Daniel 9:

[Spiritual Jew]

Do you then think it was meaning the 2nd temple

Yes.

and that the 2nd temple was actually still holy after Christ died and resurrected?

No. But, Jesus hadn't died yet when He gave the Olivet Discourse. So, He was talking about it's status at the time He was speaking. The disciples certainly would have understood what He was referring to while He was speaking. Should He have said instead "When you see the abomination of desolation stand in what is currently the holy place, but won't be the holy place any more when this happens, get out of Jerusalem as fast as you can and tell everyone in Judea to hightail it to the mountains"?

It seems silly to me, that if it can't be a 3rd rebuilt temple since that temple wouldn't be holy in God's eyes, it could still be meaning the 2nd temple though, because that temple would still be holy in God's eyes even after His Son died and resurrected but a 3rd rebuilt one wouldn't be. If you can't see a major problem here either way, I don't know what to tell you. It's clues like this that clearly tell us that Matthew 24:15 has zero to do with a temple in 70 AD. It also has zero to do with a rebuilt one in the future, yet, that verse involves the future still.

You're clearly not thinking in terms of the status of the temple at that time. It was still the holy place even if only for a very short time longer, so that's why Jesus still called it that. He knew that the disciples would know what He was talking about. Do you think at the time Jesus was speaking to them the disciples would have thought that "the holy place" was anything but the temple standing at that time?

You would think if anyone should know what this adds up to then, you would think it should at least be Amils that would. It's not meaning nor involving a literal temple, period.

Yes, it was. If only you would acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 then you would understand this, but, sadly, you don't.

The same way 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple.

That verse is talking about something different entirely than what Matthew 24:15 is about. One passage relates to things happening in and around Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15-22) and the other refers to things happen globally (2 Thess 2).

To argue that a 3rd rebuilt temple can't be holy, but the 2nd one still can be, even after Christ's death and resurrection, is nonsensical.

That isn't what I'm arguing. Why do you have to constantly make straw man arguments, David? You do it repeatedly. It's tiresome. In another thread you tried to say that Amils believe that the GWTJ has to be completed within 24 hours, which isn't true. Are you even trying to understand what we believe? After all these years where we've explained what we believe many times, you still don't have a clue about some of what we believe. It's incredible.

If the 2nd one can still be holy in 70 AD, then a 3rd rebuilt one can still be holy as well. Neither are meaning before Christ died and rose. Both are meaning after He died and rose. How can any literal temple post His death and resurrection still be holy, including the 2nd one?

Let me go find the straw man you're arguing with and see if he is willing to respond.

If you or any Amils still want to insist the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD,

None of us are.

then you all need to admit that a 3rd rebuilt one would still be holy as well, thus quit calling that idea nonsense when it would be equally nonsensical if the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, meaning up until it was destroyed.

David, how much time do you think you could get back if you could get back all the time you've wasted making straw man arguments? It would probably be at least a full year's worth of time.

 

[DavidPT]

I am an amillennialist who does not believe that the second temple was holy in 70AD. Not even the days after the veil was rent. And I also do not support the theory of the third temple in the future.

Actually, I was going to make mention of you since you are an Amil, but not an Amil who argues in a nonsensical manner, such as, a 3rd rebuilt one would not be holy, but that the 2nd one would be, all the way up to 70 AD. Sometimes I think I would make a better Amil than some Amils make. Not including you here since I fully realize you don't interpret the holy place in Matthew 24:15 to be meaning the 2nd temple in 70 AD, nor do you take it to mean a 3rd rebuilt one either. Even though I'm not an Amil, at least not yet anyway, I have a lot more in common with you than I do most of these other Amils, apparently.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Actually, I was going to make mention of you since you are an Amil, but not an Amil who argues in a nonsensical manner, such as, a 3rd rebuilt one would not be holy, but that the 2nd one would be, all the way up to 70 AD.

And, yet, that is not even what any Amil here is saying. You never bother to find out what we actually believe first before making criticisms of what we supposedly believe and you just make assumptions and go on and on wasting time with your straw man arguments.

Sometimes I think I would make a better Amil than some Amils make.

LOL! The way you misrepresent what we believe all the time? No chance!

 

[Timtofly]

Here is what they use...

25And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [for] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times.

In Judaism, messiah means anointed. The kings and the priests were considered "anointed's". So I gather they are making the differentiation of the anointed in verse 25 being an anointed king.

