Consummation...

[Heber]

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.

You are insisting that your understanding of Tanakh is the only correct one - that is arrogance, plain and simple. You leave no room for other perfectly valid and academically correct readings of the same material.

 

[Heber]

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?

Sorry for the delay in answering your post - I've been away all day.

Well, now, perhaps you were thrown by me saying that normally in the ET the idea of animals or insects is used to describe a massed armed invasion. There are a few instances, of which Daniel is one (two records of that particular terminology to which you refer) and there is another in Nahum and one or two elsewhere where it is written that the armed forces would be 'like a flood' over the land. Only problem we have is that the text in question doesn't allow for that - it says that its end shall be with a flood. It makes a categorical statement that the city and the sanctuary will be 'destroyed by a flood'. No army in sight, nor does it say 'like a flood' it is very specific.

Interesting about the Messiah passages - other Jewish commentaries say the reference to an 'anointed leader' refers to Zerubbabel or the High Priest, Joshua, and the 'anointed one' refers to the High Priest Onias 3rd who died in 171. Oh, and the prince is Antiochus iv Epiphanes! You could argue that the prince is a Roman Commander at the time of Yeshua - that would fit, too, at a stretch. Or you could just accept that it is about the end times in Revelation, as I have said, as is clear from the verses prior to, and after, the one in question (I take it you have carefully read the LT?).

Maybe, just maybe, you should read a little wider, yes? On the other hand, why look back to what others have written when you profess to be so well able to translate for yourself I still think your note of caution in a previous post is very telling!

 

[Son of Israel]

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

Dear visionary thank you for asking.

Hi
I'm not affiliated with a denomination or school of thought other than by revelation of the Word of God guided by His Holy Spirit, an exegetic.

The new testament harlot is the same harlot of the old testament of course.
God married Israel and she played the harlot over and over. She became one with the Babylonians in her harlotry. It is an easy exegesis. Unless one is influenced with theology.
The harlot was to be burnt with fire.
Jesus restated that in Matt 24 and warned the New Jerusalem church to be ready to run when Jesus burnt the Babylonian Harlot of abominations that makes desolate, that Daniel spoke of.
On Patmos, John was given the same warning to the church in AD 68, immediately prior to the harlot being burnt with fire when Titus burnt it, carrying out Jesus' word and Moses' word, the final destruction epitomized in the tearing down of the temple stone by stone to retrieve the gold melted into the cracks, according to Flavius Josephus. Fulfilling Matt 24 and the book of Revelation.
Hence the final consumation of the end of the old "lawful" marriage covenant.
Jerusalem was always the "Mother" city. But a barren one.

Since everyone knows the wording in Revelation, but not where it comes from it seems, it is fairly simple to look in the O.T. to see who Jesus is referring to. Here is a small handful of scriptures that should cause a man with a heart for truth to rejoice in knowledge wisdom and understanding, aka "he who has an ear to hear let him hear..."

(Isa 26:17) Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD.
(Isa 26:18) We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

(Isa 47:9) But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.

(Isa 47:1) Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.

(Isa 47:3) Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
(Isa 47:7) And thou saidst, I shall be a lady for ever: so that thou didst not lay these things to thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it.
(Isa 47:8) Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

(Isa 47:14) Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.
(Isa 47:15) Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee.

(Eze 16:2) Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,
(Eze 16:44) Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter.
(Eze 16:45) Thou art thy mother's daughter, that lotheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which lothed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite.
(Eze 16:46) And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.
(Eze 16:47) Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.

(Jer 3:6) The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
(Jer 3:7) And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
(Jer 3:8) And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
(Jer 3:9) And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
(Jer 3:10) And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

(Jer 50:31) Behold, I am against thee, O thou most proud, saith the Lord GOD of hosts: for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee.

(Lev 21:9) And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

(Jer 18:21) Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
(Jer 18:22) Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet.
(Jer 18:23) Yet, LORD, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me: forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight, but let them be overthrown before thee; deal thus with them in the time of thine anger.

Her cup of abominations... what cup was that?

(Mat 23:25) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
(Mat 23:26) Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The Harlot with the cup of abominations that make desolate.
God's marriage covenant to her to be literally dissolved with desolation, while confirming the Covenant by delieverance of His True Jerusalem Church Bride.

It is upon the Jews to whom God's wrath is poured out for obvious reasons, it is why Jesus foretold them of their doom and warned the New Jerusalem Church to escape "in those days" (AD 70)

This is exactly what John wrote about in Revelation. Everything He wrote quoted O.T. passages. Those who read the Revelation of Jesus were familiar with the Bible (The O.T. being their only Bible at the time) so they knew exactly what the Revelation was referring to and they hearkened to it and were delivered.

It can't mean anything else scripturally.

However, many false prophets are gone out into the world claiming that it is a book foretelling futuristic events still yet to come, of a bizarre nature.
The only thing that is possible with the idea that the book has future events, is if the exact same thing happens again to that Jerusalem antichrist harlot over in the middle east, as happened in AD 70, but on a greater level.

