WHY IS DANIEL 9:24-27 ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE ?

Davy · Apr 12, 2018

jgr said:
Ludicrous that prince Messiah would use the Roman army to execute His judgment and destruction? Please reread and attempt to understand the post.

I understood you well enough. You're still saying the "prince" of Dan.9:26 was about Jesus when it is not. It's about the Roman general Titus and his army, for per history... it was Titus and his army that destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple.

So you understand Jewish history better than the Jews themselves understand their own history?

You're the one claiming that, not I. But I can read Josephus' works just as well as you. And he wrote how the fire that burned the temple started inside, suggesting the Jews inside would not allow the Romans possession to desecrate it, and thus had rather it be destroyed.

They acknowledge the scale of their own responsibility in their own destruction.

Why don't you?

Obviously, your little ploy using Josephus didn't work.

jgr · Apr 12, 2018

Davy said:
I understood you well enough. You're still saying the "prince" of Dan.9:26 was about Jesus when it is not.

There is no one other than Messiah who is identified as a prince in the whole passage. So how can it not be about Jesus? Is there a Messiah other than Jesus? If so, who is it?

Davy said:
And he wrote how the fire that burned the temple started inside, suggesting the Jews inside would not allow the Romans possession to desecrate it, and thus had rather it be destroyed.

If the Jews started the fire that destroyed the temple, how are the Jews not responsible for its destruction?

TribulationSigns · Apr 12, 2018

Davy said:
Regardless of how you understood, to assign Jesus to being that Dan.9:26 "prince" of the people that destroys the city and sanctuary is to say that Jesus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, when it was the Roman general Titus and his army that did that in 70 A.D.

You got it all wrong. It was the people of the prince who came and destroy the temple exactly what Jesus told the Jews to destory this temple which is the temple of the body. If you don't get it, you will not know the truth.

I think you understood it alright. You just don't want to admit that the "prince" of the people that destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple is not about Jesus Christ, but about the Roman general Titus and his army. Afterall, you did say this:

TribulationSigns said:
"You need to read verse 25. Messiah the prince! That is what the context about! God didn't talk about other prince here at all. Remember verse 24 is all about between God as Messiah the prince and His people Israel! That is what his covenant is all about! Fo his people,not for himself! Get it. You need to get the idea about evil prince, national Israel or man-made covenant out of your carnal mind."

That last statement of yours is suggesting that Jesus is that "prince" of Dan.9:26 who's people destroyed the city and the sanctuary. If you're going to try to make both of those examples of the "prince" in Dan.9 mean Jesus, then that is what you are suggesting, i.e., that Jesus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. But He did not, the Romans did it. And leaving the Romans out of that fulfilled part of the Dan.9 prophecy who actually were the ones that destroyed the city and sanctuary, is... an example of a false doctrine of men.

You are really confused. God did not say that Jesus destroyed the physical city of Jerusalem and the temple through his people. God said it was his people who come and destory the city and the temple with Christ being the temple himself! He was destoryed by his own people. Didn't you read the Scripture again?

John 2:18-21
[18] Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus did not destroy his own body, didn't he? He said that it was HIs people, the Jews, who will destroy THIS temple that Christ talked about! He was not talking about the Romans, nor the physical temple here! Selah!

Zechariah 14 most definitely... is about the final day of this present world with Jesus' de facto literal return to the Mount of Olives where He ascended to Heaven from (Acts 1). The Zechariah 14 Scripture has still not happened yet today. Nor has Christ's Millennial reign begun yet today, for Satan is still... very active in the world today! It's foolishness to not be able to see that point today especially!

Of course, that is what many people thought too. Sorry to disappoint you, but nope!

By telling me to get any idea of an evil prince out of my carnal mind, that has to mean you believe the "prince" of Dan.9:26 is about Jesus too (when it is not; it's about Titus and his Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple).

Were you smoking something or what? I clearly said that the prince of verse 26 is the same with Messiah the prince according to context. God never mentioned about the different or evil prince here! Whether its Titus, Pope, or Antichrist.

And the "he" of Dan.9:27 grammatically follows the previous object in verse 26 which is that "prince" who destroys the city and sanctuary.

[Chuckle] By applying your own rule, the prince of Daniel 9:26 grammatically follows the previous object in verse 25 which is that Messiah the Prince? Therefore, verse 27 must refer to that prince as well!

