7 year peace treaty, what 7 year peace treaty?

[BABerean2]

bab2, that is not an eschatology issue. Eschatology is a the study of the end times, not whether Jesus is the messiah or not.

Jesus did not stop the daily sacrifice in his day. The daily sacrifice continued to be done after Jesus left this world... until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The Antichrist reveals that he is the man of sin when he goes into the temple and claims to be God - so there has to be a temple forthcoming for that to happen. And since there will be a temple, there will be the daily sacrifice. That daily sacrifice will be stopped when the man of sin claims to be God.

Since Paul wrote 2thessalonians2:3-4 after Jesus's time, the man of sin sitting on the seat of God, in the temple, and the daily sacrifice that goes along with a temple are also after Jesus's time.

You did not answer the question...

"Why do you think God ripped the temple veil in half, at the same moment that His Son completed the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary, which brought the New Blood Covenant into effect and made the Old Covenant "obsolete"?"

.

 

[BABerean2]

Your interpretation remains unconvincing to me.

It is not my interpretation, since it is found in the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Daniel 9:27 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.

The interpretation used by most evangelicals today was brought to America by John Nelson Darby.
Most of those sitting in the pews have no idea where it came from, because their teachers have not bothered to tell them it came from John Darby, which should make all of us ask "Why not?".
They have also failed to mention any other interpretation.

We have the New Blood Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and spoken of by Christ in Matthew 26:28.
What covenant is found in between these two passages?

Daniel 9:27

Modern Dispensational Theology falls apart once one realizes that the covenant in Romans 11:27 is the New Covenant found "now" in effect at Hebrews 8:6 and has made the Sinai covenant "obsolete" at Hebrews 8:13.


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.


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.

Can you explain why you have probably never heard a sermon on the New Covenant in your local church or from a TV evangelist who promotes Dispensationalism?

Some doctrines can only exist by ignoring the passages that destroy them.

They are doctrines of ignorance...
.

 

[Douggg]

You did not answer the question...

"Why do you think God ripped the temple veil in half, at the same moment that His Son completed the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary, which brought the New Blood Covenant into effect and made the Old Covenant "obsolete"?"

.

I did not answer because it was not an eschatology question. And it has nothing to do with the Mt. Sinai either. The veil was
split in half to signify the wall of separation between God and man because of our sins ended when Jesus was crucified for the remission of our sins as though they never happened..

 

[precepts]

I get the slam. I know that there is one Church made up of Jews and Gentiles. But the partial hardening of the Jews for a time is a Scriptural reality (Romans 9-11). This is not a false teaching. And no, God did not forget about His chosen people. There have always been a remnant who serve the LORD.

Chris-tianity's biggest problem is reading comprehension, and just like the reading comprehension error concerning the antecedent of the "he" in Dan 9:27, so to is the issue of the remnant being saved.
Paul quoted Isa--h about the remnant being saved or Israel becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah. Why do you think Paul quote Isa--h then and there if that day wasn't the day of it's fulfillment?

 

[Douggg]

And that is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. The word / conjunction "and" cannot be joining anything if it's preceded by a colon.

It is not an english rule that "and" cannot be a conjunction if it is preceded by a colon. The word "and" is a conjunction because of the fact that is the part of speech it is by the definition of the word.

This is what I keep trying to tell you, the reason I keep telling you the colon is not a conjunction.

Why do you keep telling me that - when I wrote in nearly every post in our discussion that a colon is not a conjunction?

The "and" following the conjunction is no longer functioning as a conjunction to the main clause because the colon is not part of a compound sentence, is not part of a conjunction as the semicolon is.

What part of speech are you claiming the "and" is ? It is not a noun, not a pronoun, not a verb, not an adjective, not an adverb, not a preposition, not an interjection.

As far as punctuation marks go, the comma shows separation, the semicolon shows stronger separation, the colon shows the strongest separation.

The conjunction "and" after a colon doesn't not constitute a compound sentence.

The colon was inserted into the compound sentence to denote the "list" of the things in the three independent clauses following the colon that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

 

[BABerean2]

I did not answer because it was not an eschatology question. And it has nothing to do with the Mt. Sinai either. The veil was
split in half to signify the wall of separation between God and man because of our sins ended when Jesus was crucified for the remission of our sins as though they never happened..

