Third Temple Scam in modern Jerusalem?

[jgr]

boondoggle

Cultism.

But without a following.

 

[mkgal1]

But preaching the gospel is not part of the new covenant! So the disciples preaching it have nothing to do with the seven years or the Jews or anything. that is just a false conflating of two separate items of God into one.

Yes the benefits of the new covenant have fallen on us gentiles because we have believed the gospel, but the gospel is not part of teh new covenant at all!

What were the disciples sharing, if not the New Covenant?

What is Peter’s sermon that's recorded for us in Acts 2, if not the New Covenant?

ETA: what was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in 30 AD (Acts 2) ....if not the New Covenant?

 

[mkgal1]

You are evading acknowledging that there is no requirement in Christianity to confirm the new covenant in Christ for 7 years, nor any such tradition in Christianity.

Requirement? No....we're fortunately past the days of burning at the stake.

The text in Daniel 9 that mentions "confirming a covenant" isn't for humans to do.....it was what God was going to do (and historical Christianity acknowledges that He has fulfilled His message sent through Gabriel).

However.....it's questionable to call a belief orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) Christianity that denies that Christ's arrival in 27 AD (on time).......the Crucifixion and Resurrection and ascension to heaven as fulfillment of Daniel's Messianic prophecy. And it's even more questionable when a person takes a fulfilled Messianic prophecy and frames it as a future work of a person called antichrist.

 

[mkgal1]

From post 531:

"the gospel is not part of teh new covenant at all!"

It's time for another Reformation.

Or some "let's get back to Christianity basics" classes or preaching to be widespread in today's churches.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes the benefits of the new covenant have fallen on us gentiles because we have believed the gospel, but the gospel is not part of teh new covenant at all!

If the Gospel is not part of the New Covenant at all....then please contrast the two for us.

 

[BABerean2]

boondoggle

Thank you very much.

"boondoggle" is a word which perfectly describes your viewpoint of Daniel 9:27, since you cannot show us any other person who agrees with you.


.

 

[BABerean2]

You are evading acknowledging that there is no requirement in Christianity to confirm the new covenant in Christ for 7 years, nor any such tradition in Christianity.

If your statement above is true, how in the world did the 1599 Geneva Bible end up with the following notes about Daniel 9:27?

-----------------------------------------------------

Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.


Daniel 9:27
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.


.

 

[Douggg]

Requirement? No....we're fortunately past the days of burning at the stake.

Confirming the new covenant in Christ never was a requirement in Christianity.

In the bible, however, there is a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years.

 

[Douggg]

If your statement above is true, how in the world did the 1599 Geneva Bible end up with the following notes about Daniel 9:27?

You are asking me why someone did not know or understanding something.

They are not here to defend themselves. So we will never know.

boondoggle.

 

[Douggg]

Thank you very much.

"boondoggle" is a word which perfectly describes your viewpoint of Daniel 9:27, since you cannot show us any other person who agrees with you.


.

Here is the definition of a boondoggle.

NOUN

1. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

 

[BABerean2]

You are asking me why someone did not know or understanding something.

No.

I am asking you why someone did understand something which you claim was never a tradition in Christianity?


.

 

[BABerean2]

Here is the definition of a boondoggle.

NOUN

1. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

That is a perfect definition of your interpretation of Daniel 9:27, which comes only from you.

You claim to have come up with something no other Bible scholar has ever found.


.

 

[Douggg]

No.

I am asking you why someone did understand something which you claim was never a tradition in Christianity?


.

That commentary is not saying that there is a requirement in Christianity to confirm the new covenant in Christ every 7 years.

 

[Douggg]

That is a perfect definition of your interpretation of Daniel 9:27, which comes only from you.


.

I am talking about the topic of Daniel 9:27 itself - not about who or how many people agree with my interpretation(s).

"who or how many people agree with my interpretation(s)" is a boondoggle.

 

[BABerean2]

That commentary is not saying that there is a requirement in Christianity to confirm the new covenant in Christ every 7 years.

Who said anything about every 7 years in Daniel 9:27, except for you?


.

 

[Douggg]

Who said anything about every 7 years in Daniel 9:27, except for you?


.

What you should be prefacing all of your posts with is....

"Here is what we in New Covenant theology and Covenant theology believe about Daniel 9."
______________________________________________

There is no requirement to confirm the new covenant in Christ for 7 years, nor every 7 years.

However, there is a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant every 7 years in the bible, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

 

[BABerean2]

However, there is a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant every 7 years in the bible, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.



Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."


Can you explain why the scriptural reference beside of Daniel 9:27 in my NKJV Bible is Matthew 26:28?


.

 

[mkgal1]

Confirming the new covenant in Christ never was a requirement in Christianity.

In the bible, however, there is a requirement to confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years.

There was also this requirement as part of the Mt Sinai covenant:

Exodus 12:21 ~ Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go and take for yourselves lambs according to your families, and slay the Passover lamb.​

......and I hope you agree this was just a shadow - with Jesus being the substance reality of what this pointed to? I hope you agree that this has been fulfilled in the New Covenant?

 

[Douggg]

Can you explain why the scriptural reference beside of Daniel 9:27 in my NKJV Bible is Matthew 26:28?

We have been through this before.

Hebrews 9:15 was written after the resurrection. Before the resurrection...

Luke 18:
31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Do you understand that gospel of salvation, the new covenant in Christ, by his death on the cross and resurrection on the third day - was hid from the disciples' understanding, until after the resurrection? When Jesus opened their understanding of it in Luke 24:44-48.

The resurrection of the messiah on the third day in not in Daniel 9. The new covenant in Christ is not the covenant to be confirmed for 7 years by the prince who shall come.

 

[Douggg]

There was also this requirement as part of the Mt Sinai covenant:

Exodus 12:21 ~ Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go and take for yourselves lambs according to your families, and slay the Passover lamb.​

......and I hope you agree this was just a shadow - with Jesus being the substance reality of what this pointed to? I hope you agree that this has been fulfilled in the New Covenant?

The point is that the Mt. Sinai covenant was the covenant of in place during the 483 years - which you are claiming is a curse. It is only a curse, when the Jews get into worshiping foreign gods, which they did not do during that period of time, nor thereafter.

However, the Mt. Sinai covenant is not, was not, and never with be a covenant for receiving eternal life, due to the penalty of sin.