Per that Dan.9:27 verse, that one makes a covenant for 7 years

Please provide us chapter and verse where God defined one week as 7 literal years.

and breaks it in the middle

Break? What bible did you read this from?

Daniel 9:27
[27] And he 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 cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Christ will cause the sacrifice and the Obligation to CEASE. The questions for you are what sacrifice and the obligation is it? And why would Christ cease it?

and instead places the abomination that makes desolate

Think about why would Christ make it desolate? What is this place that will be desolate?

, which is what the "vile person" of Dan.11 does.

That, of course, is your private interpretation that you think the "he" of Daniel 9:27 must be an evil person because you tried to link it to "vile person" of Daniel 11? Sad!

So if you're going to say there's no evil "prince" in that Dan.9 prophecy, then you automatically apply both to Jesus, which wrongly suggests Jesus also is who makes that covenant of Dan.9:27 and Dan.11.

God did not specifically talk about evil prince other than Messiah the Prince, in Daniel 9:24-27. I am correct that the prince in Daniel 9 points to Messiah the Prince.

It even wrongly suggests that Jesus is the "vile person" of Dan.11, since it's the vile person that does those things of Dan.9:27.

God nor I did say that. It was YOU with silly private interpretation that forced "he" as a vile person by linking "he" with vile person, beast, antichrist, little horn, blah, blah, blah to make your doctrine sounds exciting. Sorry, but God is clear that it is Messiah the prince, according to context.

Nah, that doesn't work. You cannot just jump to the destruction of the temple with sacrifices ending when that's not even what the Daniel 9:27 prophecy is about.

I think you are confused. I never said that the "sacrifice and the obligation" of verse 27 refer to a physical Jewish sacrifice. Please study the Scripture some more!

The Times · Apr 12, 2018

claninja said:
Because the city and sanctuary were already desolate before their end( consummation).

The sanctuary where the Holy of Holies was, was made desolate after Christ's crucifixion, when the outer vail was torn in two.

The sacrifices related to the sanctuary which were ended right there and then, after Jesus said it is finished.

The City of Jerusalem itself, was consumed to its end, along with its citizens, who were a desolate house (sanctuary), without the bridegroom Jesus Christ.

claninja said:
What is the mystery of God?

A mystery is something that is kept until the final consummation of the bride of Christ.

claninja said:
the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.

You see this mystery was prophetically revealed, but had been sealed from being made known, until the end. When Jesus said, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come, he pointed to his brilliant coming at the end of the New Covenant Age, where the Great Commission would have run its course and made the completed list in the book of life, from before the creation of the world.

The abomination that maketh desolate that appears in the Holy Place is future, within the body of Christ, the temple that is not procured by human hands.

This is important, because the mystery of God is revealed, after the mystery of lawlessness is exposed.

I disagree with Full Preterists that this happened in 70AD or any time in history.

However recently, I have observed that the abomination is an act to make Holy something that desecrates the inward temple of God, by a lifestyle that has become prevalent within today's society, that is no longer a secret behind the secret confines of closets, but is now openly celebrated in the public, just like Sodom was doing during Lot's time.

The abomination of desolation comes before the mystery of God is revealed, when Jesus overthrows the Man (Anthropos/People) of Sin with the breath of his mouth (through his true body of believers) and destroys by the brightness of his coming (7th Trumpet).

claninja said:
which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

That is true, for it is one of many mysteries revealed to the Apostles in the last days of the Old Covenant Age, but it was NOT the Mystery of God as the definite article, pointing to his Appearing on the Last Day of Judgement.

26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

So, you are partly right, that the mystery that was revealed to the Old Testament Prophets, was unveiled to the Apostles the Saints, whereby the mystery is an ongoing work in progress, until it is finalised at Christ's appearing, where the 7th Trumpet is blown and time no longer declared.

So in this respect the message or mystery of the good news doesn't begin and end in the 1st Century, but it is a slow reveal to every generation, until the end trumpet is sounded. So in the sense of the mystery of God being proclaimed, it is a work in progress, so long as disciples are being made of the world and then Jesus Christ calls it a day, when he sounds the 7th Trumpet.

By then everyone would have gotten the good news and that God will be all in all who were written in the book of life, at the culmination of the New Covenant Age, at Christ's appearing. Then Christ would have defeated the final enemy biological death and spiritual death in Hell and would become subject to the Father, indicating that his Cross of Salvation would have run its course.

