Olivet Discourse revisited

[claninja]

No.

The kingdom of God came with power AFTER the fall of the Old Testament Congregation and pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost that empowered people of God to preach the salvation gospel, right here and then. Not when the physical temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Based on this response, it’s pretty clear you misunderstand me.

 

[Douggg]

Edit: additionally “their” is plural so any antecedent cannot be referring to a singular person, as you claim.

I didn't claim that the antecedent of "their" was a singular person. The "their" is the transgressors - specifically the ten kings of the end times fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, which the little horn person in that chapter comes up among those ten kings.

 

[Douggg]

So when He says that there will be a "time of the end," it can mean the time in which Israel is brought low enough to cancel their agreement with God. It signals the end of an era, the end of Israel's covenant relationship with God.

Randy, the king of fierce countenance of Daniel 8:23 stands up against the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25. It is talking about the beast of Revelation leading the kings of the earth to make war against Jesus.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Based on this response, it’s pretty clear you misunderstand me.

Maybe. We shall see...
So you agree that the Kingdom of God has already come with power through the Church? That Christ has already established His kingdom?

 

[claninja]

I didn't claim that the antecedent of "their" was a singular person. The "their" is the transgressors - specifically the ten kings of the end times fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, which the little horn person in that chapter comes up among those ten kings.

Thank you for clarifying, your argument seemed to point to Zelenski alone.

However, grammatically, transgressors cannot be the antecedent. So that’s just plain wrong.

Antecedents must agree in gender and number. In the LXX, transgressors is feminine, while “their” is masculine. However, “four kings” is masculine and plural, which matches the gender and number of “their”.

And In Hebrew transgressors is masculine, while their kingdom and four kings are both feminine. (Although I’m less versed on antecedent arrangement in Hebrew.)

 

[Douggg]

Thank you for clarifying, your argument seemed to point to Zelenski alone.

However, grammatically, transgressors cannot be the antecedent. So that’s just plain wrong.

Grammatically, transgressors can and does in that sentence.

I will give you an example....

In the latter time of their kingdom, the citizens of Russia will be led by someone that the bible calls Gog.

In that sentence, citizens is the antecedent of "their". Their kingdom is Russia.

In Daniel 8:23, instead of citizens, transgressors is the antecedent of their. It does not say the name of the kingdom in Daniel 8:23,
but from Daniel 8:9 we can know that the little horn comes from north and west of Israel with a strong army.

And from Daniel 7, regarding the fourth kingdom in that chapter, we can know that the ten kings and the little horn (who looks more stout than his fellows in the text), are the transgressors and the little horn person the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23.

The fourth kingdom (made up of former Roman Empire nations) in the end times is the EU, which has the strong army.

 

[claninja]

Grammatically, transgressors can and does in that sentence.

I will give you an example....

In the latter time of their kingdom, the citizens of Russia will be led by someone that the bible calls Gog.

In that sentence, citizens is the antecedent of "their". Their kingdom is Russia.

In Daniel 8:23, instead of citizens, transgressors is the antecedent of their. It does not say the name of the kingdom in Daniel 8:23,
but from Daniel 8:9 we can know that the little horn comes from north and west of Israel with a strong army.

And from Daniel 7, regarding the fourth kingdom in that chapter, we can know that the ten kings and the little horn (who looks more stout than his fellows in the text), are the transgressors and the little horn person the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23.

The fourth kingdom (made up of former Roman Empire nations) in the end times is the EU, which has the strong army.

Douggg, English doesn’t have gendered words like the Greek or Hebrew, so your example doesn’t work. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Let me repeat, in case you didn’t understand. An antecedent must match its gender and number. “Their”, in vs 23, in the LXX, is masculine and plural, therefore it’s antecedent must be masculine and plural. Transgressors is female, and therefore CANNOT be the antecedent. However “four kings” is masculine and plural, AND is in the nominative case, making it the actual antecedent to “their kingdom”.

In the Hebrew, “their kingdom” is feminine. Transgressors is a verbal participle that is masculine. “Four kings” is feminine and therefore matches with “their kingdom”, while transgressors does NOT.