Your version uses "king" and then "monarch"? It is the same word in both verses. It should be "the Prince" in both verses. Verse 26 puts the word as a preposition. But here is the rub: verse 25 puts them together as one "the Messiah the Prince". Verse 26 states the Messiah was cut off. Yet as Prince, Jesus still was a witness to the completed destruction. Verse 26 is not a complete separation of thought between the Messiah and the Prince. The whole point of being cut off as the Messiah was the wholesale destruction of the temple itself whenever that would occur. No more temple was necessary because the Messiah was cut off. The Lamb sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

 

[Timtofly]

Doug, why are you so ignorant? What is your excuse for that?

Cutoff definition:

noun: cut-off; plural noun: cut-offs; noun: cutoff; plural noun: cutoffs

1. a point or level that is a designated limit of something.
   "1 p.m. is the cutoff for being out of the woods"
2. an act of stopping or interrupting the supply or provision of something.
   "a cutoff of aid would be a disaster"

LOL. The word "cutoff" is not a verb. It can be an adjective or a noun, but not a verb. The Messiah was cut off (2 words), not cutoff.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Doug. Is this how you study scripture, too? You just make assumptions without doing any research? No wonder you get everything wrong in scripture. You can't even understand the difference between verbs and nouns.

The Hebrew word in Daniel 9:26 is a verb. Some translations put the noun in the middle of the verb phrase. The thought is both an action and the result of that action. Why so picky and judgmental?

 

[jgr]

Some translations put the noun in the middle of the verb phrase.

None of them does.

Why so picky and judgmental?

Why was the Holy Spirit who inspired the verse's words, so picky and judgmental about His choice of words?

 

[Douggg]

You have been misinterpreting every scripture that you have given me and I've shown you the real meaning of those scriptures. I can't force you to understand the real meaning of these scriptures that you're misinterpreting.

John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

How can that be misinterpreted?

Tying in with...

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The another is the Antichrist. Both of those scriptures are by John, who later wrote about them who he was talking to in 1John2:18 were already aware that antichrist - singular - will come.

Now where would they have previously heard that? I am pretty sure it was from John, who Jesus would have enlightened him.

The person to become the Antichrist must be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name. The Jews (Judaism) are looking for their King of Israel messiah, someone other than Jesus.

 

[Timtofly]

None of them does.

The very first example does.

shall (Messiah)be cut off.

(Messiah) shall be cut off.

Messiah = noun

Shall be cut off = verb

Only two words in the Hebrew.

 

[TribulationSigns]

John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

How can that be misinterpreted?

Tying in with...

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The another is the Antichrist. Both of those scriptures are by John, who later wrote about them who he was talking to in 1John2:18 were already aware that antichrist - singular.

The person to become the Antichrist must be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name. The Jews (Judaism) are looking for their King of Israel messiah, someone other than Jesus.

Not going to happen. Sorry.

 

[jgr]

The very first example does.

shall (Messiah)be cut off.

(Messiah) shall be cut off.

Messiah = noun

Shall be cut off = verb

Only two words in the Hebrew.

You had said "Some translations put the noun in the middle of the verb phrase.

The verb phrase is "cut off".

There is no translation that places a noun between "cut" and "off".

 

[Timtofly]

You had said "Some translations put the noun in the middle of the verb phrase.

The verb phrase is "cut off".

There is no translation that places a noun between "cut" and "off".

No the phrase is "shall be cut off". That is the Hebrew word. The Hebrew word is not "cut off" and no Hebrew verb, "shall be".

The noun is "Messiah". The verb is "shall be cut off". In English we may split the phrase, but it is a verb phrase, not a preposition, not a noun, not an adverb, nor an adjective. I did not say they split a future perfect, to separate the noun in the verb phrase. I was pointing out they put the noun into the verb phrase itself.

You all are arguing over the translation of the single Hebrew verb. Being cut off is a state of being, as declared "shall be". It is not a noun. It may be a participle. Jesus is not a "cut off". Jesus has been "cut off". At the most it is an adjective describing the current physical state of Jesus from being physically on the earth.

 

[jgr]

No the phrase is "shall be cut off". That is the Hebrew word. The Hebrew word is not "cut off" and no Hebrew verb, "shall be".

The noun is "Messiah". The verb is "shall be cut off". In English we may split the phrase, but it is a verb phrase, not a preposition, not a noun, not an adverb, nor an adjective. I did not say they split a future perfect, to separate the noun in the verb phrase. I was pointing out they put the noun into the verb phrase itself.

