Third Temple Scam in modern Jerusalem?

[jgr]

In the KJV, the messiah cutoff is before the destruction of the temple and city in the text - grammatically, .... and historically a fact.

The prince who shall come is of those people - the Romans.

Jesus was not a Roman, but a Jew. A fact.

Do you think Messiah was still cut off in 70 AD? What do you think "cut off" means?

The prince who shall come was the prince Messiah.

Messiah who was in heaven in 70 AD was neither Roman nor Jew.

 

[Douggg]

Do you think Messiah was still cut off in 70 AD? What do you think "cut off" means?

The prince who shall come was the prince Messiah.

Messiah who was in heaven in 70 AD was neither Roman nor Jew.

Cutoff as it is used in Daniel 9:26 means killed. It does not specify in Daniel 9:26 by what method.

By the time the city and sanctuary were destroyed, Jesus's death on the cross was history.

You can say the prince who shall come is prince messiah - but that prince messiah will be the King of Israel/messiah, coming in his own name. He is the great opposer to Jesus, and the new covenant.

Jesus is the rightful King of Israel/messiah.

The first noel - born is the King of Israel.

_____________________________________________________

The great opposer to Jesus is end times.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

Hakhel - Wikipedia

"The term Hakhel (Hebrew הקהל) refers to a biblical commandment of assembling all Jewish men, women and children, as well as "strangers" to assemble and hear the reading of the Torah by the king of Israel once every seven years."

 

[mkgal1]

And there is where we differ. I believe the covenant in question is in Dan. 9:27. I don't think that is a covenant of God. I think the Beast of Revelation confirms this covenant.

No beast was mentioned here by Gabriel. This was a message of hope. Look at the broader context:

Daniel 9:4
“O, Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant of loving devotion(d) to those who love Him and keep His commandments
​

......you expect the beast of Revelation to fulfill this?

Daniel 9
24Seventy weeks(e) are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.(f)​

 

[mkgal1]

Cutoff as it is used in Daniel 9:26 means killed.

Jesus defeated death. That's the whole plot of the story.

 

[Douggg]

And there is where we differ. I believe the covenant in question is in Dan. 9:27. I don't think that is a covenant of God. I think the Beast of Revelation confirms this covenant.

By the time the person has become the beast in Revelation, he will have transgressed the covenant by claiming himself to be God.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

The Antichrist will confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

The revealed man of sin transgresses the Mt. Sinai covenant by claiming to be God.

_________________________________________________________

This is nowhere near as complicated as some of you are trying to make it.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

The little horn is leader of the EU, King of the Roman empire end times.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

Following Gog/Magog, the prince who shall come moves his EU army into the middle east on the premise of being peace keeper in the region.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

The person is perceived by the Jews to be the promised King of Israel/messiah. And will be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name. Anointed the King of Israel, he confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

In the middle of the 7 years, the person transgresses the Mt. Sinai covenant by claiming to be God. Revealing himself to be the man of sin, and not the messiah after all. The Jews reject him from continuing as their King of Israel, ending his time as the Antichrist.

the little horn>prince who shall come>the Antichrist>the revealed man of sin>the beast

After the revealed man of sin is killed and brought back to life, he is the beast for the remainder of the 7 years. The ten EU leaders hand their kingdom over to him to be dictator, King of the Roman empire in the end times.

 

[jgr]

Cutoff as it is used in Daniel 9:26 means killed. It does not specify in Daniel 9:26 by what method.

Yes. Was Jesus still killed in 70 AD?

By the time the city and sanctuary were destroyed, Jesus's death on the cross was history.

His life wasn't history. He was fully alive in heaven in 70 AD, directing the divine destruction of the nation of Israel which He had prophesied a generation earlier.

You can say the prince who shall come is prince messiah - but that prince messiah will be the King of Israel/messiah, coming in his own name. He is the great opposer to Jesus, and the new covenant.

There is no difference between Messiah in Daniel 9 and Messiah anywhere else in Scripture. Messiah is the same Messiah everywhere in Scripture.

Your claim that Messiah in Daniel 9 is antichrist is blasphemous. Does that concern you?

 

[Douggg]

Yes. Was Jesus still killed in 70 AD?

"still killed" ? What kind of term is that?

The messiah was cutoff 40 years thereabouts before the temple and city were destroyed.

Everyone here knows that Jesus rose from the grave the third day. But that is not in Daniel 9.

His life wasn't history. He was fully alive in heaven in 70 AD, directing the divine destruction of the nation of Israel which He had prophesied a generation earlier.

Jesus was not a Roman.

Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

There is no difference between Messiah in Daniel 9 and Messiah anywhere else in Scripture. Messiah is the same Messiah everywhere in Scripture.

Your claim that Messiah in Daniel 9 is antichrist is blasphemous. Does that concern you?

No, you are wrong. Messiah means anointed. Cyrus was an anointed. Saul was an anointed. "The" Messiah is a specific anointed chosen by God to be the King of Israel/messiah.

 

[jgr]

"still killed" ? What kind of term is that?

Your term.

Was Jesus still dead in 70 AD?

Jesus was not a Roman.

In heaven in 70 AD He was Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as always.