The Times · Apr 12, 2018

Davy said:
You have it reversed. The "vile person" of Dan.11 is what the Dan.9:27 verse is about. That "vile person" is NOT... our Lord Jesus.

How can you make that connection? The mind boggles!

The Daniel 11:22 prince has no antecedent, so he would just be a ruler of some sort.

However, that being said the Prince of Daniel 9:27, within the establishment of God's Covenant, has an antecedent, who is the Messiah.

We are told that the Prince of Daniel 9:27 is Messiah.
The prince of Daniel 11:22 has no other antecedent title, other than being a ruler of some sort, who leads a small group of people.

Davy said:
The "vile person" represents the coming Antichrist. And he makes a "league" and becomes strong with a small people (meaning a small group of insiders at Jerusalem):

That group could even be the Balfour declaration, where by the small in number of people could very well be modern Jews and the founder of the small people state.

Davy said:
Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

The first Israeli leader to establish a small nation could very well fit the bill.

Davy said:
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

May be prophetically pointing to the fall of man made modern Israel.

Davy said:
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

Balfour declaration was a deceitful act to steal land and to become strong from a small group of people.

Davy said:
There's the connections with the Dan.9:27 subjects.

Nonesense!

Davy said:
The "he" of Dan.9:27 is about this "vile person" that comes to Jerusalem and makes a league (pact). And the arms of a flood being the metaphorical flood of the Dan.9:26 verse.

This leader is a latter vision for a latter day king who does not stand with the God of his Old Covenant fathers, but magnifies his fortress with the god of forces (military, iron Dome missile system and huge Jurassic style walls).

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

jgr said:
There is no one other than Messiah who is identified as a prince in the whole passage. So how can it not be about Jesus? Is there a Messiah other than Jesus? If so, who is it?

Well, you're just making an affirmation, not stating actual fact.

The fact of the people of the prince in Dan.9:26 is that it's about the Roman general Titus and his army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. The "prince" in Dan.9:25 is definitely about Jesus, because it says "Messiah". But not so in the next 26th verse.

If the Jews started the fire that destroyed the temple, how are the Jews not responsible for its destruction?

Your reasoning is getting more silly, I'm sorry to say. If the Roman army hadn't attacked Jerusalem the temple would not have burned. What happened with Jerusalem's and the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. hinges on the Romans that did it. It's that simple.

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

TribulationSigns said:
You got it all wrong. It was the people of the prince who came and destroy the temple exactly what Jesus told the Jews to destory this temple which is the temple of the body. If you don't get it, you will not know the truth.

I don't have it wrong. The "prince" of Dan.9:26 represented the Roman general Titus, commander of the Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The "people" of that "prince" are represented by his men of that Roman army. It's simple. Jesus did not lead the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the temple any more than He did with Jerusalem's previous destruction by the king of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar. God will use evil upon the rebellious, but He doesn't do the evil Himself. So trying to pin it on Him is inane.

You are really confused. God did not say that Jesus destroyed the physical city of Jerusalem and the temple through his people. God said it was his people who come and destory the city and the temple with Christ being the temple himself! He was destoryed by his own people. Didn't you read the Scripture again?

John 2:18-21
[18] Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[20] Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[21] But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus did not destroy his own body, didn't he? He said that it was HIs people, the Jews, who will destroy THIS temple that Christ talked about! He was not talking about the Romans, nor the physical temple here! Selah!

Jesus' death on the cross and His resurrection is totally... irrelevant to the subject of Dan.9:26 about the destruction of Jerusalem and temple in 70 A.D. So talk about one who is confused!?@*?? Whew!

Of course, that is what many people thought too. Sorry to disappoint you, but nope!

That's a totally irrelevant answer.

Were you smoking something or what? I clearly said that the prince of verse 26 is the same with Messiah the prince according to context. God never mentioned about the different or evil prince here! Whether its Titus, Pope, or Antichrist.

Dan 9:26
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.
KJV

I don't smoke.

When you say that "prince" (in red) in verse 26 is the same as "Messiah the prince", you are in effect saying that "prince that shall come" there in verse 26 is Jesus! It's not.

But it's not Jesus. I don't like the NIV translation mainly because of the origin of its NT texts, but it actually has a good translation here in Dan.9:

Dan 9:25-27
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
NIV

The second sentence in that 26th verse is a different subject than in the first sentence. The first one was about Jesus' crucifixion. The second statement is about the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

jgr · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
Well, you're just making an affirmation, not stating actual fact.

