WHY IS DANIEL 9:24-27 ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE ?

[parousia70]

In the Book of Galatians the Apostle Paul makes it clear that salvation does not come through the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
Paul did not say that salvation could come through both the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, during the time period between Calvary and 70 AD.

When do you say Salvation DID come through the Sinai covenant of Bondage?
Did it ever?

It seems you are saying is that for either covenant to be "active and in force" salvation had to be actively coming through it.

Do I have that correct?

Paul did say that there were Human beings alive AFTER the Death of Christ who were still "under the Law". (1 Corinthians 9:20)

How could that be if, as you claim, the law was at that time extinguished, extinct & over?

How could anyone be "under" a law that does not exist?

 

[claninja]

When do you say Salvation DID come through the Sinai covenant of Bondage?
Did it ever?

It seems you are saying is that for either covenant to be "active and in force" salvation had to be actively coming through it.

Do I have that correct?

Paul did say that there were Human beings alive AFTER the Death of Christ who were still "under the Law". (1 Corinthians 9:20)

How could that be if, as you claim, the law was at that time extinguished, extinct & over?

How could anyone be "under" a law that does not exist?

Exactly. Jews who were becoming
Believers, AFTER the cross, were dying to the law, which never brought salvation, and being raised with Christ (born again) to belong to him instead of the law.

Or do you not know, brothers —for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Romans 7:1,4 - Bible Gateway passage: Romans 7:1, Romans 7:4 - English Standard Version

And Those who were never born again, remained slaves to that old obsolete covenant, persecuting those of the new covenant, until that old obsolete covenant was completely removed, never to be practiced again.

But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
Galatians 4:29-30 - Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 4:29-30 - English Standard Version

for if that which is being made useless [is] through glory, much more that which is remaining [is] in glory.
2 Corinthians 3:11 - Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 3:11 - Young's Literal Translation

 

[TribulationSigns]

So, at what point AFTER the Son was Killed do you say the Kingdom was taken from the wicked group and given to another at "the coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men"? if not AD 66-70?

Tell me first, according to the context of Matthew 21, who exactly were the wicked men that the Lord destroyed? And how did they become part of the kingdom before it was taken from them?

 

[David Kent]

Please put a Date on the fulfillment of the above.

When do you say this took place?

Don't forget, the event is cemented to this:

40 “Therefore, when the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

According to the Very words of Jesus Christ above, The Taking of the Kingdom from the wicked group and giving to another happens at "the coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men" which happens sometime AFTER This:

38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

So, at what point AFTER the Son was Killed do you say the Kingdom was taken from the wicked group and given to another at "the coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men"? if not AD 66-70?

Calvary most certainly does not fit.

Perhaps you believe we are still waiting for this event to take place?

Your posts seem to indicate you believe it has been fulfilled, so I am curious when you believe "The coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” took place?

Again, Calvary does NOT fit.

Not sure you are correct. The Lord gave the Jews a generation to repent, before he miserably destroyed them. But the process began with Cornelius.

 

[BABerean2]

When do you say Salvation DID come through the Sinai covenant of Bondage?
Did it ever?

It seems you are saying is that for either covenant to be "active and in force" salvation had to be actively coming through it.

Do I have that correct?

Paul did say that there were Human beings alive AFTER the Death of Christ who were still "under the Law". (1 Corinthians 9:20)

How could that be if, as you claim, the law was at that time extinguished, extinct & over?

How could anyone be "under" a law that does not exist?

Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still in effect since modern Orthodox Jews continue to place themselves under the Law of Moses?

If modern Jews rebuild a temple and renew animal sacrifices, would that bring the Old Covenant system back into effect?

When did the "testator" of the New Covenant die?
Was He also the only person to ever follow the Old Covenant, perfectly?

Salvation has always been through faith, based on Hebrews chapter 11.
King David was an adulterer and conspired to have Uriah killed?

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, did the Sinai Covenant go into effect 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham, and lasted "until" the "seed" (Christ) could come?

.

 

[parousia70]

Tell me first, according to the context of Matthew 21, who exactly were the wicked men that the Lord destroyed?

Tell you first?
Is that a request or demand?
Sounds like a demand...
Weird, but OK', I'll play, though I expect you won't answer my question above in your next post to me anyway...

Your answer is clearly found in Vs 45:
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.