And what did this mean for the daily animal sacrifices for sin ?
.

 

[Luke17:37]

Yes. But most of us here can not read or speak hebrew. And I don't recall off hand if Daniel 9 were written in hebrew or Aramaic. Some of the chapters in Daniel were written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. Plus the palo-hebrew has no vowels.

For a Jewish translation into English, the Jews have a translation at their Chabad.org site. Keep in mind, Jews don't consider Daniel a prophet, and list the book of Daniel under scriptures (writings), not prophets.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

26And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.

Also keep in mind that biblical Hebrew was not a specific of a language as Greek. So there can be more variance in the way the text is translated. The Jews claims that the KJV has a bias built in. I personally think some of their translation has a bias built-in to avoid the text looking like it refers to Jesus, like the way they translate the prophecies of being born of a virgin, the Jews translate as "a young woman".

So what it all boils down to, for us, and our study of eschatology, the KJV is the best available because it has gone through scrutiny more than any other translation.

Also the debate precepts and I have gone through in this thread is a good review of English grammar, which to me is a win-win.

The picture I posted includes Daniel 9:26-27. I looked it up last night, and Daniel 8 through the end is written in Hebrew. (The Aramaic portion uses the same script Hebrew script, so you'd have to be able to read or translate it to see if it was Aramaic or Hebrew). I took two semesters of Biblical Hebrew about 13 years ago. We learned enough to translate Genesis 1, Genesis 22, and Psalm 121 in entirety, although several of the words were not in our vocabularies--we used the dictionary in the process. I can remember a lot of the vocabulary I learned, I'm pretty rusty on the grammar. I can read much better than speak (go figure). I have considered trying to learn it to the same point again, and then continuing to study, and maybe modern Hebrew as well. I haven't put a significant investment of time into it yet, though.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you guys have been arguing about a piece (colons, commas, etc.) that is uninspired. The translators put commas and colons in as they saw fit for English readability, but the Hebrew doesn't necessarily draw a line in the sand.

Personally, I'd compare the word for word translations and see how they apply punctuation. Most of the time, it's seems to be generally consistent.

 

[Douggg]

The picture I posted includes Daniel 9:26-27. I looked it up last night, and Daniel 8 through the end is written in Hebrew. (The Aramaic portion uses the same script Hebrew script, so you'd have to be able to read or translate it to see if it was Aramaic or Hebrew). I took two semesters of Biblical Hebrew about 13 years ago. We learned enough to translate Genesis 1, Genesis 22, and Psalm 121 in entirety, although several of the words were not in our vocabularies--we used the dictionary in the process. I can remember a lot of the vocabulary I learned, I'm pretty rusty on the grammar. I can read much better than speak (go figure). I have considered trying to learn it to the same point again, and then continuing to study, and maybe modern Hebrew as well. I haven't put a significant investment of time into it yet, though.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you guys have been arguing about a piece (colons, commas, etc.) that is uninspired. The translators put commas and colons in as they saw fit for English readability, but the Hebrew doesn't necessarily draw a line in the sand.

Personally, I'd compare the word for word translations and see how they apply punctuation. Most of the time, it's seems to be generally consistent.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to go back and try to reinvent the wheel, to what has already been done. I think the KJV is pretty reliable. And the issues of grammar for the most part can be verified by looking at the contents and how the contents harmonize with other parts of the bible. This is especially true in bible prophecy.

My go to guy if I have a question on Hebrew or the bible the Jews use, is Uri Yosef, over at messiahtruth.com. He is an expert in Hebrew. It is a countermissionary site, i.e. counter Christian missionary for all intensive purposes. So they are not going to stand for any Christian-type convincing them that Jesus is the messiah or that they are wrong. So just stick to the issue of language and/or what they believe, and they will offer some good information.

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forums/3/Hebrew-Language-Education/Hebrew-Language-Education

 

[Douggg]

And what did this mean for the daily animal sacrifices for sin ?
.

It meant the animal sacrifice system for the atonement portion of the mt Sinai covenant had run its course as a stop gap measure because God's sacrifice that gives eternal life was made for our salvation.

