7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

precepts said:

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.

Click to expand...

The prince who shall come is the antecedent of the "He". In the context of the verse, the Messiah is cutoff - and Jesus did not destroy the 2nd temple and it was not his people who destroyed the 2nd temple.

Verse 26 is a compound sentence. In other words, it is made up of what could normally be several stand alone sentences and joins them as independent clauses with a conjunction. In this case, the conjunction is "and".

Here are the component independent clauses of the verse 26 compound sentence. I'll highlight the subject in blue and the verb in red of each clause.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood,

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Now of those 4 independent clauses making up the compound verse (sentence), the closest person to be the antecedent of the "He" in verse 27 is the prince who shall come.

If the prince who shall come is not the antecedent - he has no reason to be in the verse, nor in Daniel 9 anywhere else. The messiah does something, in the previous verse 25 he arrives, and in verse 26, the messiah is cutoff. So the messiah does something.

The prince who shall come also does something - He confirms the covenant for 7 years, then in the middle part of the 7 years breaks it, stopping the daily sacrifice.

Douggg said:

The prince who shall come also does something

Click to expand...

He must invent a time machine and travel about 2,000 years into the future, based on your interpretation...

.

BABerean2 said:

He must invent a time machine and travel about 2,000 years into the future, based on your interpretation...

.

Click to expand...

It says "shall come" meaning at the time of the messiah's being cutoff, the person is not alive at that time, but shall come sometime in the future. Which Revelation 17, 12, and 13 by the timestamps of those chapters indicates when in the future, which is end times, our generation.

Revelation 17, the prince who shall come, the 7th king, the little horn, future of John's time, the first century, as no crowns on the 7 heads.

Revelation 12, at the beginning of the 7 years preceding Jesus's return, by the crowns on the 7 heads, the little horn has come to power.

Revelation 13, with 42 months left before Jesus's returns, by one head mortally wounded and recovered, and no crowns on the 7 heads, the person, the revealed man of sin has been killed and brought back to life

Revelation 6, as the Rider on the White Horse, as the perceived messiah by the Jews.

Douggg said:

Revelation 6, as the Rider on the White Horse, as the perceived messiah by the Jews.

Click to expand...

And I guess you think the Church will not be present during this time, having been removed by Margaret Macdonald's "Secret" Pretrib rapture, so that God can go back to dealing with the modern Jews under the old, obsolete, Sinai Covenant. (Hebrews 8:13)

But I remember, you are not a Dispensationalist...
.

BABerean2 said:

And I guess you think the Church will not be present during this time, having been removed by Margaret Macdonald's "Secret" Pretrib rapture, so that God can go back to dealing with the modern Jews under the old, obsolete, Sinai Covenant. (Hebrews 8:13)

But I remember, you are not a Dispensationalist...
.

Click to expand...

Take a look at my personal information to the left, beneath my screen name. it says "anytime rapture view".

Do you know what the Mt. Sinai Covenant actually is? It is a everlasting covenant between God and the children of Israel that He would be their God and they His people. Although it never was a covenant for eternal life.

God made a commitment to the Children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. God later provided a new covenant in Jesus by which they can have eternal life and the offer made available to everyone.

There has never been multiple dispensations for salvation. Jesus is the only way.

Douggg said:

Do you know what the Mt. Sinai Covenant actually is? It is a everlasting covenant between God and the children of Israel that He would be their God and they His people.

Click to expand...

You are forgetting two very important little words in this contract between God and the children of Israel.

Those words are "if" and "then"...

Exo_19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Your theory is wrong because the children of Israel broke the covenant they had promised to keep.
This is the reason there was a need for the New Covenant, established by the Blood of Christ at Calvary.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that 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 bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

The Old Sinai covenant is now obsolete.

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.

Therefore, your whole theory collapses, because you are basing it on a false narrative that does not agree with what is plainly written in God's Word.

