7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[Goodbook]

Also, Revelations tells us that 144,000 people of the original 12 tribes who kept themselves pure would be left. That is why the Jewish people make aliyah back to their homeland. If they are from those original twelve tribes. There's a lot more than that living there now, of the entire population of Israel, but from the original tribes that have kept pure, maybe it hasn't reached that number.

some who can trace their blood ancestry back may still be living in other lands but they need to return if they want to see their messiah. Who they KNOW will be Jesus.

 

[Goodbook]

I mean when I became a christian I wasn't given a new tribe to be a apart of I don't even know which one I would be in, since I'm adopted or grafted in. But Jesus will know.

 

[Douggg]

Let us compare the New Covenant found in Jeremiah chapter 31 to the text of Daniel chapter 9 and the words of Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 16.

Daniel 9 and the New Covenant:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Jer 31:34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."


Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,



Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

The only way of salvation now, for the modern Jews or anyone else, is through the New Blood Covenant of Jesus Christ.
The Church is made up of those who have accepted the New Covenant.

The Old Sinai covenant is finished... (Hebrews 8:13)

We all need to remember Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9.

.

Okay, you have cited all those verses highlighting the new covenant.

Now where does it say in Daniel 9:27 that he will confirm the NEW covenant with many? It doesn't because the only covenant mentioned in Daniel 9 is the Mt. Sinai covenant. If the covenant in Daniel 9:27 were anything but the Mt. Sinai covenant, it would have said a New covenant or a different covenant.

While you are absolutely 100% right that Jesus is the new covenant, and only by him can a person be saved - you are missing the boat on understanding the eschatology of the passage of Daniel 9:27.

 

[Douggg]

I mean when I became a christian I wasn't given a new tribe to be a apart of I don't even know which one I would be in, since I'm adopted or grafted in. But Jesus will know.

What you have been born again into is the Kingdom of God and are the called and chosen.

 

[BABerean2]

If the covenant in Daniel 9:27 were anything but the Mt. Sinai covenant, it would have said a New covenant or a different covenant.

Really...

Are you saying these verses are not about the New Covenant, because they do not contain the word "new"?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

.

 

[Douggg]

Really...

Are you saying these verses are not about the New Covenant, because they do not contain the word "new"?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

.

Obviously those verses in Hebrews are talking about the New Covenant because the entire chapter is about the new covenant and goes into every aspect of it., referring to it as the New Covenant. And Hebrews certainly does not say anything about confirming the new covenant for 7 years, in Hebrews, nor anywhere else in the New Testament.

 

[BABerean2]

Obviously those verses in Hebrews are talking about the New Covenant because the entire chapter is about the new covenant and goes into every aspect of it., referring to it as the New Covenant. And Hebrews certainly does not say anything about confirming the new covenant for 7 years, in Hebrews, nor anywhere else in the New Testament.

How long was the ministry of Christ to Daniel's people, before He was crucified?
How long did the disciples of Christ take the Gospel to the Jewish people from the time He was crucified until the time Stephen was stoned?
Add them together and see what you get.


Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

.

 

[Douggg]

How long was the ministry of Christ to Daniel's people, before He was crucified?
How long did the disciples of Christ take the Gospel to the Jewish people from the time He was crucified until the time Stephen was stoned?
Add them together and see what you get.

I know what you get. A bad theory and interpretation of Daniel 9:27.

The only two persons in Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 are the messiah and the prince who shall come. Neither of those are Stephen.

There is no new covenant being confirmed in the text of Daniel 9:27. Seek ye, first, the Kingdom of God.... so you can understand the eschatology. That's what we are about - looking forward to the kingdom, bab2, all of us here.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Okay, go to Ezekiel 39. The completion of the 70 weeks and the 70th week are in that chapter.

Gog's army will be defeated and destroyed. The birds and beasts feed on the dead bodies in Ezekiel 39:4.

Then 7 years go by as Israel burns the war implements for fuel, instead of the wood from the trees. Ezekiel 39:9. Those 7 years are the same 7 years as Daniel 9:27.

