teaching blasphemy.
Second, God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37–40).
If God hates human sacrifice, how could Jesus’ sacrifice be the payment for our sins? | GotQuestions.org
If God hates human sacrifice, how could Jesus’ sacrifice be the payment for our sins? If God forbids human sacrifice in the Law, why would He use a human sacrifice to atone for our sins?
www.gotquestions.org
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
You clearly need to be taught the basics of interpretation of the scriptures.
The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives
The words of Jesus; and biblical new covenant doctrine vs the false doctrine of Preterism "Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives." (Luke 21:37). Less than 72 hours before His arrest, trial and crucifixion, Jesus told the...
www.christianityboard.com
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You clearly need to be taught the basics of interpretation of the scriptures.
The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives
The words of Jesus; and biblical new covenant doctrine vs the false doctrine of Preterism "Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives." (Luke 21:37). Less than 72 hours before His arrest, trial and crucifixion, Jesus told the...
That is hilarious coming from you. Someone who thinks that some people will be resurrected in the future and allowed to roam the earth afterwards rather than appearing before Jesus for the judgment. You are funny.
I see in the thread you created that it took you 8 posts to try to get your false point across. You are obsessed with this topic. I'm not going to give that thread any credibility by replying to any of those 8 posts there. What an incredible waste of time to put all that effort into denying the obvious, which is that Jesus told the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and the disciples then asked Him a question about when that would occur. And He answered it by saying it would occur soon after seeing the abomination of desolation stand where it ought not, which would be in the holy place, which would have been understood as the temple grounds (that was still the holy place when Jesus was speaking). Luke explained to his Gentile audience that would not have known anything about the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel, that it would be time for those in Judea to flee to the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies. And that's exactly what happened in 70 AD.
You can argue against preterism and its claim that Jesus only talked about things related to 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse all you want because I do the same. But, to deny that Jesus said anything at all related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings that occurred in 70 AD within the Olivet Discourse is just a case of denying obvious truth. You act as if Jesus thought it was important enough to tell the disciples that the temple buildings would be destroyed, but did not think it was important enough to tell them anything about how they would know it was about to happen so that they would know when to flee in order to avoid being caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem. That makes no sense. Of course, Jesus would have wanted them to know when to flee because that destruction was only meant to be God's wrath against unbelievers.
Last edited:
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Coming from the person who's obsessed with the temple of stone that existed 2,000 years ago - so obsessed that he isn't able to correctly interpret anything he reads in Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21.
Anyway I'm done talking to you about it because you are clearly clueless about your own cluelessness and you're a waste of time (that somehow manages to have such a high opinion of itself that it ticks louder than any other clock that's stuck in 70 AD).
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's an absolute lie. I'm not a preterist. Just because I see a small part of the Olivet Discourse as being about what happened in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple buildings were destroyed does not mean I'm obsessed with that topic.
LOL. You are completely incapable of proving otherwise, as you have proven repeatedly.
Oh no. What shall I do now? LOL.
Says the person who thinks that Jesus was unwilling to answer any questions about a shocking prophecy (destruction of the temple buildings) that He revealed to the disciples.
Okay show me something that you think is apocalyptic literature, that was literally fulfilled as described.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. Apocalyptic literature is symbolic, so how could it be fulfilled literally? You need to stop posting for awhile and educate yourself about these things so that you stop making a fool of yourself. Apocalyptic literature such as that found in books like Daniel and Revelation symbolize real events. You are acting as if someone is saying that the book of Revelation is fiction just because they say it is apocalyptic. Stop being so naive and learn what the words apocalyptic and symbolic mean.
You misunderstand. Its absolutely untrue to argue that Christians, who claim that revelation is apocalyptic literature, do so because they reject prophecies or believe it fiction.
There are many Christians that acknowledge the prophecies of Revelation are real, and have been or will be fulfilled while also acknowledging that revelation is categorized as apocalyptic literature.
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
That is hilarious coming from you. Someone who thinks that some people will be resurrected in the future and allowed to roam the earth afterwards rather than appearing before Jesus for the judgment.