It is a theory of ignorance, because it requires one to ignore certain passages in order to make it work...
.

BABerean2 said:

You are forgetting two very important little words in this contract between God and the children of Israel.

Those words are "if" and "then"...

Exo_19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Your theory is wrong because the children of Israel broke the covenant they had promised to keep.
This is the reason there was a need for the New Covenant, established by the Blood of Christ at Calvary.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that 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 bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

The Old Sinai covenant is now obsolete.

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.

Therefore, your whole theory collapses, because you are basing it on a false narrative that does not agree with what is plainly written in God's Word.

It is a theory of ignorance, because it requires one to ignore certain passages in order to make it work...
.

Click to expand...

Well you need to go back and reread the old testament, because God says He will remember the covenant he made with them in their youth. In other words, God made a commitment to them on His part, and is going to keep it. Everyone knows that Israel did not keep her part most of the time, that's why some of the branches were removed.

The Mt Sinai covenant was (and is) an everlasting Covenant in that God's commitment is everlasting. Which all Israel will be saved, meaning all the nation of Israel living at the time of the end will embrace Jesus as her Lord and Savior. That's what is forthcoming.

The Mt. Sinai covenant, however, was never a covenant for eternal life - whether Israel kept her part or not. The atonement system under the Mt. Sinai covenant was a stop gap measure until the new covenant in Jesus which Israel would receive eternal life. In Hebrews 8, at that time the new covenant in Jesus was spreading like wildfire, and in that the old covenant didn't seem so important anymore, which spawned Paul's words. No doubt Paul was also thinking of Jeremiah 3, and the ark of the covenant a necessary part of the Mt. Sinai atonement system would no longer be around....

16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Douggg said:

Well you need to go back and reread the old testament, because God says He will remember the covenant he made with them in their youth. In other words, God made a commitment to them on His part, and is going to keep it. Everyone knows that Israel did not keep her part most of the time, that's why some of the branches were removed.

The Mt Sinai covenant was (and is) an everlasting Covenant in that God's commitment is everlasting. Which all Israel will be saved, meaning all the nation of Israel living at the time of the end will embrace Jesus as her Lord and Savior. That's what is forthcoming.

Click to expand...

The problem is what you are saying does not match up with what is plainly written in the New Testament.

In Galatians chapter 4 the Apostle Paul compares the Sinai covenant to bondage and says we are to cast out the Sinai covenant.


Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(This is the New Jerusalem, which is now in heaven.)


Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
(Since Paul has used the bondwoman as an analogy to the Sinai covenant, he is plainly saying we are to cast out the Sinai covenant.)

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

God did keep His part of the Sinai contract, but they did not.
This is why the New Covenant was needed.


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 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


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,

Why in the world would God go back to an obsolete covenant that no one but Christ has ever been able to keep?

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of modern Dispensational Theology and it's offshoots, which are promoted by some who claim not to be Dispensationalists.

You are once again ignoring what is written in scripture, in an attempt to make your theory work.

We are still waiting on you to provide some external source which agrees with your "theory".
.

BABerean2 said:

The problem is what you are saying does not match up with what is plainly written in the New Testament.

In Galatians chapter 4 the Apostle Paul compares the Sinai covenant to bondage and says we are to cast out the Sinai covenant.


Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(This is the New Jerusalem, which is now in heaven.)


Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
(Since Paul has used the bondwoman as an analogy to the Sinai covenant, he is plainly saying we are to cast out the Sinai covenant.)

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

God did keep His part of the Sinai contract, but they did not.
This is why the New Covenant was needed.


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 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


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,

Why in the world would God go back to an obsolete covenant that no one but Christ has ever been able to keep?

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of modern Dispensational Theology and it's offshoots, which are promoted by some who claim not to be Dispensationalists.

You are once again ignoring what is written in scripture, in an attempt to make your theory work.

We are still waiting on you to provide some external source which agrees with your "theory".
.