Then after the 7 years are ending, in Ezekiel 39:17-20 is a second feast. The ARMAGEDDON feast. Corresponds directly to Revelation 19:17-18. And after that feast , God forgives them of all their transgressions. And brings all them still in the nations to Israel.....and as it says in Ezekiel 39:28, leaves NONE in those nations around the world.

26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.

And as it says in Matthew 24:31 , Jesus sends out angels to gather the elect. He brings them to Israel.

27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;

28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.

29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

That's when the 70 weeks are finished.

Gog/Magog.....then the 7years of Daniel 9:27.... then Armageddon.... then the messiah era of peace and harmony.

compared to what Judaism believes:

Gog/Magog..... then the messiah era of peace and harmony.

So you can see how the Jews are going to be shocked when their forthcoming Judaism messiah turns out to be the Antichrist.

 

[precepts]

You would think someone with sense enough to know who the antecedent of the "he that confirms the covenant" is would speak up and end this foolish anti-christ propaganda that's being perpetrated on a supposedly educated world.

Imagine that! A worldwide doctrine based on a reading comprehension error, promoted by educated writers. How and for what purpose other than for itchy ears?

Calmate! (Spanish for ...)

 

[BABerean2]

The only two persons in Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 are the messiah and the prince who shall come. Neither of those are Stephen.

You are correct. The only two princes in the chapter are the Messiah and prince Titus, whose father was Vespasian, the ruler of Rome.
The Roman soldiers destroyed the city and the temple in 70 AD, in fulfillment of the promise Jesus made to the Pharisees that their house would be made "desolate".

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


The city had been surrounded by the Romans under the command of Cestius Gallus during the Fall of 66 AD.
Then for some unknown reason the Romans decided to leave. The Jews killed thousands of Roman soldiers during the retreat.

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

The early Christians followed the instructions of Jesus in the following verse and left the city before the final siege of 70 AD.

Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

At the end of the final siege in 70 AD thousands of the survivors were sold as slaves.

Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The time of the Gentiles will be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Christ.


There is no antichrist in the chapter.

There is no "gap" of almost 2,000 years in the chapter.

However, Tim LaHaye would be proud of your efforts to make his doctrine work...
.

 

[Douggg]

You would think someone with sense enough to know who the antecedent of the "he that confirms the covenant" is would speak up and end this foolish anti-christ propaganda that's being perpetrated on a supposedly educated world.

Imagine that! A worldwide doctrine based on a reading comprehension error, promoted by educated writers. How and for what purpose other than for itchy ears?


View attachment 169741 View attachment 169743 View attachment 169742View attachment 169744 View attachment 169746 View attachment 169745
Calmate! (Spanish for ...)

precepts, "new" covenant is not in Daniel 9:27. It is just he confirms "the" covenant; not a different covenant either.

Jesus is the "new" covenant. The only covenant in Daniel 9 is the Mt. Sinai covenant - which the confirming of it for a 7 year cycle is right in the bible in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. The person has to be a Jew, and the leader of Israel to oversee it. Which for that last week of the 70 weeks will be the Antichrist - who later becomes the beast of Revelation.

 

[Douggg]

You are correct. The only two princes in the chapter are the Messiah and prince Titus, whose father was Vespasian, the ruler of Rome.
The Roman soldiers destroyed the city and the temple in 70 AD, in fulfillment of the promise Jesus made to the Pharisees that their house would be made "desolate".

No, it does not say the prince who shall comes destroys the temple and sanctuary. It is the "people of" the prince who shall come destroys the temple and sanctuary.

Which indicates that the prince who shall come shall be Roman. In Revelation 17:10, the 7th king, the future king of the 7 kings will be that prince who shall come... of a specific Roman bloodline.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

That the person continues for a short space is that after he is killed and brought back to life by God - in His disdain for the person - the person becomes the beast, the 8th king.

Those 7 kings are of Roman heritage, the Julio-Claudian family, of the Roman Empire, the fourth empire.