Specifically, it was the Chief Priests and Pharisees, broadly it was all Torah observant Jews who refused to Follow Christ.

And how did they become part of the kingdom before it was taken from them?

By being Born into it, of course, and having their parents follow the rituals of the Law regarding their infantile initiation into the covenant relationship w/ Yahweh, as prescribed by Moses.

What point are you driving at?
Before you answer, go ahead and answer my question from my previous post FIRST

 

[parousia70]

Not sure you are correct.

That's Ok.

The Lord gave the Jews a generation to repent, before he miserably destroyed them. But the process began with Cornelius.

Therefore?

 

[parousia70]

Another non-answer?
Do you guys not have answers to the questions I have posed to you above?
Or are you both deliberately trying to obfuscate?

Oh, well, again, I'll play by your rules too BaB...

Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still in effect since modern Orthodox Jews continue to place themselves under the Law of Moses?

No. Although Todays Orthodox Jews do not place themselves under the law any more than Todays Muslims do, so I don't see the correlation.

If modern Jews rebuild a temple and renew animal sacrifices, would that bring the Old Covenant system back into effect?

No.

Salvation has always been through faith, based on Hebrews chapter 11.

King David was an adulterer and conspired to have Uriah killed?

And? Therefore?

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, did the Sinai Covenant go into effect 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham, and lasted "until" the "seed" (Christ) could come?

.

Is that what you believe? That the Law lasted "Until" the arrival of the Seed (Christ)

Wouldn't the "arrival" of the seed pre date the crucifixion?

What event do you say marked the arrival of the seed?

The Virgin Conception? The Virgin Birth? The Time the Boy Jesus was found teaching in the temple? The Baptism of Jesus? The Crucifixion? The 3rd Day raising? The Ascension? The presentation before the throne In heaven and sprinkling of the Blood upon the heavenly Alter? or the Promised Return?

Some other event?

Before you answer, since you've left the questions from my post #341 unanswered, go ahead and tackle those first, please.

 

[BABerean2]

Is that what you believe? That the Law lasted "Until" the arrival of the Seed (Christ)

Wouldn't the "arrival" of the seed pre date the crucifixion?

It is not what I believe that matters.
What matters is what Paul said in Galatians 3:16-29.

The Apostle Paul used the word "till" and now you have to either deal with it or try to figure out an escape clause to make your form of Preterism work, which is what you are now attempting.

You are well aware of the time that He was sacrificed for sin to bring in the New Covenant in His blood, which He revealed at the Last Supper. (Matthew 26:28)
That event was prophesied in Genesis 3:15.



Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


Heb_9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb_9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.


Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


If you must ignore or explain away the word "till" and the other text above to make your doctrine work, you may want to think about making some changes.

.

 

[parousia70]

It is not what I believe that matters.
What matters is what Paul said in Galatians 3:16-29.

Ok...

The Apostle Paul used the word "till" and now you have to either deal with it or try to figure out an escape clause to make your form of Preterism work, which is what you are now attempting.

it's not what you believe the word "till" means that matters, remember?

You are well aware of the time that He was sacrificed for sin to bring in the New Covenant in His blood, which He revealed at the Last Supper. (Matthew 26:28)

That event was prophesied in Genesis 3:15.

Where does scripture teach Matthew 26:28 is synonymous with Galatians 3:19?

I won't hold my breath for an answer since you don't really seem to want to answer my questions. I still like you though

Now, Again, Please, for the love of Pete, Who specifically do you say Paul was claiming was still "under the law" years after the "death of the testor" in 1 Corinthians 9:20?

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

What people could Paul possibly be talking about here if, as you claim NOBODY was at that time under the Law????

 

[TribulationSigns]

Your answer is clearly found in Vs 45:
45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.

Specifically, it was the Chief Priests and Pharisees, broadly it was all Torah observant Jews who refused to Follow Christ.

Good job. It was the Chief Priests, Scribes, Pharisees and all people deceived by them who have rejected Messiah The Prince. They are the corporate believers of the Old Testament Congregation that once represented the Kingdom of God. Now please read the verses again:

Matthew 21:41-45
[41] They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
[42] Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
[43] Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
[44] And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
[45] And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.​

Tell us, how did the Lord "miserably destroy those wicked men", the professed Jews?

