Consummation...

[visionary]

If the consummation is the wedding then what is "that determined"?

corrections made..

Vis - there's a syntax error in your question... can you correct and re-post it?

I have reposted it..

You don't expect me to agree with this statement, do you?

wedding and determined??

 

[visionary]

You don't expect me to agree with this statement, do you?

No.. but I would prefer.. to see your interpretation..

 

[Heber]

That's an ignorant statement. How could you possibly know what I have, and have not aquainted myself with? You don't. You consistently post out of arrogance. Please stop.

The Tanakh consistently identifies HaShem as the groom, and Israel as the bride. You either believe it, or you don't. It's really that simple.

I can observe what you know (or not) by your responses. It is clear that you cannot see that there is no dichotomy between your claim and mine - it is not this or that, it is both and. I would love to know how you interpret arrogance whilst at the same time insisting that you alone are right

 

[visionary]

I can observe what you know (or not) by your responses. It is clear that you cannot see that there is no dichotomy between your claim and mine - it is not this or that, it is both and. I would love to know how you interpret arrogance whilst at the same time insisting that you alone are right

We need to create a new thread for this.. Is Yeshua the groom?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7498193/

 

[Heber]

Vis - thanks for re-posting, I found that there were a couple of ways of substitutiing letters that changed your question! Bit like reading scripture, really!

'that determined' as far as I can see relates to the destruction of the abomination at the end times, as appears to be the view of Judaism (the Jewish Study Bible Commentary) - JPS 1917, and is shown us in Revelation with the Bride, Groom and the new Jerusalem being the place of life and joy for eternity after the two judgements have taken place. That, however, gets us into pre, post or amillennialism - that would seriously derail this thread.

 

[visionary]

Vis - thanks for re-posting, I found that there were a couple of ways of substitutiing letters that changed your question! Bit like reading scripture, really!

'that determined' as far as I can see relates to the destruction of the abomination at the end times, as appears to be the view of Judaism (the Jewish Study Bible Commentary) - JPS 1917, and is shown us in Revelation with the Bride, Groom and the new Jerusalem being the place of life and joy for eternity after the two judgements have taken place. That, however, gets us into pre, post or amillennialism - that would seriously derail this thread.

Since Daniel's prophecy is tied to the second coming.. I would say that no where is pre or amill found in Daniel...

 

[Heber]

Vis - others would, I am sure, want to debate that. That is why I said it would derail the thread totally.

 

[visionary]

Vis - others would, I am sure, want to debate that. That is why I said it would derail the thread totally.

Let's us focus on trying to figure this out, without entering into debates with ideas floating out there and not yet any poster is advocating.

 

[visionary]

The phrase at the end of the verse reads, “…and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

I just had a thought..."the desolate"... what if it is the One without.. Satan..

We know that the consummation wedding has often been tied to Yom Kippur.. and in the service we have a rehearsal story ... two identical goats... each identified... High Priest's final service [consummation/wedding] and the laying of hands on the head of the scapegoat [determinated/judgement] can both be found within this context.

 

[Heber]

Vis - I am using the JPS 1917 which reads differently to your version. Which are you using? We'll get nowhere fast reading different versions.

 

[visionary]

Which is your perference?

 

[Heber]

The Jewish Study Bible reckons the abomination might be new altar stones placed on the Temple altar upon which pagan sacrifices were offered. This it likens to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes but, as already pointed out above, it points firmly forward to a destruction of the city and the temple by a flood etc - not LIKE a flood. This has yet to happen (the Romans used fire to destroy the Temple and city) and chapters 10-12 (though there were no verses or chapters when first written) clearly speak of the end times, so there is good evidence that the desolation / abomination is that referred to in Revelation, as the prophecy to Daniel unfolds.

The upcoming feasts may well be seen as preparation feasts for the Great Ingathering that has yet to take place - when all who believe in Yeshua will be gathered to be with him and the marriage will be complete. Consummation - the end of all that is on earth and the start of all that is in the heavenlies.

 

[Heber]

Vis - JPS

 

[Heber]

Night, night all!

 

[Son of Israel]

It was fulfilled when Jerusalem, the widowed harlot mother of abomination, was destroyed in A.D. 70 as He promised would happen. The temple was destroyed hence no more sacrifice.
It was then when He confirmed the covenant. I.E. The abolishing of the Old Mosaic Covenant, the replacing with the New Marriage Covenant to the Heavenly Jerusalem spoken of in Gal 4.
The "Covenant" is always THE Marriage Covenant. Otherwise it isn't a covenant.
It isn't futuristic. It has already happened.

 

[visionary]

It was fulfilled when Jerusalem, the widowed harlot mother of abomination, was destroyed in A.D. 70 as He promised would happen. The temple was destroyed hence no more sacrifice.
It was then when He confirmed the covenant. I.E. The abolishing of the Old Mosaic Covenant, the replacing with the New Marriage Covenant to the Heavenly Jerusalem spoken of in Gal 4.
The "Covenant" is always THE Marriage Covenant. Otherwise it isn't a covenant.
It isn't futuristic. It has already happened.

70 AD the confirmation of a covenant? Jerusalem a mother of abominations? Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD? temple was ...yea... popular thought... but it is not a perfect fit... one what is she the mother of? who are her daughters? and why didn't John make that connection when He wrote Revelation 20 some odd years later

 

[David Ben Yosef]

I can observe what you know (or not) by your responses. It is clear that you cannot see that there is no dichotomy between your claim and mine - it is not this or that, it is both and. I would love to know how you interpret arrogance whilst at the same time insisting that you alone are right

I'm not insisting that I am right, I'm insisting the Tanakh is right. And that your wrong, because you don't believe the Tanakh. Again, pretty simple.

 

[David Ben Yosef]

Jerusalem a mother of abominations?

See, I told you I wasn't the only one who believes that Jerusalem/Israel is Mystery Babylon, Vis.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Wow that's exceptionally bad exegesis! But I note your little uncertainty in your penulitimate post, above. There is no support in the Tanach for there to be a flood of people - that is pure and absolute conjecture. In most parts of scripture it is normal to talk about insects or animals being likened to invading armies, not floods of people. Perhaps Noach's ark was surrounded by floods of people and not water? And you complain that I tie Daniel in with the last days and the teaching from the Tanach that Rabbis Yeshua and Sha'ul et al taught; they didn't have the latter testament by the way - they only used the earlier one that you use. Incidentally, the modern day Jewish Study Bible also shows Daniel 9 towards the end as relating to the Last Days based as its commentary is on the JPS 1917.

Btw, who was the messiah referred to in these last verses of Daniel 9?

You should look things up before you mock. In fact, the word used here for "flood" is the Hebrew שטף shetef (notably, we use it for "fluency" when paired with דיבור in modern Hebrew), and it means "flowing" or "outpouring". It is used in Daniel 11:22 as a metaphor for an army flowing in to sweep away the people!

Just as the "prince who is to come" is the Roman commander Flavius Titus, so the "mashiach" here refers to someone in the string of history between the destruction of the first Temple and that of the second. There are, in fact, two people referred to here. One is just called a "mashiach", and this refers to the priesthood (and specifically the high priest) at the destruction of the second Temple, which was cut off and had nothing. The other is called "mashiach nagid", an anointed ruler, and this was in reference to Cyrus the Great.

Haven't you read a single Jewish commentary? They all read essentially the same on these issues. Might I suggest Rashi?

 

[yonah_mishael]

See, I told you I wasn't the only one who believes that Jerusalem/Israel is Mystery Babylon, Vis.

An interesting take on the Revelation. I'd like to hear more about this. I assume you're a preterist?