No, you are wrong. Messiah means anointed. Cyrus was an anointed. Saul was an anointed. "The" Messiah is a specific anointed chosen by God to be the King of Israel/messiah.

So how could He be antichrist?

 

[Douggg]

Your term.

Was Jesus still dead in 70 AD?

No, "still dead" is not my term.

Jesus rose from the grave on the third day. And is currently in heaven. And was in heaven while the city and sanctuary was destroyed - of the yet to come prince who shall come.

So how could He be antichrist?

Not so complicated...

 

[jgr]

Jesus rose from the grave on the third day. And is currently in heaven. And was in heaven while the city and sanctuary was destroyed

Exactly what I've been saying. Destroyed by Messiah the Prince in heaven.

You didn't answer my earlier question:

Your claim that Messiah in Daniel 9 is antichrist is blasphemous. Does that concern you?

 

[Douggg]

Exactly what I've been saying. Destroyed by Messiah the Prince in heaven.

The prince who shall come is end times. And is not Jesus.

You didn't answer my earlier question:

Your claim that Messiah in Daniel 9 is antichrist is blasphemous. Does that concern you?

boondoggle. You are misrepresenting me.

My position is in Not so complicated...

 

[BABerean2]

The prince who shall come is end times. And is not Jesus.

boondoggle. You are misrepresenting me.

My position is in Not so complicated...

Your position may not be so complicated, but you cannot find anyone else on the planet who agrees with you.

That would make your position a private interpretation of the text.

Then you turn around and attempt to discredit the interpretation found in the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.
You say the New Covenant is not found in Daniel 9, because the resurrection is not found in Daniel 9, even though the resurrection is not found in most of the New Covenant passages.

If I could not find anyone else on the planet who agreed with my interpretation of scripture, I would have to re-evaluate what I believed.
You are trying to sell something that nobody is willing to buy.

When are you going to see this fact?

Any unbiased witness here can easily see who is trying to sell the private interpretation "boondoggle", that nobody wants to buy.

.

 

[Douggg]

Your position may not be so complicated, but you cannot find anyone else on the planet who agrees with you.

That would make your position a private interpretation of the text.

boondoggle.

If I were to start naming people who agree with parts of what my position is - that would give you a way to criticize what my position is by finding some fault in them - which is what you want.

I am not playing that game BAB2. You are following the opinions of others in their interpretations... which are wrong. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[jgr]

boondoggle.

If I were to start naming people who agree with parts of what my position is - that would give you a way to criticize what my position is by finding some fault in them - which is what you want.

I am not playing that game BAB2. You are following the opinions of others in their interpretations... which are wrong. That's your problem, not mine.

Have you started your own church and written your own bible yet?

If you're the sole possessor of certain truth, it is incumbent upon you to do so. (James 4:17)

We'd like to see a name of someone who agrees with you who is recognized in Christian circles.

As not a cult.

 

[Douggg]

Have you started your own church and written your own bible yet?

If you're the sole possessor of certain truth, it is incumbent upon you to do so. (James 4:17)

We'd like to see a name of someone who agrees with you who is recognized in Christian circles.

As not a cult.

Same boondoggle as BAB2. You and BAB2 are covenant theology and new covenant theology, and follow the opinions of them in those movements. And are products of committee think.

The KJV bible is what I quote from. And certainly have not started my own church, nor group of followers.

 

[jgr]

And certainly have not started my own church, nor group of followers.

Any time you can produce that recognized name, we'd like to see it.

 

[BABerean2]

Same boondoggle as BAB2. You and BAB2 are covenant theology and new covenant theology, and follow the opinions of them in those movements. And are products of committee think.

The KJV bible is what I quote from. And certainly have not started my own church, nor group of followers.

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.


Is the Messiah's death in Daniel 9:26?


Many of us here understand why some deny the fulfillment of the New Covenant in certain passages of scripture.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

The New Covenant: Bob George

.

 

[nolidad]

In Christ, Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled. You're certainly free to deny it - but I agree with the author of Hebrews.

Spurgeon on the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy: The Spurgeon Library | God in the Covenant


What covenant is Paul referring to here? Is there more than one new covenant (in your belief)?

2 Corinthians 3:6
...who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. ​

Well if you believe the terms of the new covenant were fulfilled in Jesus, please explain how.

Here are the terms of the new covenant again:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jesus is not directly (implied because of new hearts) mentioned in the terms God laid out for the new covenant, so please explain how these specific terms with words that have specific meanings were fulfilled in Jesus?

 

[nolidad]

In Christ, Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled. You're certainly free to deny it - but I agree with the author of Hebrews.

Spurgeon on the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy: The Spurgeon Library | God in the Covenant


What covenant is Paul referring to here? Is there more than one new covenant (in your belief)?

2 Corinthians 3:6
...who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. ​

I love Spurgeon "The Prince of Preachers" !

The gladness and sadness of the written copy of this sermon is that not once did He mention the Jew which the covenant is made to.

He makes a perfectly good spiritual application of the benefits of teh covenant to the gentiles (and Jews) who enter into the body of Christ, but does not deal with the terms of teh covenant that are clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms.

 

[nolidad]

Please point out a lie there.

I was conversing with BAB and BAB should know by now where he lied! He needs to answer and not have you act as a "mediator"