1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus Caesar
3. Tiberius
4. Caligula
5. Claudius
6. Nero

7. The seventh king is - the forthcoming little horn, leader of the EU the Roman Empire, end times; who after Gog/Magog is the prince who shall come; who becomes the Antichrist King of Israel; who is revealed as the man of sin; who is killed and brought back to life as the beast - supported by his original ten king EU group, as the eighth king.... of the Roman Empire...of the Julio Claudian family.

 

[BABerean2]

No, it does not say the prince who shall comes destroys the temple and sanctuary. It is the "people of" the prince who shall come destroys the temple and sanctuary.

You are actually correct again.
The Jewish historian Josephus recorded the fact that Titus wanted to preserve the Jewish temple.
However, his soldiers were like madmen who could not be stopped, when they came to believe that the temple contained gold.
Titus was not able to keep them from the destruction.

We find again, that God's Word accurately records the event of 70 AD.
It was the people of Prince Titus who destroyed the temple.

War of the Jews by Flavius Josephus
Book 6, Chapter 4

6. And now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamor and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire. But they did not hear what he said, though he spake so loud, having their ears already dimmed by a greater noise another way; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his hand neither, as still some of them were distracted with fighting, and others with passion. But as for the legions that came running thither, neither any persuasions nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one's own passion was his commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together, many of them were trampled on by one another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered; and when they were come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much as hear Caesar's orders to the contrary; but they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire. As for the seditious, they were in too great distress already to afford their assistance [towards quenching the fire]; they were every where slain, and every where beaten; and as for a great part of the people, they were weak and without arms, and had their throats cut wherever they were caught. Now round about the altar lay dead bodies heaped one upon another, as at the steps (16) going up to it ran a great quantity of their blood, whither also the dead bodies that were slain above [on the altar] fell down.

7. And now, since Caesar was no way able to restrain the enthusiastic fury of the soldiers, and the fire proceeded on more and more, he went into the holy place of the temple, with his commanders, and saw it, with what was in it, which he found to be far superior to what the relations of foreigners contained, and not inferior to what we ourselves boasted of and believed about it. But as the flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy house, and 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, and gave order to Liberalius the centurion, and one of those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory with their staves, and to restrain them; 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. Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion, that all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all round about it was made of gold. And besides, one of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when nobody any longer forbade those that were without to set fire to it. And thus was the holy house burnt down, without Caesar's approbation.

.

 

[Douggg]

You are actually correct again.
The Jewish historian Josephus recorded the fact that Titus wanted to preserve the Jewish temple.
However, his soldiers were like madmen who could not be stopped, when they came to believe that the temple contained gold.
Titus was not able to keep them from the destruction.

We find again, that God's Word accurately records the event of 70 AD.
It was the people of Prince Titus who destroyed the temple.
.

Titus is not the prince who shall come because (1) he did not confirm the covenant for 7 years (2) Titus has no relevancy to be mentioned on the same level of importance to the 70 weeks as Jesus the messiah. In other words, Titus didn't do anything to be the prince who shall come in Daniel 9.

There would be absolutely no reason to include the prince who shall come in the 70 weeks if it were Titus.

The Antichrist on the other hand is a very significant figure - in that he is first the little horn, then is the prince who shall come, then the Antichrist, then is the revealed man of sin, then is the beast of revelation.

 

[BABerean2]

In other words, Titus didn't do anything to be the prince who shall come in Daniel 9.

There would be absolutely no reason to include the prince who shall come in the 70 weeks if it were Titus.

Really...

You do not think the commander of the army that brought an end to the Jewish temple would be important in the history of Daniel's people, especially when the prophecy contains a reference to the first week of the 70, when the temple was rebuilt after the Babylonian captivity.
And you think there could be no reference to this same temple being destroyed, when the Messiah Himself said it would be destroyed.

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


You are really going out on a limb to defend your doctrine...

 

[Douggg]

Really...