But it did not negate God's commitment He made to Israel by the Mt. Sinai covenant that He would be their God and they His people.

 

[Luke17:37]

It is not my interpretation, since it is found in the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Daniel 9:27 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.

The interpretation used by most evangelicals today was brought to America by John Nelson Darby.
Most of those sitting in the pews have no idea where it came from, because their teachers have not bothered to tell them it came from John Darby, which should make all of us ask "Why not?".
They have also failed to mention any other interpretation.

We have the New Blood Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and spoken of by Christ in Matthew 26:28.
What covenant is found in between these two passages?

Daniel 9:27

Modern Dispensational Theology falls apart once one realizes that the covenant in Romans 11:27 is the New Covenant found "now" in effect at Hebrews 8:6 and has made the Sinai covenant "obsolete" at Hebrews 8:13.


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.


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.

Can you explain why you have probably never heard a sermon on the New Covenant in your local church or from a TV evangelist who promotes Dispensationalism?

Some doctrines can only exist by ignoring the passages that destroy them.

They are doctrines of ignorance...
.

You keep referring to one translation and I keep referring to Daniel 11 (which you ignore).

Yes, we know in Jesus we have a new covenant. I am not disputing that. I just don't think that's the subject of Daniel 9:27.

My pastor, who would consider himself a dispensationalist (but remains unconvinced about eschatology -- and he's willing to consider what I have to say, PTL) preaches on the new covenant. One of my favorite sermons ever was titled, "The Necessity of Changing Races" and he tied Genesis 3 with John 3 and the need to be born again under the federal headship of Jesus Christ as opposed to Adam. He talked about the new covenant, as far as I can recall.

I don't like man's labels, so even if they speak of Biblical concepts, I'd prefer not to use them since they carry in their name the authority of men. One time my brother was asked about his religious beliefs. He said, "I'm a Christian." Unsatisfied, they asked, "What kind?" (looking for Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.). He responded, "The kind that believes the Bible is true." Amen.

 

[BABerean2]

You keep referring to one translation and I keep referring to Daniel 11 (which you ignore).

Yes, we know in Jesus we have a new covenant. I am not disputing that. I just don't think that's the subject of Daniel 9:27.

My pastor, who would consider himself a dispensationalist (but remains unconvinced about eschatology -- and he's willing to consider what I have to say, PTL) preaches on the new covenant. One of my favorite sermons ever was titled, "The Necessity of Changing Races" and he tied Genesis 3 with John 3 and the need to be born again under the federal headship of Jesus Christ as opposed to Adam. He talked about the new covenant, as far as I can recall.

I don't like man's labels, so even if they speak of Biblical concepts, I'd prefer not to use them since they carry in their name the authority of men. One time my brother was asked about his religious beliefs. He said, "I'm a Christian." Unsatisfied, they asked, "What kind?" (looking for Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.). He responded, "The kind that believes the Bible is true." Amen.

Good for your pastor! Amen and Amen!

What still surprises me is the logic used to avoid the obvious relationship between the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 and the covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28.
Jeremiah had already foretold the New Covenant, before Gabriel came to Daniel.
Do you think Gabriel "forgot" to mention the New Covenant that would be brought in by Jesus?

Most of the material in Daniel about the daily sacrifices is about the events of 167 BC under Antiochus, which many ignore to get their doctrine to work.
Have you ever heard a sermon about Antiochus Epiphanies from a Dispensationalist?
I have dealt with Anitochus and Hanukkah in other posts.

 

[Luke17:37]

Good for your pastor! Amen and Amen!

What still surprises me is the logic used to avoid the obvious relationship between the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 and the covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28.
Jeremiah had already foretold the New Covenant, before Gabriel came to Daniel.
Do you think Gabriel "forgot" to mention the New Covenant that would be brought in by Jesus?

Most of the material in Daniel about the daily sacrifices is about the events of 167 BC under Antiochus, which many ignore to get their doctrine to work.
Have you ever heard a sermon about Antiochus Epiphanies from a Dispensationalist?
I have dealt with Anitochus and Hanukkah in other posts.

I don't think this passage (Daniel 9) is really about the new covenant.

 

[BABerean2]

I don't think this passage is really about the new covenant.