Did God really need to have all of them be physically killed and have their physical city and the temple destroyed in 70AD to fulfill these prophecies? Of course not. The context shows that the Lord destroy them by taking their kingdom representation away from them and gave it to another. If they are no longer part of the kingdom, they are spiritually destroyed. They are destroyed when they put Christ to death when they are the very ones that Christ prophesied that will come and destroy "the city and the temple" as Christ warned them as a SIGN:

John 2:18-21​

[18] Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus was talking about HIS PEOPLE who were the body of His Temple. They were the people of the old testament congregation! SO the question is WHAT TEMPLE was it that Christ said will be destroyed by them which Christ will rebuild in three days? Physical temple? NO! It is the KINGDOM REPRESENTATION! If they have rejected Christ and put him to death, they are destroyed as they are no longer a representative of God's Kingdom! The desolation has been determined UPON Old Testament congregation! As it is written:

Daniel 9:26​

[26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The people of the prince were the Jews who have rejected the Messiah. It was them whom Christ has prophesied in John 2:19, that will come and destroy the city and the temple (a representation of the Kingdom). Desolations have determined upon THIS Old Testament congregation. But in THREE DAYS, Christ has rebuilt the temple which the New Testament congregation now represented! This is the congregation that the kingdom was given to! The one that Christ confirmed a new covenant with!

Daniel 9:27​

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

But notice that Daniel 9:27 has to do with New Testament Congregation, the church, who will suffer desolate prior to the Second Coming just like the Old Testament congregation (verse 26). So in the time of the end, where there are many professed external Christians who are deceived by false prophets and Christs will not love the Truth that God will judge their church by taking their kingdom representative away from them and gave them to the beast to be deceived. This is how the congregation has BECOME Babylon the Great as described in Revelation 17/18. This is what the Olivet Discourse is all about, the judgment of the New Testament Congregation. Not Israel.

 

[BABerean2]

I won't hold my breath for an answer since you don't really seem to want to answer my questions. I still like you though

Now, Again, Please, for the love of Pete, Who specifically do you say Paul was claiming was still "under the law" years after the "death of the testor" in 1 Corinthians 9:20?

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

What people could Paul possibly be talking about here if, as you claim NOBODY was at that time under the Law????

1 Corinthians 9:20
(CJB) That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah.

(ESV) To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

(Geneva) And vnto the Iewes, I become as a Iewe, that I may winne the Iewes: to them that are vnder the Lawe, as though I were vnder the Lawe, that I may winne them that are vnder the Lawe:

(Greek NT TR) και εγενομην τοις ιουδαιοις ως ιουδαιος ινα ιουδαιους κερδησω τοις υπο νομον ως υπο νομον ινα τους υπο νομον κερδησω

(GW) I became Jewish for Jewish people. I became subject to Moses' Teachings for those who are subject to those laws. I did this to win them even though I'm not subject to Moses' Teachings.

(LITV-TSP) And I became as a Jew to the Jews, that I might gain Jews; to those under Law as under Law, that I might gain those under Law;

(KJV) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

(KJV+) AndG2532 unto theG3588 JewsG2453 I becameG1096 asG5613 a Jew,G2453 thatG2443 I might gainG2770 the Jews;G2453 to themG3588 that are underG5259 the law,G3551 asG5613 underG5259 the law,G3551 thatG2443 I might gainG2770 themG3588 that are underG5259 the law;G3551

(NKJV) and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

(YLT) and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;

One of the organizations my wife and I support is Word of Messiah, which is based in Charlotte, NC.

It was started by Sam Nadler and his wife Miriam.
I had the chance to meet both of them in the past.

Sam is from a Jewish background, and therefore, just like Paul, is sensitive to Jewish culture.
Sam would not serve pork at a gathering of those just coming out of modern Orthodox Judaism.

The Apostle Paul was operating in the same manner when trying to share the Gospel with the Jews of his time who were still attempting to keep themselves under the Law of Moses.

God had to tell Peter several times that it was OK to eat things which were not considered Kosher under the Law of Moses.

Does the verse above change Hebrews 7:12?
When was there a change in the law?

I still love you, also.


.

 

[parousia70]

Good job. It was the Chief Priests, Scribes, Pharisees and all people deceived by them who have rejected Messiah The Prince. They are the corporate believers of the Old Testament Congregation that once represented the Kingdom of God. Now please read the verses again:

Matthew 21:41-45
[41] They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons....​

NOT a Good Job.