You all are arguing over the translation of the single Hebrew verb. Being cut off is a state of being, as declared "shall be". It is not a noun. It may be a participle. Jesus is not a "cut off". Jesus has been "cut off". At the most it is an adjective describing the current physical state of Jesus from being physically on the earth.

The salient point is that the Hebrew does not translate as "cutoff".

The Hebrew translates as "cut off".

 

[Timtofly]

The salient point is that the Hebrew does not translate as "cutoff".

The Hebrew translates as "cut off".

Still only a verb in Hebrew.

 

[jgr]

Still only a verb in Hebrew.

Of course. Where have I claimed otherwise?

What do you mean by "only" a verb?

 

[Timtofly]

Of course. Where have I claimed otherwise?

What do you mean by "only" a verb?

Some claimed it was a verb and were corrected that it was a noun.

 

[jgr]

Some claimed it was a verb and were corrected that it was a noun.

"Cutoff" is a noun, and "cut off" is a verb.

As shown previously.

cutoff
noun

cut off
verb

 

[Spiritual Jew]

John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

How can that be misinterpreted?

Tying in with...

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The another is the Antichrist.

No, it is not! Did you even read my previous post where I addressed this?

Jesus talked about there being MANY false Christs (Matt 24:5), not just one. Do you understand that?

So, what He was saying in John 5:43 is that if they would not accept Him, even though He came in the Father's name, then they (unbelieving Jews) would be willing to accept anyone else besides Him (any of the many false Christs He said would come).

But, what you're not thinking about here is that some of them could accept one of the many false Christs, and some others could accept another of the many false Christs, and others could accept another one of the many false Christs and so on. One singled out "Antichrist" is not something that Jesus ever talked about and is not something that John ever wrote about. Instead, they talked about MANY false Christs and MANY antichrists.

Both of those scriptures are by John, who later wrote about them who he was talking to in 1John2:18 were already aware that antichrist - singular - will come.

Now where would they have previously heard that? I am pretty sure it was from John, who Jesus would have enlightened him.

What he enlightened them about in 1 John, which he may not have done before, is that there were MANY antichrists and not just one. And the spirit of antichrist was already in the world back then (1 John 4:3). It only follows that antichrist was already in the world back then as well. And it was. But, there wasn't just one, there were MANY.

The person to become the Antichrist must be anointed the King of Israel, but coming in his own name. The Jews (Judaism) are looking for their King of Israel messiah, someone other than Jesus.

You're making this up. It's not taught anywhere in scripture. You are twisting the scriptures you referenced to fit this false made up narrative.

 

[Douggg]

Jesus talked about there being MANY false Christs (Matt 24:5), not just one. Do you understand that?

So, what He was saying in John 5:43 is that if they would not accept Him, even though He came in the Father's name, then they (unbelieving Jews) would be willing to accept anyone else besides Him (any of the many false Christs He said would come).

But, what you're not thinking about here is that some of them could accept one of the many false Christs, and some others could accept another of the many false Christs, and others could accept another one of the many false Christs and so on. One singled out "Antichrist" is not something that Jesus ever talked about and is not something that John ever wrote about. Instead, they talked about MANY false Christs and MANY antichrists.

Coming in His Father's name is associated with being the King of Israel, as is shown in John 12:13.

No false Christ has ever being anointed the King of Israel..... yet. Because the Antichrist is one specific person.

 

[Douggg]

What he enlightened them about in 1 John, which he may not have done before, is that there were MANY antichrists and not just one. And the spirit of antichrist was already in the world back then (1 John 4:3). It only follows that antichrist was already in the world back then as well. And it was. But, there wasn't just one, there were MANY.

But they had already heard antichrist singular shall come.

They had not heard of many antichrist's previously, because there was no such thing as many antichrists preached to them - until John likened others to the coming singular antichrist.

The spirit of antichrist - is the spirit of the one singular antichrist.

It is not the spirit of antichrists plural.

 

[Douggg]

As shown previously.

cutoff
noun

cut off as used in Daniel 9:26 was not talking about a new channel formed in the oxbow of a river. Nor as a shortened pair of jeans (clothing). A cutoff could also be a removed, sawed off, piece of lumber.

If anything in my post 123, I typed cut off as one word in my haste, not realizing it would cause such a stir. The text says cut off, two words, a compound verb.

give it a rest.