Are you willing to say that Gabriel forgot to mention the New Covenant already foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and take an antichrist not mentioned in the chapter but put him in the chapter anyway, and then take a 490 year time prophecy and add a "gap" of almost 2,000 years, not mentioned by the angel?

If you are willing to do all of that, then you can make the passage mean exactly what John Darby's doctrine needs it to say in order to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work.

Anyone who really understands the New Blood Covenant of Jesus Christ, cannot accept John Nelson Darby's doctrine.


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.


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.

.

 

[Luke17:37]

Are you willing to say that Gabriel forgot to mention the New Covenant already foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and take an antichrist not mentioned in the chapter but put him in the chapter anyway, and then take a 490 year time prophecy and add a "gap" of almost 2,000 years, not mentioned by the angel?

If you are willing to do all of that, then you can make the passage mean exactly what John Darby's doctrine needs it to say in order to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work.

Anyone who really understands the New Blood Covenant of Jesus Christ, cannot accept John Nelson Darby's doctrine.


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.


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.

.

Look, Messiah was cut off, but not for Himself--for us. The rest of Daniel 9:26-27 I think is totally irrelevant to the Messiah or the New Covenant. Not every passage has to be about the New Covenant. And it's God's Word, not Gabriel's.

Your favored interpretation doesn't jive for me with Daniel 11, about the stopping of sacrifices and the abomination that causes desolation. And Epiphanies was past history when Jesus referred to the abomination that causes desolation (Matthew 24:15).

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[BABerean2]

And Epiphanies was past history when Jesus referred to the abomination that causes desolation (Matthew 24:15).

You are exactly right, about this and as a matter of fact Jesus and those of His day celebrated the festival of the rededication.
He and the Jews of his day were familiar with Antiochus, his killing of thousands of Jews, taking away the sacrifices, and the setting up of the statue in the temple and slaughtering a pig on the altar.
This is the key to understanding what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse.
He knew that the Abomination of Desolation had already happened once during 167 BC.
In the Olivet Discourse He is saying something similar will happen again.
The accounts in Matthew and John were written mainly to a Jewish audience who would know about the abomination of desolation by Antiochus.
However, Luke's account is written more to a Gentile audience in mind, who might not know about Hanukkah.
Therefore, he spelled it out for them in terms they could understand.
We know Luke had to be talking about the same event, because the warning to flee is found in all three accounts.


Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
(Most Christians today just read right past this verse without knowing anything about Antiochus or Hanukkah.
It is no wonder we cannot get the correct interpretation of other passages.)



Revealing the Abomination of Desolation in the Parallel Gospels:


During the time of Christ, the Jews celebrated Hanukka.

Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

He was well aware of the first occurrence of the Abomination of Desolation in the temple, when Antiochus Epiphanes set up a statue of Zeus (He had previously claimed he was Zeus) in the temple and had a pig slaughtered on the altar, during 167 BC.


Hanukkah celebrates the cleansing and rededication of the temple which occurred three years after the abomination of desolation by Antiochus in 167 BC.


Therefore, Christ was predicting a second occurrence of the Abomination of Desolation in the Olivet Discourse.


Several events could be a possible desecration of the temple during 70 AD. The Roman standards were posted at the temple site. Sacrifices were made to Titus at the temple site. Also, the behavior of the zealots within the temple itself during the siege is regarded by many as a desecration of the temple.


Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

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


Luke’s account above clearly states that the desolation would be near the time that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. We know Luke 21:20 is related to Matthew 24:15, because the same warning to flee is found in the next verse.


We know the early Christians did flee from Jerusalem before the final siege.



Lets take a look at the word “compass” in Luke's account...


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

(Compare this to the reference in Luke chapter 19 about being surrounded and having a trench made around them.)


(Luk 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,


Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.)


(The Jewish leadership should have known the time of His visitation, because it was foretold by the angel Gabriel in the Book of Daniel. There was no excuse for them not knowing He was the Messiah. We also find a reference here to the temple being destroyed. This passage clearly connects the events of 70 AD to Jerusalem being surrounded. In the KJV the word "compass" is used in both passages. It should also be noted that the city was surrounded by a Roman army under the command of Cestius Gallus in 66 AD. However, for some unknown reason the Romans stopped the siege and thousands of Romans were killed by the Jews during the retreat. The early Christians left the city sometime before the final siege of 70 AD. They followed the warning given by Christ.)