Why do you keep omitting verse 40?
"40 “Therefore, when the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
​

As vs 40 is a KEY indicator of the timing of the destruction, I can't figure out why you continue to ignore it?
The Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy them happens sometime AFTER They Seize the Son and Kill Him.

Any attempts to place the event of their destruction BEFORE or AT the Death of Christ and to OMIT the FACT that it happens instead sometime later, at "The Coming of the Lord", are unscriptural and ought be rejected.

Tell us, how did the Lord "miserably destroy those wicked men", the professed Jews?

This way:
Luke 21:20-22
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Did God really need to have all of them be physically killed and have their physical city and the temple destroyed in 70AD to fulfill these prophecies?

These Prophesies, these curses metered out UNDER THE LAW?, ABSOULTELY.

Read Deuteronomy 28 closely:
49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favor to the young. 51 And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land, until you are destroyed; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you. 52 “They shall besiege you at all your gates until your high and fortified walls, in which you trust, come down throughout all your land; and they shall besiege you at all your gates throughout all your land which the Lord your God has given you. 53 You shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and desperate straits in which your enemy shall distress you.

Since AD70 was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:49-53, then the Old Covenant MUST, BY NECESSITY, been in FULL FORCE at that time, as it's curses were being metered out upon the people contracted to, and bound under it.

But, to be fair, Go ahead and explain for our readers how Deuteronomy 28:49-53 and Luke 21:20-22 were fulfilled at Calvary and did not require them to be Surrounded by invading armies & destroyed as the Covenant Curse above fortells.

I'll get my popcorn.

 

[claninja]

Tell us, how did the Lord "miserably destroy those wicked men", the professed Jews?

When the king left to claim a kingdom (Christ ascension to the Father), there were citizens who did not want him to be king (unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ). When the king returned, he slaughtered those citizens that did not want him to be king.

Luke 19:12-15, 27
He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us. When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

In Matthew 21, when the Vineyard owner comes, he destroys the wicked tenants that killed his son. The Pharisees perceive that Jesus is referring to them.

Matthew 21:45
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

In Matthew 22,When we look at the parable of the marriage feast, which is basically a re-telling of the wicked tenants, the king sends an army to destroy those that murdered his servants and burn their city.

Matthew 22:7
The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city

Now you say this destruction is spiritual and not physical. I partially disagree, and so does the text. Yes, the destruction was spiritual, as they were separated from the Lord for rejecting Christ, but the destruction was also physical, as Christ prophesied they would be surrounded by armies and the city torn down to the ground:

Luke 19: 41-44
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

In the Olivet discourse, Jesus predicts that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. From historical records, we know that the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed it in 70AD.

Luke 21:20
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

Paul even quotes Isaiah in reference to the coming judgment that would leave only a remnant of Israel left, while the majority of Israel would become like Sodom and Gomorrah:
Romans 9:27-29
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

 

[parousia70]

(YLT) and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;

I like the YLT, as it is the LITERAL translation.

Pretty clear... Paul did NOT say "to those that THINK THEY ARE UNDER THE LAW STILL", he clearly said: To those UNDER LAW.

He was not wrong.
Now, You either have to deal with it or try to figure out an escape clause to make your form of preterism work, which is what you are now attempting

One of the organizations my wife and I support is Word of Messiah, which is based in Charlotte, NC.

One of the things I love about you

Does the verse above change Hebrews 7:12?

Of course not. They Harmonize.

When was there a change in the law?

Well, the early Jerusalem Church continued to observe Moses in all ways all through the book of Acts since only the gentiles were permitted to by-pass the Laws of Moses. Paul and James men kept vows and even gave blood sacrifices in Acts 21:18-26 as was their custom to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20).

Now, Hebrews 10:9 does say He removes the first covenant that he may establish the second. However, you continue to dismiss the fact that the first Covenant was growing old and was ABOUT to vanish at the time Hebrews was written according to Heb 8:13. That verse was written about 6-8 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple worship -- the heart of the Mosaic Law System.