I noticed a couple or so wise men who've contributed comments on this thread in agreement to these things, would like to know you gentlemen or women

Vision, I hope this helps in your studies. I would like to know you also, if you are of a mind to

Son of Israel

 

[Bananna]

never mind... got to finish reading first

 

[Heber]

SoI - shorter posts are easier to take in and understand if you can manage that for us. The groups of readings could simply have shown the chapter number followed by the verse number(s) to which you refer. We all have Bibles and can look up the relevant readings then with your comments on the screen in front of us

 

[yonah_mishael]

Sorry for the delay in answering your post - I've been away all day.

I know what that's like. Don't worry about delays. They won't upset me.

Well, now, perhaps you were thrown by me saying that normally in the ET the idea of animals or insects is used to describe a massed armed invasion.

This is the second abbreviation that I've come across on this forum recently that made no sense to me. What is ET???

There are a few instances, of which Daniel is one (two records of that particular terminology to which you refer) and there is another in Nahum and one or two elsewhere where it is written that the armed forces would be 'like a flood' over the land.

Your criticism was that the text should have said something about an invasion of insects or whatever rather than using the word שטף. Now you're moving the goalposts, since I showed that this word is used in that type of context. That's not very polite. You should just concede that you were wrong on this issue.

Only problem we have is that the text in question doesn't allow for that - it says that its end shall be with a flood. It makes a categorical statement that the city and the sanctuary will be 'destroyed by a flood'. No army in sight, nor does it say 'like a flood' it is very specific.

What are you talking about it not having a mention of an army? Did you even read the verse?
Let me quote it for you:

Daniel 9:26b
וְהָעִ֨יר וְהַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ יַ֠שְׁחִית עַ֣ם נָגִ֤יד הַבָּא֙ וְקִצּ֣וֹ בַשֶּׁ֔טֶף וְעַד֙ קֵ֣ץ מִלְחָמָ֔ה נֶֽחֱרֶ֖צֶת שֹֽׁמֵמֽוֹת׃

There are two things that indicate war: (1) It specifically says that the coming ruler and his people would DESTROY THE CITY and the HOLY PLACE. If this doesn't indicate war, I don't know what does! (2) It says that WAR IS DETERMINED UNTIL THE END! If it says war (מלחמ&#1492 and that they would destroy the city (העיר... ישחי&#1514, I don't know where you get off saying that this has nothing to do with an invading army or a war! What verse are you reading? The word שטף is right in the middle of this verse, and that's its obvious context and meaning from within the verse.

Interesting about the Messiah passages - other Jewish commentaries say the reference to an 'anointed leader' refers to Zerubbabel or the High Priest, Joshua, and the 'anointed one' refers to the High Priest Onias 3rd who died in 171. Oh, and the prince is Antiochus iv Epiphanes!

I would agree that there are a lot of interpretations about this specific משיח. Some interpret the whole passage as it leads from the destruction of the First Temple to the war with the Seleucid king Antiochus. Others interpret it as referring to the whole period from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second. I tend to go with this group. One thing is certain, though, the timing is off, no matter which interpretation is followed. It's a problematic text, even if some think they have worked out every detail through endless spinning.

Since it refers to the people of the ruler to come destroying the city and the sanctuary, I don't see it possibly finding fulfilment in Antiochus, who didn't destroy the Temple (but only desecrated it) and surely didn't destroy the city of Jerusalem. This applies to the Romans, IMHO.

You could argue that the prince is a Roman Commander at the time of Yeshua - that would fit, too, at a stretch. Or you could just accept that it is about the end times in Revelation, as I have said, as is clear from the verses prior to, and after, the one in question (I take it you have carefully read the LT?).

I won't go into Christian eschatology. I've got opinions about that, too, but it's completely inappropriate for this forum. I think there's an eschatology forum on the site.

Just figured out that maybe you mean "Earlier Testament" and "Latter Testament" by ET and LT. Is that right? Why do you use non-standard abbreviations with the assumption that people will understand you? I didn't know what you were talking about the first time you used it above.

Yes, I've read the Christian Scriptures in Greek, English, Spanish and large sections in two different Hebrew translations (Delitsch and Greenberg). I know them quite well.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read a little wider, yes? On the other hand, why look back to what others have written when you profess to be so well able to translate for yourself I still think your note of caution in a previous post is very telling!

I tend not to use absolutes, to qualify my claims with phrases indicating that this is where I'm at at this moment. I've found that over time my opinions shift as necessary to take in new input. I'm not dogmatic about my positions, but that doesn't mean that you should take any type of psychological slips from what I've written. Don't read more into my "note of caution" than was intended when I purposefully attached it to the post.

 

[Son of Israel]

Heber, it is hard to please all, as many like to read the scriptures without having to go through looking it up, (such as myself). So as I post the scripture ref as well as the scripture itself, you can still look it up for yourself whilst others can simply read it, best of both worlds. Sounds reasonable I hope.