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.


Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.


(Compare this verse to what Jesus said to the women crying while he was going to be crucified. Both passages contain a reference to nursing mothers.)


(Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.


Luk 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.)


(According to the writings of Josephus, during the siege of 70 AD some mothers ate their own children.)


Almost all scholars, agree that the next verse is about the siege of 70 AD.


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. (This last verse contains a reference to a time span that would occur before the fulfillment of the next verse. The time of the Gentiles will not end until the future Second Coming of Christ.)



At the beginning of Matthew chapter 24 the disciples ask Jesus two questions.


Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?




1. When will the temple be destroyed?


2. What will be the sign of thy coming (Gk. parousia), and the end of the age?





Jesus answers the first question within the first half of Matthew chapter 24.


He answers the second question within the last half of Matthew chapter 24.


The key Greek word “parousia” connects this second question to the future Second Coming of Christ.


This Greek word “parousia” found in other passages of the New Testament connect the passages to Christ’s return.

.

 

[Luke17:37]

You are exactly right, about this and as a matter of fact Jesus and those of His day celebrated the festival of the rededication.
He and the Jews of his day were familiar with Antiochus, his killing of thousands of Jews, taking away the sacrifices, and the setting up of the statue in the temple and slaughtering a pig on the altar.
This is the key to understanding what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse.
He knew that the Abomination of Desolation had already happened once during 167 BC.
In the Olivet Discourse He is saying something similar will happen again.
The accounts in Matthew and John were written mainly to a Jewish audience who would know about the abomination of desolation by Antiochus.
However, Luke's account is written more to a Gentile audience in mind, who might not know about Hanukkah.
Therefore, he spelled it out for them in terms they could understand.
We know Luke had to be talking about the same event, because the warning to flee is found in all three accounts.


Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
(Most Christians today just read right past this verse without knowing anything about Antiochus or Hanukkah.
It is no wonder we cannot get the correct interpretation of other passages.)



Revealing the Abomination of Desolation in the Parallel Gospels:


During the time of Christ, the Jews celebrated Hanukka.

Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

He was well aware of the first occurrence of the Abomination of Desolation in the temple, when Antiochus Epiphanes set up a statue of Zeus (He had previously claimed he was Zeus) in the temple and had a pig slaughtered on the altar, during 167 BC.


Hanukkah celebrates the cleansing and rededication of the temple which occurred three years after the abomination of desolation by Antiochus in 167 BC.


Therefore, Christ was predicting a second occurrence of the Abomination of Desolation in the Olivet Discourse.


Several events could be a possible desecration of the temple during 70 AD. The Roman standards were posted at the temple site. Sacrifices were made to Titus at the temple site. Also, the behavior of the zealots within the temple itself during the siege is regarded by many as a desecration of the temple.


Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

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


Luke’s account above clearly states that the desolation would be near the time that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. We know Luke 21:20 is related to Matthew 24:15, because the same warning to flee is found in the next verse.


We know the early Christians did flee from Jerusalem before the final siege.



Lets take a look at the word “compass” in Luke's account...


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

(Compare this to the reference in Luke chapter 19 about being surrounded and having a trench made around them.)


(Luk 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,


Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.)


(The Jewish leadership should have known the time of His visitation, because it was foretold by the angel Gabriel in the Book of Daniel. There was no excuse for them not knowing He was the Messiah. We also find a reference here to the temple being destroyed. This passage clearly connects the events of 70 AD to Jerusalem being surrounded. In the KJV the word "compass" is used in both passages. It should also be noted that the city was surrounded by a Roman army under the command of Cestius Gallus in 66 AD. However, for some unknown reason the Romans stopped the siege and thousands of Romans were killed by the Jews during the retreat. The early Christians left the city sometime before the final siege of 70 AD. They followed the warning given by Christ.)


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.


Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.


(Compare this verse to what Jesus said to the women crying while he was going to be crucified. Both passages contain a reference to nursing mothers.)


(Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.


Luk 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.)


(According to the writings of Josephus, during the siege of 70 AD some mothers ate their own children.)