In 2 Cor 3:6-12, Note that Paul is speaking in that passage of the HOPE that it will happen soon. That passage shows BOTH systems in existence, only soon the ministration of death (the Mosaic Law system) would be done away and only the New Covenant would remain. 2 Cor 3:12 says "since we have this hope..."

The 40 years in the Desert was a Type/Shadow of this.
Though the Hebrew people were Free from the Bondage of the Egyptians the Moment they Crossed the Red Sea, they were still In Bondage to Egypt for 40 years until they entered the Promised Land.

Now, The N.T. Church believed and taught it was the TRUE wilderness generation on the way into the promised land. They explicitly taught this -- namely, that the generation that Moses led out of bondage and into the land of Israel was the TYPE for the true exodus and entrance into the promised land via Christ and his followers (see: 1 Cor 10:1-12; Heb 3:7-4:11 (all); Heb 2:2-4; Heb 12:25-29).

The "last days" generation that transitioned in the New Covenant Kingdom age [i.e., AD 30-70] was a mere 40 year struggle to break from the Law bondage and curse for the People of God. The "last days" struggle for God's people ended with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, in fulfillment of "all things written" (Luke 21:20-22).

I still love you, also.

Thank you BaB.. I feel it.

 

[Davy]

You use the corrupt NIV which is an interpretation in this case, because it suits your view. All my quotes are from from the KJV

• Matt 24:15 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.)

Why was the reader told to understand? If it was to be an idol in the temple, Christians would not need to be told to understand, but obviously Jesus had told them privately, and Luke tell us publicly. Speaking of the same event, he says:

• Luke 21:20. 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.

If it was to be an idol in the temple those in Jerusalem and Judea wold not be able to see it, only the priests in the temple would see it.

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

The great error of you futurists is the same error as the unbelieving Jews, ascribing the works of the Saviour to Satan. Who could confirm the covenant with many, but the Lord Jesus..

• Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
• Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

It is made plain in other scriptures

• 
  
  
  • Gallatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
  • Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

• 
  
  
  • Daniel 31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place
    the abomination that maketh desolate.

This verse is somewhat ambiguous. Here the people are plural (they) in the following verse it reverts to the singular (he). There was only one Abomination of Desolation and that was still future when Jesus spoke. The powerful arms at that time were the Romans who stood against Antiochus. "On his part" is taken by many commentators in the past to mean against him. They, the Romans were later to place the abomination of desolation

In both translations of Daniel 9 & 11, the events are clear, because the deeds the "vile person" does are the deeds written of in Dan.9:27 with ending sacrifices and placing the abomination that makes desolate. So it's not dependent upon one sole area in the Book of Daniel like you're trying to base your doctrine of men on.

Not only does Dan.11 reveal it's the "vile person" who places the abomination that maketh desolate which Jesus pointed to for the end of this world, but so does Dan.8 regarding the deeds of the "little horn":

Dan 8:12-14
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
KJV

That event is about the 42 months treading of the temple by the Gentiles at the end of this world when the "dragon" of Rev.13 is given to reign over all nations and peoples:

Rev 11:1-3
11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
KJV

This really isn't that difficult at all. It's about the end of this world, not 70 A.D.

 

[BABerean2]

I like the YLT, as it is the LITERAL translation.

Pretty clear... Paul did NOT say "to those that THINK THEY ARE UNDER THE LAW STILL", he clearly said: To those UNDER LAW.

He was not wrong.
Now, You either have to deal with it or try to figure out an escape clause to make your form of preterism work, which is what you are now attempting


One of the things I love about you


Of course not. They Harmonize.


Well, the early Jerusalem Church continued to observe Moses in all ways all through the book of Acts since only the gentiles were permitted to by-pass the Laws of Moses. Paul and James men kept vows and even gave blood sacrifices in Acts 21:18-26 as was their custom to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20).

Now, Hebrews 10:9 does say He removes the first covenant that he may establish the second. However, you continue to dismiss the fact that the first Covenant was growing old and was ABOUT to vanish at the time Hebrews was written according to Heb 8:13. That verse was written about 6-8 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple worship -- the heart of the Mosaic Law System.

In 2 Cor 3:6-12, Note that Paul is speaking in that passage of the HOPE that it will happen soon. That passage shows BOTH systems in existence, only soon the ministration of death (the Mosaic Law system) would be done away and only the New Covenant would remain. 2 Cor 3:12 says "since we have this hope..."