The fact of the people of the prince in Dan.9:26 is that it's about the Roman general Titus and his army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. The "prince" in Dan.9:25 is definitely about Jesus, because it says "Messiah". But not so in the next 26th verse.

There's no more risible a spectacle than a futurist attempting to dismiss immutable historical fact and evidence.

Show the passage to any competent impartial English language teacher or authority on the planet, and he/she will confirm that the only prince in the passage is Messiah.

Davy said:
Your reasoning is getting more silly, I'm sorry to say. If the Roman army hadn't attacked Jerusalem the temple would not have burned. What happened with Jerusalem's and the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. hinges on the Romans that did it. It's that simple.

"...the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

That is the Jews own indictment of their own responsibility for the Temple's destruction. They don't blame the Romans. They blame themselves.

What part of that are you incapable of understanding?

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

The Times said:
How can you make that connection? The mind boggles!

The Daniel 11:22 prince has no antecedent, so he would just be a ruler of some sort.

However, that being said the Prince of Daniel 9:27, within the establishment of God's Covenant, has an antecedent, who is the Messiah.

You are misapplying the antecedent concept. There is no requirement that Hebrew nagyid ("ruler" translated as KJV "prince") must... always mean Christ (Messiah) when it appears by itself.

Dan 9:25
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
NIV

There in Dan.9:25 the Hebrew word nagyid ("ruler", translated as "prince" in the KJV) appears along with "Anointed One" ("Messiah" in KJV). That Hebrew word for "ruler" can mean a ruler, or commander, a captain, etc. Being applied to Jesus, it would be better translated as 'the King' in my opinion, for Jesus is The True King Ruler.

Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

The 1st sentence in green is a different subject than the 2nd sentence in purple. The 1st sentence is about Jesus' crucifixion. The 2nd sentence is about the Roman general Titus and his army destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

There is no... word "ruler" following "the Anointed One" in that Dan.9:26 verse. So just because you see it in the 25th verse after the "Anointed One" does not... mean you can just ADD it into that 26th verse.

Dan.9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
NIV

This Dan.9:27 verse is where the antecedent idea actually applies. But it does NOT apply to Jesus in the 1st sentence of v.26. It applies to "the ruler" in the 2nd sentence of v.26 whose people destroyed the city (Jerusalem) and sanctuary (temple). That was about the Roman general Titus as "the ruler" (or commander), and his Roman army as Titus' people. This "He" of v.27 must follow the subject back in v.26 about "the ruler" who destroyed the city and sanctuary (Titus).

The events in v.27 are the events in Dan.11 about the "vile person". Does that create a dillema regarding "the ruler" as Titus? No, because the Roman general Titus only served as a type for the final Antichrist, just as the final Antichrist is also represented by the "vile person" in Dan.11 which was blueprinted by Antiochus IV in 165 B.C.

jgr · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
You are misapplying the antecedent concept. There is no requirement that Hebrew nagyid ("ruler" translated as KJV "prince") must... always mean Christ (Messiah) when it appears by itself.

Dan 9:25
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
NIV

There in Dan.9:25 the Hebrew word nagyid ("ruler", translated as "prince" in the KJV) appears along with "Anointed One" ("Messiah" in KJV). That Hebrew word for "ruler" can mean a ruler, or commander, a captain, etc. Being applied to Jesus, it would be better translated as 'the King' in my opinion, for Jesus is The True King Ruler.

Dan 9:26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

The 1st sentence in green is a different subject than the 2nd sentence in purple. The 1st sentence is about Jesus' crucifixion. The 2nd sentence is about the Roman general Titus and his army destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

There is no... word "ruler" following "the Anointed One" in that Dan.9:26 verse. So just because you see it in the 25th verse after the "Anointed One" does not... mean you can just ADD it into that 26th verse.

Dan.9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
NIV

This Dan.9:27 verse is where the antecedent idea actually applies. But it does NOT apply to Jesus in the 1st sentence of v.26. It applies to "the ruler" in the 2nd sentence of v.26 whose people destroyed the city (Jerusalem) and sanctuary (temple). That was about the Roman general Titus as "the ruler" (or commander), and his Roman army as Titus' people. This "He" of v.27 must follow the subject back in v.26 about "the ruler" who destroyed the city and sanctuary (Titus).