You do not think the commander of the army that brought an end to the Jewish temple would be important in the history of Daniel's people, especially when the prophecy contains a reference to the first week of the 70, when the temple was rebuilt after the Babylonian captivity.
And you think there could be no reference to this same temple being destroyed, when the Messiah Himself said it would be destroyed.

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


You are really going out on a limb to defend your doctrine...

Israel and Jerusalem did not receive Jesus as the messiah because of anything Titus did.

It is ridiculous to accuse me of going out on a limb, when that is exactly what you are doing - reaching for anything, since there is no new covenant or different covenant being confirmed in the text. And Stephen is not in the text. And no one confirmed the covenant for 7 years back in Titus's day, least of all Titus.

 

[precepts]

precepts, "new" covenant is not in Daniel 9:27. It is just he confirms "the" covenant; not a different covenant either.

Jesus is the "new" covenant. The only covenant in Daniel 9 is the Mt. Sinai covenant - which the confirming of it for a 7 year cycle is right in the bible in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. The person has to be a Jew, and the leader of Israel to oversee it. Which for that last week of the 70 weeks will be the Antichrist - who later becomes the beast of Revelation.

How do you get to new or old covenant from the antecedent of the "he" who confirms the said covenant? It is has nothing to do with the grammatical fact of who the antecedent of the "he" is. So, you're putting the cart before the horse, ignoring the grammatical fact that is necessary for the right interpretation and comprehension. Determining which covenant it is doesn't define the antecedent, the rules of grammar is what does!

Turn the other cheek!

 

[Douggg]

How do you get to new or old covenant from the antecedent of the "he" who confirms the said covenant? It is has nothing to do with the grammatical fact of who the antecedent of the "he" is. You're putting the cart before the horse, ignoring the grammatical fact that is necessary for the right interpretation and comprehension. Determining which covenant it is doesn't define the antecedent, the rules of grammar is what does!

View attachment 169752View attachment 169755
Turn the other cheek!

I have been through this with you before. You are the one who doesn't understand the rules of grammar. The "He" is closest to the prince who shall come. The prince who shall come is the antecedent of the "He". It will be the prince who shall come who confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years - which that requirement is right in the bible in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The issue of there not being the word "new" associated with the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years - is just more added proof that the "He" is not Jesus, because Jesus is the new covenant. There is no new covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27.

 

[BABerean2]

Israel and Jerusalem did not receive Jesus as the messiah because of anything Titus did.

It is ridiculous to accuse me of going out on a limb, when that is exactly what you are doing - reaching for anything, since there is no new covenant or different covenant being confirmed in the text. And Stephen is not in the text. And no one confirmed the covenant for 7 years back in Titus's day, least of all Titus.

If I was going out on a limb we would not find what I am saying plainly written in the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America before John Nelson Darby arrived on our shores with the Two Peoples of God doctrine.
..............................................
Daniel 9:27 from the 1599 Geneva Bible


And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.
..............................................

Why don't you provide a source showing your interpretation...
.

 

[precepts]

I have been through this with you before. You are the one who doesn't understand the rules of grammar. The "He" is closest to the prince who shall come. The prince who shall come is the antecedent of the "He". It will be the prince who shall come who confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years - which that requirement is right in the bible in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

The reason why we've been thru this before is because you're faking it. Closest to has nothing to do with determining an antecedent if the candidate is located in a subordinate clause that is used as an appositive of a main clause, a rule of Grammar. You're faking it.

The issue of there not being the word "new" associated with the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years - is just more added proof that the "He" is not Jesus, because Jesus is the new covenant. There is no new covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with the grammatical fact. But it is interesting to note that Israel's return post-Babylon would have been a re-confirmation, a re-institutionalization of the old covenant - a picking up of where they left off post- Babylon.

They would have had to re-confirm the old covenant post-Babylon, but it can't be the old covenant confirmed in Dan 9:27 because you have already determined that it's the prince to come that confirms the covenant, putting the cart before the horse, which still has nothing to do with determining the antecedent of "he."