The 40 years in the Desert was a Type/Shadow of this.
Though the Hebrew people were Free from the Bondage of the Egyptians the Moment they Crossed the Red Sea, they were still In Bondage to Egypt for 40 years until they entered the Promised Land.

Now, The N.T. Church believed and taught it was the TRUE wilderness generation on the way into the promised land. They explicitly taught this -- namely, that the generation that Moses led out of bondage and into the land of Israel was the TYPE for the true exodus and entrance into the promised land via Christ and his followers (see: 1 Cor 10:1-12; Heb 3:7-4:11 (all); Heb 2:2-4; Heb 12:25-29).

The "last days" generation that transitioned in the New Covenant Kingdom age [i.e., AD 30-70] was a mere 40 year struggle to break from the Law bondage and curse for the People of God. The "last days" struggle for God's people ended with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, in fulfillment of "all things written" (Luke 21:20-22).


Thank you BaB.. I feel it.

Mat_27:51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,

Mar_15:38 Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luk_23:45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.


Why did God rip the temple veil in half when Christ died on the Cross, if the Old Covenant system was still in effect?

.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Now you say this destruction is spiritual and not physical. I partially disagree, and so does the text. Yes, the destruction was spiritual, as they were separated from the Lord for rejecting Christ, but the destruction was also physical, as Christ prophesied they would be surrounded by armies and the city torn down to the ground:

Luke 19: 41-44
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

In the Olivet discourse, Jesus predicts that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. From historical records, we know that the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed it in 70AD.

Incorrect. You are reading into Scripture. Allow me to explain...

We can't just completely ignore these verses in lieu of ones that we think we can prove because it supports our view. No, "ALL" scripture must be taken into consideration before coming to any conclusion. Let observe Luke 19 again:

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• 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,
• 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."

Every time I submit these passages to the 70 AD Theorists, I am met with deafening silence, even as you will not address it. Do you hear what the Lord is saying there? The exact same thing as He said about the Temple! If it's not literal here, then obviously, it's not literal about the Temple. Let's be honorable and consistent here. To say Christ was not talking about the city of Jerusalem as a covenant representation of the people of God ("thy children within thee") shows a serious lack of understanding of the way the Bible is written. For very unambiguously, He is talking to PEOPLE (even the Scribes and Pharisees God said perceived that) and speaking of their desolation as all the stones of a city being made desolate or thrown down. And Christ says the reason is that the city knew not the time of its visitation. Think about it. Did Christ talk to the literal stones? No, He's talking to the city of Jews and saying they will be laid even with the ground (equating THEM to STONES of a building), because they knew not the time of their visitation. Selah!! Christ has NOT prophesied here of literal buildings and a literal city, but of spiritual buildings that are the external covenant congregation representation. Just as He calls the congregation an Olive Tree, He calls it a City, and He calls it a Temple, and a Vineyard, and a Kingdom, etc. Get it?! There's no mystery here to God's people, as He has always spiritualized or spoke in parables this way. I know that something is "spiritually discerned" has come to be equated with a "Bad Phrase" these days, but Biblical facts are facts. Read the Old Testament for your examples.

Micah 1:8-9

• "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.
• For her wound is incurable; for it is come unto Judah; he is come unto the gate of my people, even to Jerusalem."

The City Jerusalem was a representation of God's people, not a geographical location nor a physical wall in the Middle East! Selah!

And yes, I know that there are some people here who have insisted that the temple and its buildings in Matthew 24:1-2 MUST be physical (to fit their 70AD theory) when Christ said. But the problem is if we COMPLETELY ignore all the other verses that I have been quoting to you (word for word) about not one stone left standing in Jerusalem and reading Matthew 24 in a Biblically insular fashion. But the fact is, we cannot read scripture in a vacuum where there is nothing acceptable as truth except our own pet verses that "seem" to support us as long as we don't include others. All scripture must be in harmony with itself, and it most certainly is not "if" we attempt to claim that Matthew 24 stands by itself, or the passages of Luke 19 have nothing to do with the question at hand. God even gives us examples of the Devil attempting to use just that specific type of erroneous interpretive methodology.