Click to expand...

It is somewhat ironic that I use this passage to show Jews (Judaism) that gentiles will become chosen people as well, but not by their covenant (the Mt Sinai covenant).... and I have to use the same passage to you that God's commitment to Israel under the Mt. Sinai covenant, His commitment was/is everlasting.


Ezekiel 16:
59 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.

60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.

61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.

62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:

63 That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord GOD.

Goodbook said:

They could not keep the old covenant. BUT all the things listed in the old covennant are now written on peoples hearts in the new, so they are able to obtain the blessings of Abraham still, AND invite the Gentiles as well. I don't know what you guys are trying to argue.

Click to expand...

Not all things. The Mt. Sinai covenant provided that the land of Israel would belong to the children of israel forever.

The argument is over what does it mean in Daniel 9:27 - he shall confirm the covenant with many for 7 years......and who is the he.....and what covenant?

Goodbook said:

Also there have been many antichrists, because all people trying to be world leaders who don't recognise Jesus are anti-christs. These evil leaders will be expelled. They are all under the power of the evil one and false prophets. Thats why babylon falls in one day in the book of Revelation.

Click to expand...

The Antichrist is a single person, who will become the King of Israel, instead of Jesus the rightful king.

The person is the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8, and then becomes the prince who shall come in Daniel 9 as Judaisms' messiah (the Antichrist), then becomes the revealed man of sin in 2Thessalonians2:3-4, then becomes the beast of Revelation 13.

That person is who John referred to in 1John2:18...
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Douggg said:

The prince who shall come is the antecedent of the "He". In the context of the verse, the Messiah is cutoff - and Jesus did not destroy the 2nd temple and it was not his people who destroyed the 2nd temple.

Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about. You're faking it! And again you're trying to use your false interpretation of the context to prove your case instead of understanding grammar.

Your false interpretation has nothing to do with the fact or grammar. God speaks in parables and your interpretation of this parable has no wisdom in it because it's literal.

Douggg said:

Verse 26 is a compound sentence. In other words, it is made up of what could normally be several stand alone sentences and joins them as independent clauses with a conjunction. In this case, the conjunction is "and".

Here are the component independent clauses of the verse 26 compound sentence. I'll highlight the subject in blue and the verb in red of each clause.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood,

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Now of those 4 independent clauses making up the compound verse (sentence), the closest person to be the antecedent of the "He" in verse 27 is the prince who shall come.

Click to expand...

You are faking it. But the fact that no one corrects you only proves my point of why no one has pointed out the fact a long time ago.

As we've been thru this before, a compound sentence cannot be joined by a colon. A compound sentence can only be joined by one of three ways: by a conjunction only, by a comma used with a conjunction, or by a semicolon. And a colon is not a conjunction!

Sentence #2 is a subordinate clause used in apposition to it's main clause, the reason why it follows a colon - it goes into greater details about the main clause. You're faking it, and I'm not guessing. I know.

Douggg said:

If the prince who shall come is not the antecedent - he has no reason to be in the verse, nor in Daniel 9 anywhere else. The messiah does something, in the previous verse 25 he arrives, and in verse 26, the messiah is cutoff. So the messiah does something.

Click to expand...

What you're saying makes no sense. Apart from the main clause, it has nothing to do with the context of Daniel 9. Why? Because it only went into greater details about the main clause that preceded it. It has nothing to do with anything else in any other main clause in Dan 9.

Douggg said:

The prince who shall come also does something - He confirms the covenant for 7 years, then in the middle part of the 7 years breaks it, stopping the daily sacrifice.

Click to expand...

The prince that comes cannot confirm anything because he is not Jewish. The people of the "prince" who should come are not Jewish! All your accusations are based on reading comprehension errors.