To say the “transgressors” = the antecedent of “their kingdom” is just plainly and absolutely, grammatically incorrect based on how Greek and Hebrew work

 

[claninja]

Maybe. We shall see...
So you agree that the Kingdom of God has already come with power through the Church? That Christ has already established His kingdom?

Correct. 70ad being only one of the visible signs of Christs absolute authority and that his kingdom had come.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, English doesn’t have gendered words like the Greek or Hebrew, so your example doesn’t work. You are comparing apples to oranges.

claninja, pronouns in English like he and she are gender specific.

“Their”, in vs 23, in the LXX, is masculine and plural, therefore it’s antecedent must be masculine and plural.

The "their" in that verse are the ten endtimes "kings" which kings is both plural and masculine.

"queens", on the other hand, would be feminine.

The little horn person will stand up against the Prince of princes, at the time of the end. Prince of princes is an obvious referral to Jesus.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Correct. 70ad being only one of the visible signs of Christs absolute authority and that his kingdom had come.

No. this has nothing to do with 70AD.

Because the specific prophecy, without mixture, is that not one stone would be left standing one upon another and the city would be laid even with the ground. By contrast, not one word about 70 AD, the Romans, Titus, or desecrations of the Temple by Roman soldiers. Indeed, it was already desolated by His people (The Jews) many years prior so it wasn't the Holy Temple anymore. So how could it be the Holy Temple of Christ's prophecy in 70AD?! Truly it is clear that the desecration/desolation of the Temple would be by those who are called "His People," His congregation. Indeed it said that the saints would be persecuted "for His Sake." Did the Romans march on Jerusalem because Christians spoke for Christ's sake? Of course not! The whole thing is wrought with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Ezekiel 12:25

• "For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD."

The Word that the Lord spoke came concerning the rebellious house of Israel and wasn't "prolonged" until 70 AD. It did come to pass. Right at the Cross. Not as the 70 AD theorists suppose it should, but "exactly" as God always intended it to come to pass. Consider wisely:

Matthew 23:37-38

• "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!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

"This" Jerusalem was not left desolate after 70 AD, but right when they destroyed the Holy Temple, not when Romans destroyed an unholy one. And in three days it was rebuilt, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Because they knew not the time of their visitation. And true to the Lord's words, not one stone was left standing in that desolation, an entirely new structure was built, with stones that sit upon Christ. With some made of wood, hay, and stubble, their true nature is only revealed by fire.

Therefore, 70AD wasn't a sign!

Selah.

 

[claninja]

claninja, pronouns in English like he and she are gender specific.

Douggg, that’s not what is meant by English not being a gendered language. Nouns, in English have no gender. Nouns in Greek and Hebrew have gender. In Greek and Hebrew the gender of the pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. That’s why transgressors CANNOT be the antecedent, because it doesn’t match in gender to the pronoun “their”.

The "their" in that verse are the ten endtimes "kings" which kings is both plural and masculine.

"queens", on the other hand, would be feminine.

The little horn person will stand up against the Prince of princes, at the time of the end. Prince of princes is an obvious referral to Jesus.

No Douggg, that’s not true. The antecedent to “their” in vs 23 is not found in the previous chapter 7. Daniel 7 is a completely different vision that took place in a completely different year than Daniel 8. That is a completely illogical and absurd argument.

The antecedent is clearly found in vs 22 “four kings”.

But I understand your need to completely ignore how grammar works in order to make your argument work.

 

[claninja]

No. this has nothing to do with 70AD.

Because the specific prophecy, without mixture, is that not one stone would be left standing one upon another and the city would be laid even with the ground. By contrast, not one word about 70 AD, the Romans, Titus, or desecrations of the Temple by Roman soldiers. Indeed, it was already desolated by His people (The Jews) many years prior so it wasn't the Holy Temple anymore. So how could it be the Holy Temple of Christ's prophecy in 70AD?! Truly it is clear that the desecration/desolation of the Temple would be by those who are called "His People," His congregation. Indeed it said that the saints would be persecuted "for His Sake." Did the Romans march on Jerusalem because Christians spoke for Christ's sake? Of course not! The whole thing is wrought with inconsistencies and contradictions.