Matthew 4:6-7

• "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
• Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Note the Devil's hermeneutic style. Yes, he quotes from Scripture, but he doesn't consider "other scriptures" which have equal bearing on the question. That is what many people do today with Scripture! But Christ demonstrates the proper hermeneutic in answering, "it is written again," or "it is written more" (there is more written). Christ corrects by declaring there is more written beside your pet verse. Christ's solution is not to deny the Devil's scripture, but to tell him that this is not all that scripture has to say concerning this. For example, there is more written on the subject. If we take one isolated verse, as in this example, we will inevitably come to private interpretations and improper conclusions. And what Christ said is exactly what I am saying. There is more written on the subject besides a few lines in Matthew about the Temple that has to be considered. And when all scripture (not just Matthew) is considered, clearly, the stones of Israel falling are figures representing (as the Pharisees perceived) the people. ...He spoke of THEM! Not physical stones of the city! They, as people, are considered as the old stones that rejected Christ and the New Testament saints are the New Living stones in the rebuilding. Hello?!

Consider wisely..

Luke 19:39-42

• "And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
• And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
• And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."

He who hath an ear, let him hear!

Israel cried Hosanna to the King, but they were the old and so did hold their peace in proclaiming Christ King, and the stones "did" immediately cry out. Jesus did NOT talk about physical stones of the city, but the spiritual stones which are PEOPLE who did cry out! The word of God is a gigantic spiritual picture puzzle with every piece in place. Just because one does not understand this, does not make the truth of it null and void.

Now going back to Luke 19

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• 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,
• 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."

Listen... does that sound like the Lord never referred to these perimeter buildings of the city in His discourse? On the contrary. Does that sound like Christ is talking about a physical city, all the houses, bricks, mortar? Or does it sound like Christ is talking about a city of people who would be laid even with the ground because they didn't know the time of His visitation? Can a physical building or stones know anything? He's not talking to a physical city any more than you or I would, He's using the city Jerusalem as a figure of his covenant people that would symbolically be ground to powder, laid even with the ground. Just as He always has spoken this way about them. ..it's "not" something new as some people would have you believe that it is.

Isaiah 40:1-3

• "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
• Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
• The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

Think about it. Using your hermeneutic, we would have to conclude that God is prophesying of a physical war coming to an end in the physical city of Jerusalem. And of a construction worker going through the streets of this city Jerusalem straightening out crooked roads. Does this sounds right to you, humm? Because your system of interpretation is wrong! WRONG! We cannot interpret by what seems right in our own ears and eyes, but we interpret scripture by other scripture. And that is how we know that the warfare being accomplished is our spiritual warfare we had with God before Christ. And the Jerusalem, in view, is the body of God's people. And the making straight a highway in the desert is turning away from sin and following the straight and narrow road in Christ. This is what Isaiah 40:3 is about!

You see, A person's hermeneutic or system of interpretation will determine how he understands scripture, cities, stones, temples, abomination, and restoration.

And no, this has NOTHING to do with the physical temple in 70AD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

In the Olivet discourse, Jesus predicts that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. From historical records, we know that the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed it in 70AD.

Luke 21:20
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

On the contrary!

The history cannot prove "anything" with relationship to the Bible, it is the Bible that proves everything of history. And "unfortunately, that is what seems to be most abstruse to you, and your most glaring obstacle to the truth of scripture. The walls, gates, buildings, city and temple of the people of God, He did not look upon as brick and mortar. But this is all discerned in spirit and truth. Trust in physical stones, mountains, and Temples is a flawed hermeneutic, but sadly, that is "all" you have! But trust in the Lord, and you have salvation for walls of the city, and a City that shall never be brought down level with the ground. But it's in God's defining of these terms.

Isaiah 26:1-5

• "In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.
• Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.
• Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
• Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:
• For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust."

God's not talking about a physical city of Jerusalem here, and neither is He talking about one in Luke 19 that will be brought the level to the ground. Unfortunately, you look at the Spiritual interpretation which God has always used, as some sort of egregious mistake that we are making. And so you approach it very discursively and are very dismissive. Typically of those with carnal minds! Thus you will always miss the whole point of God's message. Not understanding what God means when He says "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." It is NOT PHYSICAL!

Matthew 16:11-12

• "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
• Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

The Lord speaks in parables. The Lord's servants began to understand the Spiritual nature of God's words, but the Pharisees and Sadducees, like the Dispensationalists, and Preterists, did not! And much of the church today follows in that same vein of looking to the carnal, physical, temporal worldly items and elements for confirmation, whether in 70AD or in modern Israel. That's also the error of Premillennialism and to some degree, Postmillennialism.