The AOD was done by the Greek little horn, Dan 8:9-12 and Dan 11:31, as prophesied in Dan 9:27: "causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease", not by the Romans. It's specifically noted in Dan 8:9-12 and 11:31 that the sacrifice and oblation ceases and the sanctuary is defiled by the Greek little horn. We've been thru this before also but you refuse to comprehend!

precepts said:

You don't know what you're talking about. You're faking it! And again you're trying to use your false interpretation of the context to prove your case instead of understanding grammar.

Your false interpretation has nothing to do with the fact or grammar. God speaks in parables and your interpretation of this parable has no wisdom in it because it's literal.

Click to expand...

precepts, I took verse 9:26 broke it down into its four independent clauses and highlighted the subject and verb in each, and underlined the conjunction "and" joining them together into a compound sentence.

The grammar of what I presented is correct.

You are faking it. But the fact that no one corrects you only proves my point of why no one has pointed out the fact a long time ago.

As we've been thru this before, a compound sentence cannot be joined by a colon. A compound sentence can only be joined by one of three ways: by a conjunction only, by a comma used with a conjunction, or by a semicolon. And a colon is not a conjunction!

Click to expand...

A colon is not a conjunction, agreed, but if you examine the text you will see there is an "and" joining each of the 4 independent clauses.

Conjunctions join. While colons, semicolons, commas separate.

Sentence #2 is

Click to expand...

a subordinate clause used in apposition to it's main clause, the reason why it follows a colon - it goes into greater details about the main clause. You're faking it, and I'm not guessing. I know.

Click to expand...

The 4 independent clauses are separated by a colon, then a semicolon, then a comma. The colon is used for the strongest separation.

The first clause (1) ends with a colon because a colon is stronger separation than a semi-colon. So the first clause of the messiah cutoff is strongly separated from clause (2). And as we can see the Messiah is cutoff in the first clause, not to be around in any of the following clauses. Which in fact the temple and city were destroyed 40 years approximately after Jesus's crucifixion.

1. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (<=colon)

2. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; (<=semi=colon)

The second clause (2) ends with a semicolon because (3) is not a strongly separated than (1) to (2).

3. and the end thereof shall be with a flood, (<= comma)

4. and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(3) is separated from (4) by the weakest of the three punctuation marks a comma.

btw, an appositive (copy and paste) ...

In English grammar, an appositive is a noun, noun phrase, or series of nouns placed next to another word or phrase to identify or rename it. an example would be (made up by me) ... There goes Billy, the class president. In this case, "the class president" is the appositive to Billy.

....an appositive does not apply to clauses. A clause has a subject and verb. A phrase does not.

Goodbook said:

When Daniel talks about the messiah being cut off, that happened the cruxificition, when Jesus died. Its not some future messiah, there is only ONE messiah, and yes, many Jews recognised him as such, so you can't say that they all didn't know. Jesus is waitiing for all the gentile nations to come into his kingdom and then he will return to Jerusalem.

I don't know what's hard to see about that. Then we will all be one.

Click to expand...

No-one here disagrees that Jesus is not the messiah in Daniel 9:26. Many Jews have embraced Jesus as the messiah...but most do not. And are looking for someone else.

The Jews, after Jesus left this world, thought they had the messiah in Simon bar Kochba, for example. But he failed, and was never became the King of Israel, to be the Antichrist.

The Antichrist is an end times false messiah. In Daniel 9, the prince who shall come is the Antichrist. That person eventually becomes the beast of Revelation 13.

24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
http://biblehub.com/daniel/9-25.htm

25“So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.



26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.


27“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Within that timeframe is when Iran will break the nuclear deal with the US (and Israel?). From a finalized date on Sept 17, 2014 (last day of ratification that finalized it) plus 1335 days is May 14, 2019 (one solar year after the 70th year of Israel, May 14, 2018) which is also the "middle of the 'feast of weeks', 24 days after Passover, 25 days until Pentecost.

That same day, May 14, 2019 is 1260 days after the day the Pope addressed the UN in 2015 with its climate change agenda.