The events in v.27 are the events in Dan.11 about the "vile person". Does that create a dillema regarding "the ruler" as Titus? No, because the Roman general Titus only served as a type for the final Antichrist, just as the final Antichrist is also represented by the "vile person" in Dan.11 which was blueprinted by Antiochus IV in 165 B.C.

The Hebrew original is conclusive.

Daniel 9:25
5057 [e]
nā·ḡîḏ,
נָגִ֔יד
Prince
Noun

Daniel 9:26
5057 [e]
nā·ḡîḏ
נָגִ֤יד
prince
Noun

You may notice that the two are identical.

The Prince is Messiah in verse 25. The prince is Messiah in verse 26.

Antichrist is conspicuously missing in action anywhere in the chapter.

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

jgr said:
There's no more risible a spectacle than a futurist attempting to dismiss immutable historical fact and evidence.

Show the passage to any competent impartial English language teacher or authority on the planet, and he/she will confirm that the only prince in the passage is Messiah.

"...the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b)."

That is the Jews own indictment of their own responsibility for the Temple's destruction. They don't blame the Romans. They blame themselves.

What part of that are you incapable of understanding?

Lot of hot air.

YOU... are the one who is trying to ADD to Scripture in the Dan.9:26 verse.

Like I showed, there is NO Hebrew word for "prince" joined with "Messiah" in the 1st sentence of Dan.9:26! You are wrongly ADDING it.

Dan 9:26
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ....
KJV

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

jgr said:
The Hebrew original is conclusive.

Daniel 9:25
5057 [e]
nā·ḡîḏ,
נָגִ֔יד
Prince
Noun

Daniel 9:26
5057 [e]
nā·ḡîḏ
נָגִ֤יד
prince
Noun

You may notice that the two are identical.

The Prince is Messiah in verse 25. The prince is Messiah in verse 26.

Antichrist is conspicuously missing in action anywhere in the chapter.

Once again, the 1st sentence in Dan.9:26 which is about Messiah, has NO word for "prince" attached to it! YOU ARE WRONGLY ADDING IT!

The 2nd sentence of Dan.9:26 has the Hebrew word for "prince" STANDING ALONE and is a different subject (about Titus, the Roman general whose army destroyed the city and sanctuary).

jgr · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
Once again, the 1st sentence in Dan.9:26 which is about Messiah, has NO word for "prince" attached to it! YOU ARE WRONGLY ADDING IT!

The 2nd sentence of Dan.9:26 has the Hebrew word for "prince" STANDING ALONE and is a different subject (about Titus, the Roman general whose army destroyed the city and sanctuary).

Verse 26 does not have "Titus" attached to "the prince". YOU ARE WRONGLY ADDING IT!

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

jgr said:
Verse 26 does not have "Titus" attached to "the prince". YOU ARE WRONGLY ADDING IT!

I'm sure you see the differences in the two subjects between the 1st and 2nd sentences clearly enough to know Titus and his army is who "the ruler" is in verse 26, and also the "He" of verse 27.

If you want to keep to your doctrines of men that add prince to that 1st sentence of v.26, go to then.

jgr · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
I'm sure you see the differences in the two subjects between the 1st and 2nd sentences clearly enough to know Titus and his army is who "the ruler" is in verse 26, and also the "He" of verse 27.

If you want to keep to your doctrines of men that add prince to that 1st sentence of v.26, go to then.

I see no differences and I see no Titus. All I see is Messiah.

Are you seeing things?

The Times · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
You are misapplying the antecedent concept. There is no requirement that Hebrew nagyid ("ruler" translated as KJV "prince") must... always mean Christ (Messiah) when it appears by itself.

Daniel is praying and suplicating on behalf of his people the Jews, for their sins.
Gabriel explains to Daniel when the Messiah will come (70th week prophecy), when he will be crucified, how the Gentiles who were once not called God's people, are then called Messiah's people because the Kingdom went to them, whose people (Gentiles) are the Messiah's who destroy Jerusalem, how the Messiah confirms the Covenant for salvation (remember Daniel's prayer and suplications).

Within that same paragraph, the focal point is Jesus Christ and the Covenant of God, established within the 1st Century. That is what Daniel 2:44 states that God will do.

Davy said:
Dan 9:25
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

Daniel 2:44 is a lead in to the 70th week prophecy concerning Messiah. The 70th week has nothing to do with the other earthly kings.