When Christ said the people must eat His flesh, they turned away from Him "In Droves" and followed Him no more (John 6:48-66). Because their hermeneutic was very different from what Christ's was. Likewise, your hermeneutic seems to be eclectic, rather than of simply accepting "authority" of the scriptures concerning the spiritual nature of Christ's prophesies. For example, Scriptures say something, and you retort with man's pages of history as confirmation. Scripture says something else, and you retort again with the witness of men. You seem incredulous that we cannot understand the truth of these secular historians. This should not be. The bottom line is, we have two very different interpretive systems, and so I doubt we will ever come to agreement on this. As long as we think with the mind of man, that is, in a worldly fashion rather than with the mind of Christ (1st Corinthians 2:16), we will never receive the truth of what is written in scripture. We will never understand that God has a very different thought process than of merely a desire to throw down "all" the temporal stones of a building in AD 70. That's where man's eyes are directed, but God's ways are not man's ways. He always has defined Jerusalem differently than men, and the "Spiritual nature" of His defining is nothing new. That's a Biblical fact.

Isaiah 55:9

• "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

And God, through His Scripture, definitely did not talk about physical stones of the temple in Luke 19 or 70AD!

 

[jgr]

On the contrary!

The history cannot prove "anything" with relationship to the Bible, it is the Bible that proves everything of history. And "unfortunately, that is what seems to be most abstruse to you, and your most glaring obstacle to the truth of scripture. The walls, gates, buildings, city and temple of the people of God, He did not look upon as brick and mortar. But this is all discerned in spirit and truth. Trust in physical stones, mountains, and Temples is a flawed hermeneutic, but sadly, that is "all" you have! But trust in the Lord, and you have salvation for walls of the city, and a City that shall never be brought down level with the ground. But it's in God's defining of these terms.

Isaiah 26:1-5

• "In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.
• Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.
• Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
• Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:
• For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust."

God's not talking about a physical city of Jerusalem here, and neither is He talking about one in Luke 19 that will be brought the level to the ground. Unfortunately, you look at the Spiritual interpretation which God has always used, as some sort of egregious mistake that we are making. And so you approach it very discursively and are very dismissive. Typically of those with carnal minds! Thus you will always miss the whole point of God's message. Not understanding what God means when He says "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." It is NOT PHYSICAL!

Matthew 16:11-12

• "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
• Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

The Lord speaks in parables. The Lord's servants began to understand the Spiritual nature of God's words, but the Pharisees and Sadducees, like the Dispensationalists, and Preterists, did not! And much of the church today follows in that same vein of looking to the carnal, physical, temporal worldly items and elements for confirmation, whether in 70AD or in modern Israel. That's also the error of Premillennialism and to some degree, Postmillennialism.

When Christ said the people must eat His flesh, they turned away from Him "In Droves" and followed Him no more (John 6:48-66). Because their hermeneutic was very different from what Christ's was. Likewise, your hermeneutic seems to be eclectic, rather than of simply accepting "authority" of the scriptures concerning the spiritual nature of Christ's prophesies. For example, Scriptures say something, and you retort with man's pages of history as confirmation. Scripture says something else, and you retort again with the witness of men. You seem incredulous that we cannot understand the truth of these secular historians. This should not be. The bottom line is, we have two very different interpretive systems, and so I doubt we will ever come to agreement on this. As long as we think with the mind of man, that is, in a worldly fashion rather than with the mind of Christ (1st Corinthians 2:16), we will never receive the truth of what is written in scripture. We will never understand that God has a very different thought process than of merely a desire to throw down "all" the temporal stones of a building in AD 70. That's where man's eyes are directed, but God's ways are not man's ways. He always has defined Jerusalem differently than men, and the "Spiritual nature" of His defining is nothing new. That's a Biblical fact.

Isaiah 55:9

• "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

And God, through His Scripture, definitely did not talk about physical stones of the temple in Luke 19 or 70AD!

Matthew 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
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

The believers in Jerusalem took this admonition literally, fled, and survived.

Did they misunderstand? Should they have recognized that Christ was speaking figuratively, stayed where they were, and perished?