Never said that, Your straw-man arguments accompany so many of your posts.
Anyway for someone who believes that Jesus's conquering of death and Satan by His death and resurrection will last a thousand years and be reversed for a short time because it bound Satan and made him "incapable of stopping the spread of the gospel" - but only for a thousand years, it's no wonder you can't understand much of what I say.
Not as obsessed as you are with the Old Covenant temple of stone being reserved in holiness just enough to meeting the criteria, after 40 years, as a place considered holy enough to be called the holy sanctuary of God that could be defiled by any abomination in it.
Then you and you alone can explain why you always put that amount of effort into "wasting your time" wasting your time denying the obvious, which is the fact that the Lord wasn't even talking about the temple of stone when He was telling the living stones of the New Testament Temple on the Mount of Olives all about the tribulation they were to experience.
LoL. He wasn't even talking about the temple of stone that stood on the Temple Mount again - just because they asked Him - once He reached the Mount of Olives.
But you won't read my 8 posts because you don't want to "waste your time".
Never mind, for someone who's so good at "wasting your time" wasting your time (like when you put the amount of effort you put into "wasting your time" when myself or anyone else you regard or have in the past accused of "wasting your time) "wastes your time" (as in your long post I'm replying to here).
I don't take you up seriously because you can't be taken up seriously
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yes, you have said that. Don't lie. You have said that you believe those who did not hear the gospel during their lifetimes will be resurrected and then live on the earth during the thousand years and will hear the gospel then. That contradicts what Jesus said will happen when the dead are resurrected (John 5:28-29).
You are very wordy and never succinct. I'm not the only one who has trouble following what you're saying at times.
That is not what I claim. Talk about strawman arguments. What a colossal waste of time it is trying to talk to someone as obtuse as you are.
He had just told them that the physical temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. It's utterly ridiculous to think that He would not be willing to give any kind of details about that after being asked about it.
LOL!!!!!! Just because they asked Him? He is the one who brought up the destruction of the temple buildings in the first place. To think He would not be interested in saying any more about it is ludicrous.
Exactly. It shouldn't take 8 posts to explain the meaning of what Jesus was saying in the Olivet Discourse about the temple. It shows that you are going out of your way to explain away something simple with your convoluted nonsense.
Just read your own comment here. You speak gibberish.
You obviously don't really mean that.
If it's real, it's not "literature". It's either history or prophecy. I don't think God is pleased w/ the way His word is being considered. Revelation is "falsely" categorized as apocalyptic literature.
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
You are a liar - but you already believe the lies of Satan which you choose to believe, so I'm not surprised you do what he does.
I never said the words which I made bold and in red above - and what I DID say, I made very clear. I'm not going to repeat it again.
You either just did not bother to read it, or you did read it, and have once again deliberately lied.
But it's not surprising - because you're already deceived by Satan - who has you believing he is currently bound - and your doctrine is already skewed. So this goes beyond you. It's too deep because your understanding of the Word of God is too shallow.
You are already deceived by Satan into believing that God is not able to destroy soul and body in gehennah" when, like Adam, saints turn and choose the lies of Satan and reject the Word of God, so you think we can now be careless, because Jesus has saved us and His blood cleanses us of all sin
- therefore you are already now careless about which lies of Satan you choose to believe and which you don't - as can be seen in your own adherence to your doctrine about Satan.
Yet somehow you believe that following the resurrection you will be incapable of what your doctrinal adherence has already proved you capable of now regarding what you believe about Satan.
At the close of this age there is going to be mass apostasy from the faith - it has already started - and those saints who turn and choose the lies of Satan - will be betraying brothers to death - as Jesus said (and as Judas did). Satan's job is already half way done in the case of those whom he already has convinced that he has been bound all this time.
But you're too full of yourself to believe what sort of danger you're in, that's why you so easily lie about what other saints said.
- and that's why you will merely defend yourself and double-down on your lies and hypocrisy and false doctrine regarding Satan, after this.
And the possibility that your response to this will once again prove what I said above about your lies, is very high.
Last edited:
Similar threads