Almost all scholars, agree that the next verse is about the siege of 70 AD.


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. (This last verse contains a reference to a time span that would occur before the fulfillment of the next verse. The time of the Gentiles will not end until the future Second Coming of Christ.)



At the beginning of Matthew chapter 24 the disciples ask Jesus two questions.


Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?




1. When will the temple be destroyed?


2. What will be the sign of thy coming (Gk. parousia), and the end of the age?





Jesus answers the first question within the first half of Matthew chapter 24.


He answers the second question within the last half of Matthew chapter 24.


The key Greek word “parousia” connects this second question to the future Second Coming of Christ.


This Greek word “parousia” found in other passages of the New Testament connect the passages to Christ’s return.

.

I think verses 4-20 applied to the Christians of the first century, but also apply to the Church at the end. The birth pains mirror the Revelation judgments (seals), and from there it gets worse.

I think the times of the Gentiles end shortly before Jesus' return, probably sometime within the 42 months.

Romans 11:
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

 

[precepts]

It is not an english rule that "and" cannot be a conjunction if it is preceded by a colon. The word "and" is a conjunction because of the fact that is the part of speech it is by the definition of the word.

So are you saying the "and" compounds both clauses?

Why do you keep telling me that - when I wrote in nearly every post in our discussion that a colon is not a conjunction?

Because you continue to treat the two sentences as a compound sentence when it's not.

What part of speech are you claiming the "and" is ? It is not a noun, not a pronoun, not a verb, not an adjective, not an adverb, not a preposition, not an interjection.

I am not denying "and" is a conjunction. I am denying the fact that with the colon preceding it that it is not a compound sentence.

As far as punctuation marks go, the comma shows separation, the semicolon shows stronger separation, the colon shows the strongest separation.

Why do you keep denying the fact that the only clause that can follow a colon is an appositive clause? I already provided you the proof.

The colon was inserted into the compound sentence to denote the "list" of the things in the three independent clauses following the colon that take place after the messiah is cutoff.

Show me where it says the list can consist of independent clauses that are not appositives.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I'm a bit flummoxed. My copy of the Scriptures doesn't even have a colon after the writing of the Messiah being cut off. It does, howevever, have a colon after it opens up the new information about the end coming like a flood. My translation is likely all wrong, that's what people try to tell me all the time anyway, but...

Mine reads that the Annointed one will be cut off and have nothing and then there is just a common ordinary period to end that sentence. Then is speaks of the ruler to come and the end coming like a flood. The end coming like a flood is followed by a colon, and yes, then it further describes things about the end coming like a flood.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[precepts]

You would think he would have at least mentioned which version he's talking about and the "he" in verse 27 that is the main issue concerning the 7yr confirmation.

 

[BABerean2]

I think the times of the Gentiles end shortly before Jesus' return, probably sometime within the 42 months.

Romans 11:
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

Based on pure logic and the fact that there is no pretrib removal of the Church, because of what we find in Revelation 12:11, the times of the Gentiles ends at Christ's Second Coming.
I agree that there is a "gap" of time between Luke 21:24 and Luke 21:25, based solely on the wording of the text.

Some have changed the word "so", which is an adverb of manner based on the Greek word "houto", into the word "then", which is an adverb of time in Romans 11:26. This completely changes the meaning of the passage. The Apostle Paul had just said the branches broken off could be grafted back into the Olive Tree, through faith in Christ. This is the manner of their salvation.
The Olive Tree is a symbol of the New Covenant Church, made up of Israelites and Gentiles who have a common faith in Christ.

Therefore the covenant in Romans 11:27 is the New Blood Covenant "now" in effect, based at Hebrews 8:6.
It is not waiting on a future fulfillment.
The sins of all people, no matter their bloodline, was taken away at Calvary almost 2,000 years ago.
This is when the deliverer came out of Zion.

All of the Israelites were not blinded, like a herd of sheep with each having only one eye.
Instead, some of the Israelites were blinded as to who the Messiah was and some like Paul (Romans 11:1) were not blinded.
This is the meaning of the phrase "blinded in part".

Some of them "they" were enemies of the Gospel and kept persecuting Paul's efforts to spread the Gospel, but the other "they", the election, accepted Christ.

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,
.