Ezekiel 12:25

• "For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD."

The Word that the Lord spoke came concerning the rebellious house of Israel and wasn't "prolonged" until 70 AD. It did come to pass. Right at the Cross. Not as the 70 AD theorists suppose it should, but "exactly" as God always intended it to come to pass. Consider wisely:

Matthew 23:37-38

• "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!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

"This" Jerusalem was not left desolate after 70 AD, but right when they destroyed the Holy Temple, not when Romans destroyed an unholy one. And in three days it was rebuilt, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Because they knew not the time of their visitation. And true to the Lord's words, not one stone was left standing in that desolation, an entirely new structure was built, with stones that sit upon Christ. With some made of wood, hay, and stubble, their true nature is only revealed by fire.

Therefore, 70AD wasn't a sign!

Selah.

Considering some of the parables of kingdom include the destruction of Jerusalem, I would completely disagree with you. 70ad was easily a sign that proved Christ is true and that the kingdom of God had come with power in the first century.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Considering some of the parables of kingdom include the destruction of Jerusalem, I would completely disagree with you. 70ad was easily a sign that proved Christ is true and that the kingdom of God had come with power in the first century.

Of course those with carnal mind, like the Jews, thought Christ was talking about the physical city and the temple when Christ was really talking about the destruction of his people, his Old Testament congregation, the temple of his body. They are the stones of the building that God talked about. Not physical stones of the unholy temple in 70AD.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, that’s not what is meant by English not being a gendered language. Nouns, in English have no gender. Nouns in Greek and Hebrew have gender. In Greek and Hebrew the gender of the pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. That’s why transgressors CANNOT be the antecedent, because it doesn’t match in gender to the pronoun “their”

The word transgressors in itself is not gender specific. But since the transgressors - coming to a full - refers to the ten kings in place - which those transgressor kings are gender specific.

It is an irrelevant argument that you making anyway because the little horn person stands up against the Prince of princes - which is what the beast will do at the time of Jesus's return.

 

[claninja]

The word transgressors in itself is not gender specific. But since the transgressors - coming to a full - refers to the ten kings in place - which those transgressor kings are gender specific.

In Greek, the word transgressors is feminine:

G266 - hamartia - Strong's Greek Lexicon (lxx)

G266 - ἁμαρτία hamartía, ham-ar-tee'-ah; from ; a sin (properly abstract):—offence, sin(-ful).

www.blueletterbible.org

In Hebrew, its masculine:

H6586 - pāšaʿ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H6586 - פָּשַׁע pâshaʻ, paw-shah'; a primitive root (identical with through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), i.e. trespass, apostatize, quarrel:—offend, rebel, revolt, transgress(-ion, -or).

www.blueletterbible.org

So, that would be completely false to say its not gender specific within those languages.

Again, the antecedent must match the gender and number in languages that have gendered nouns. And transgressors does not match “their” in gender, so it can’t be the antecedent by the very grammatical rules that those languages follow. No way around that douggg.

s an irrelevant argument that you making anyway because the little horn person stands up against the Prince of princes - which is what the beast will do at the time of Jesus's return.

And this why it is so important that we should have a functional knowledge of how Greek and Hebrew works, otherwise we can make the Bible say whatever we desire.

Douggg, by using your own made up logic, what’s to stop me from claiming the antecedent of “their” in Daniel 8:23 is the king of Babylon in chapter 2?

 

[claninja]

Of course those with carnal mind, like the Jews, thought Christ was talking about the physical city and the temple when Christ was really talking about the destruction of his people, his Old Testament congregation, the temple of his body. They are the stones of the building that God talked about. Not physical stones of the unholy temple in 70AD.

so Christ never predicted the destruction of the literal temple building, is that what you are saying?

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, by using your own made up logic, what’s to stop me from claiming the antecedent of “their” in Daniel 8:23 is the king of Babylon in chapter 2?

