The difference between the rapture of the Church and the second coming of Jesus

[jgr]

No one was named in the two verses. But two were mentioned. One was "Messiah the prince." (Messiah is a title, not a name.) And the other is "the prince that shall come," whose people destroyed "the city and the sanctuary."

Were the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary the Romans and Jews?

 

[BABerean2]

Dual covenant theology espouses that there is justification on an individual level via two different paths. That is not what is being argued here.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Were the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary the Romans and Jews?

No, just he Romans.

 

[Biblewriter]

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

.

I agree with you that what this man teaches is serious bad doctrine.

 

[BABerean2]

I agree with you that what this man teaches is serious bad doctrine.

Pastor John Hagee was interviewed by FOX News yesterday in relation to the embassy in Jerusalem.

Pastor Robert Jeffress from Texas is another Dispensationalist who was interviewed by FOX yesterday and will be giving a prayer at the ceremony in Jerusalem, today.

Both of these men are teaching a form of Dual Covenant Theology, which Paul spoke against in Galatians 1:6-9.

The president's daughter converted to modern Orthodox Judaism, which uses the Babylonian Talmud as its source of truth.
The Talmud says blasphemous things about Christ, based on the book "Jesus in the Talmud" by Dr. Peter Schafer, who is a Jewish scholar.

For most of the history of the modern State of Israel a person could not become an Israeli citizen, without rejecting Christianity.

I am not promoting any of the men in the following video.
Judge everything they say, based on scripture.
In the video a rabbi reveals the process that must occur for a person to become a citizen of modern Israel.

The main speaker in the video is Pastor Steven Anderson, from Arizona.
Based on modern DNA testing presented in the video, Pastor Anderson's grandmother is Jewish.

.

 

[jgr]

No, just he Romans.

Seems that contemporary Jewish historians disagree:

"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

Thus:

The Romans and Jews destroyed the city and sanctuary.
The "people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:26).
Therefore, the Romans and Jews were the "people of the prince that shall come".
The Romans were the people of Messiah enlisted as His agents of judgment and destruction. (post #193)
The Jews were the people of Messiah under the old covenant.

Therefore, Messiah was the "prince that shall come". (Daniel 9:26)

 

[Biblewriter]

Pastor John Hagee was interviewed by FOX News yesterday in relation to the embassy in Jerusalem.

Pastor Robert Jeffress from Texas is another Dispensationalist who was interviewed by FOX yesterday and will be giving a prayer at the ceremony in Jerusalem, today.

Both of these men are teaching a form of Dual Covenant Theology, which Paul spoke against in Galatians 1:6-9.

The president's daughter converted to modern Orthodox Judaism, which uses the Babylonian Talmud as its source of truth.
The Talmud says blasphemous things about Christ, based on the book "Jesus in the Talmud" by Dr. Peter Schafer, who is a Jewish scholar.

For most of the history of the modern State of Israel a person could not become an Israeli citizen, without rejecting Christianity.

I am not promoting any of the men in the following video.
Judge everything they say, based on scripture.
In the video a rabbi reveals the process that must occur for a person to become a citizen of modern Israel.

The main speaker in the video is Pastor Steven Anderson, from Arizona.
Based on modern DNA testing presented in the video, Pastor Anderson's grandmother is Jewish.

.

I am not interested in anti-semantic rants, nor should any other Christian be.

 

[Biblewriter]

Seems that contemporary Jewish historians disagree:

"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

Thus:

The Romans and Jews destroyed the city and sanctuary.
The "people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and sanctuary (Daniel 9:26).
Therefore, the Romans and Jews were the "people of the prince that shall come".
The Romans were the people of Messiah enlisted as His agents of judgment and destruction. (post #193)
The Jews were the people of Messiah under the old covenant.

Therefore, Messiah was the "prince that shall come". (Daniel 9:26)

Your post is typical of the distortions necessary to support historicism. It is a well known historical fact that the Romans destroyed the city and the sanctuary. And the article you have quoted does not say otherwise. What it does say is that the madness of the Jews brought this destruction about, which is also a well known fact of history. And there is zero basis for pretending that "the prince that shall come" after Messiah was to be cut off was the Messiah. This wrested interpretation does violence to the grammar of the sentence, and makes reduces a plainly stated prophecy to gibberish.

 

[jgr]

Your post is typical of the distortions necessary to support historicism. It is a well known historical fact that the Romans destroyed the city and the sanctuary. And the article you have quoted does not say otherwise. What it does say is that the madness of the Jews brought this destruction about, which is also a well known fact of history. And there is zero basis for pretending that "the prince that shall come" after Messiah was to be cut off was the Messiah. This wrested interpretation does violence to the grammar of the sentence, and makes reduces a plainly stated prophecy to gibberish.

Scripture declares. History records. Logic confirms.

Unassailable. Indisputable. Irrefutable.