Because the king of Babylon of chapter 2 does not stand up to the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 at the time of the end.


And the king of Babylon is singular - whereas "their" is plural.


The transgressors in Daniel 8:23 are the ten kings which the little horn person comes up in their midst.



Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their (the ten kings) kingdom (the EU), when the transgressors are come to the full (the ten kings in place), a king of fierce countenance (the little horn), and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

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

claninja, follow down through this.....

Daniel 8:9 little horn heads south and east toward Israel. Daniel 9:26, the little horn is the prince who shall come from the north and west, of the former Roman Empire region. Daniel 9:27 the prince who shall come confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant as the Jews think he is the messiah - but Christians know as being the Antichrist.

Daniel 8:23, understands dark sentences. Ezekiel 28:3 no secret can be hidden from him (sarcastically speaking).

Daniel 8:25 magnifies himself in his heart. Ezekiel 28:2 Because thine heart is lifted up.

Ezekiel 28:2 he says, I am a God. He sits in the seat of God.

2Thessalonians2:4 he sits in the seat of God. Claims to have achieved God-hood - above all that is called God.

Daniel 11:36 at the time of the end, magnifys himself above every god.

 

[TribulationSigns]

so Christ never predicted the destruction of the literal temple building, is that what you are saying?

Yes.

Like the Jews of Christ's day, both the premillennialists and Preterists have a carnal mind, thinking that Christ was talking about physical stones of the building falling, whether it was in 70AD or in the future temple. But Christ sees His people "AS" stones of the building. They are Christ's old testament building - the congregation. Because of their rejection of the Messiah and by fulfilling Daniel 9:26, it fell and in three days, Christ confirmed a covenant and rebuilt it, this time with a New Testament congregation with Christians as living stones. This is where Christ is now a chief cornerstone of this building! This is the kingdom that comes with power with the Holy Spirit, anointing the New Testament Saints to bring Gospel to the world! Selah! All of this did NOT take place in 70AD!

 

[claninja]

Because the king of Babylon of chapter 2 does not stand up to the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 at the time of the end.


And the king of Babylon is singular - whereas "their" is plural.

Exactly! it would be ridiculous argument that doesn’t follow any grammatical rules.

It would be incredibly ridiculous of me to claim the antecedent of “their” in Daniel 8:23 is a noun, that doesn’t follow the grammatical rules of the language, AND is in a completely different chapter where the vision took place years before.

The transgressors in Daniel 8:23 are the ten kings which the little horn person comes up in their midst.



Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their (the ten kings) kingdom (the EU), when the transgressors are come to the full (the ten kings in place), a king of fierce countenance (the little horn), and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

Now you are getting into red herring territory. We are not discussing who the “transgressors” are. We were discussing what is the antecedent of “their” kingdom in Daniel 8:23.

You wrongly put forth “transgressors”, which as we know, can’t be the antecedent because it does not match the gender of “their”. The only antecedent near in the passage that can work with “their” kingdom, is “four kings”.

And so your whole argument falls apart based on not understanding the rules of Greek and Hebrew grammar.

 

[claninja]

Yes.

Like the Jews of Christ's day, both the premillennialists and Preterists have a carnal mind, thinking that Christ was talking about physical stones of the building falling, whether it was in 70AD or in the future temple. But Christ sees His people "AS" stones of the building. They are Christ's old testament building - the congregation. Because of their rejection of the Messiah and by fulfilling Daniel 9:26, it fell and in three days, Christ confirmed a covenant and rebuilt it, this time with a New Testament congregation with Christians as living stones. This is where Christ is now a chief cornerstone of this building! This is the kingdom that comes with power with the Holy Spirit, anointing the New Testament Saints to bring Gospel to the world! Selah! All of this did NOT take place in 70AD!

Since your argument requires an ad hominem (referring to prets and premils as carnal) , A strawman (I never said all of this took place in 70ad) , and your very own unique personal interpretation of scripture ( believing that Christ never predicted the fall of Jerusalem in 70ad), it’s really no argument at all.