The "prince that shall come" was Messiah.

 

[jgr]

I am not interested in anti-semantic rants, nor should any other Christian be.

Can you provide an anti-semantic example?

 

[BABerean2]

I am not interested in anti-semantic rants, nor should any other Christian be.

Hopefully, you know that both Arabs and Jews are "semitic" peoples.


God is not a racist based on the scripture below, and neither am I.

1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.


Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Scripture declares. History records. Logic confirms.

Unassailable. Indisputable. Irrefutable.

The "prince that shall come" was Messiah.

None of this is even approximately correct.

The scripture in question does not say that "the prince that shall come" was to be the Messiah. The "history" you cited was incorrect. And the logic you presented would not do credit to a fifth grade student.

 

[Micah888]

The "prince that shall come" was Messiah.

That is simply ABSURD. Let's look at Dan 9:26

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.

Do you see the connection between the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and desolations which will be like a flood? Those desolations stem from the Abomination of Desolation, and the one who is responsible for that is the Anti-Messiah, the Antichrist. Therefore he is "the prince that shall come". And he is the one who causes the sacrifices and oblations to cease in the next verse.

 

[jgr]

None of this is even approximately correct.

True, to anyone unable or unwilling to understand it.

 

[jgr]

That is simply ABSURD. Let's look at Dan 9:26

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.

Do you see the connection between the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and desolations which will be like a flood? Those desolations stem from the Abomination of Desolation, and the one who is responsible for that is the Anti-Messiah, the Antichrist. Therefore he is "the prince that shall come". And he is the one who causes the sacrifices and oblations to cease in the next verse.

Absurd to anyone unable or unwilling to understand it.

I see Messiah -- Christ -- explicitly in the passage.

Where do you see antichrist explicitly in the passage?

 

[Micah888]

Absurd to anyone unable or unwilling to understand it.

I see Messiah -- Christ -- explicitly in the passage.

Where do you see antichrist explicitly in the passage?

All you have to do in understand that there are two part to that verse, and your problem is resolved.

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

ANTI-MESSIAH: 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.

 

[BABerean2]

ANTI-MESSIAH: 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.

Was Jesus being "ANTI-MESSIAH" when he revealed that the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed?


Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 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.
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.

.

 

[jgr]

All you have to do in understand that there are two part to that verse, and your problem is resolved.

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

ANTI-MESSIAH: 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.

No idea what "problem" you speak of.

The only individual identified as a prince in the passage, including the "prince that shall come", is Messiah.
No problem there.

ANTI-MESSIAH is unseen, unsaid, and unknown in the passage.
No problem there.

There's something called "interpretation by imagination" which does conjure an ANTI-MESSIAH prince that shall come.
Nothing but problems there.

 

[Copperhead]

That is simply ABSURD. Let's look at Dan 9:26

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.

Do you see the connection between the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and desolations which will be like a flood? Those desolations stem from the Abomination of Desolation, and the one who is responsible for that is the Anti-Messiah, the Antichrist. Therefore he is "the prince that shall come". And he is the one who causes the sacrifices and oblations to cease in the next verse.

that "flood" in that passage, many have suggested it is a reference to the diaspora that would come following the destruction of the city and sanctuary. I don't know if it actually does refer to the diaspora, just relaying what some scholars have stated.

And it would make sense if the following is true.

Verse 27 does not necessarily occur at the same time as verse 26. The is an implied gap. This happens in many prophetic passages. Isaiah 61:1-2 is an example. Yeshua read this passage in the synagogue when He initiated His earthly ministry.....

Isaiah 61:1-2 (NKJV) “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,

But Yeshua stopped reading at the highlighted portion. He did not go on and read the part of "day of vengeance of our God". There is a implied gap between His first and second coming. The vengeance of God coming at a later time. We see that in Daniel 9 also between verses 26 and 27, with verse 27 referring to the end times when the false messiah will confirm the covenant with Israel and then will break it at the mid point.

Actually, Messiah the Prince in verse 25 should be translated Messiah the King. the Hebrew is nagid. The word was first used of King Saul. And in verse 26, it says the people of prince "who is to come" will destroy the city and sanctuary. Not the prince himself. It is not until verse 27 that the prince referred to in Verse 26 then shows up. And no "prince" confirmed "the covenant" with Israel for one week of years and then abrogated it in the middle of that week of years and set himself up as the abomination of desolation referred to by Daniel and Yeshua. That comes later when the false messiah "confirms the covenant".

Some like to make that this guy will make a peace treaty or some such thing with Israel and break it. The Scripture is clear.... confirm the covenant. I believe it is the Abrahamic covenant that is the land covenant with Israel. Something many in the Church have forgotten is a everlasting covenant.

 

[BABerean2]

I believe it is the Abrahamic covenant that is the land covenant with Israel. Something many in the Church have forgotten is a everlasting covenant.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


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; (from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
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.


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,


.