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. (Daniel 2:44)

So, after the gospel went out to the other nations under Rome and the Kingdom was transfered to another people, that is the Gentile nations. The coalition of the invading force, regardless of who led it or who fought it, is credited to the Messiah the Prince. this means that those coalition of nations under Rome automatically became the agencies of God's judgement. If you recall historically speaking, within the Old Testament, the Jews were used as a nation to impose God's judgement.

So when Jesus said.....

Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

The People of the Prince, automatically became the Messiah's judgement enforcement agency.

It logically follows, that those invading forces was credited to the Messiah and the sentence following it talks of the Covenant of God that he established through those many Gentile agencies (nations).

Davy said:
This Dan.9:27 verse is where the antecedent idea actually applies. But it does NOT apply to Jesus in the 1st sentence of v.26

You have to completely disregard context, why 70 weeks are determined upon Daniel's people and who is coming to make the Covenant with the Jews. irrespective of them rejecting it, the Covenant was confirmed with the many Gentile nations and this is fact, when scripture states that the Messiah will confirm the Covenant of God with many in ONE week.

This is historic after the fact evidence, that Jesus confirmed the Covenant of God (context), to why Daniel was praying and suplicating for in the first place. It is about the Covenant of God, which was transferred to another people, that is the many Gentile nations.

Davy said:
It applies to "the ruler" in the 2nd sentence of v.26 whose people destroyed the city (Jerusalem) and sanctuary (temple).

Nonesense!
Your adding a character that has nothing to do with Daniel's prayers and suplications

Davy said:
That was about the Roman general Titus as "the ruler" (or commander), and his Roman army as Titus' people.

No!

Davy said:
This "He" of v.27 must follow the subject back in v.26 about "the ruler" who destroyed the city and sanctuary (Titus).

The entire prophecy is about Messiah and the Covenant of God. You have complete disregard for this pertinent fact.

Davy said:
The events in v.27 are the events in Dan.11 about the "vile person". Does that create a dillema regarding "the ruler" as Titus? No,

Absolutely!
Daniel and his people to whom he was praying and supllicating for has nothing to do with a Roman ruler. The 70 weeks determined for Daniel's people, is to meet the 6 conditions in order for their sins to be atoned for, for that was what Daniel was praying for and Gabriel explained it to him.

What concern has God with an earthly prince making an agreement within the 1st Century, in which Titus is a nobody in God's 70 week prophecy.

Davy said:
because the Roman general Titus only served as a type for the final Antichrist, just as the final Antichrist is also represented by the "vile person" in Dan.11 which was blueprinted by Antiochus IV in 165 B.C.

Your adding a character of no concern to God upon another character of no concern, some 2000 years in the making. This is how your ruining the context of the 70 week prophecy, by creating a totally different narrative, where Daniel 2:44 and Daniel's answered prayers by Gabriel have absolutely no meaning or application to your anti- thesis narrative.

In Conclusion, you are placing emphasis on a unknown boogey man character, 2000 years apart from the focal point of the prophecy concerning Jerusalem being built up for the conning of Messiah. Your unknown boogey man character is of no concern to God, or to Daniel, or to Messiah or to Messiah's people, within the context of the 70 weeks for God to Confirm his Holy Covenant through his anointed Jesus. This is what the 70th week is all about. why are you infusing it with an unknown agreement made by an unknown man, some 2000 years away from the facts outlined by Gabriel to happen when Jesus comes.

What was meant to be made known to Daniel was made known for the people living during the time when Jesus came. There is no point in Gabriel clarifying the 70th week prophecy of something unknown, that will remain unknown to this very day, after the Covenant of God has been established, along with his Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) and the coming and ascending up into Heaven of his Messiah who approached the Ancient of days and was given a Kingdom and all power and dominion was given into his hands to make subjects of the world, through his Cross.

claninja · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
Does Jesus point to another temple in Jerusalem for the end of this world? Yes.

Actually, no he doesn't. He points to the temple in their direct line of sight. He is talking about the destruction of the temple right in front of them.

Matthew 24:1
As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be toppled.”

Davy said:
When He quoted from the Book of Daniel about the "abomination of desolation" idol, which Antiochus served as a blueprint about 200 years EARLIER, Jesus prophesying about that points to a rebuilt temple for the end of this world that the coming Antichrist will make desolate.

And in the Gospel of Luke, he clearly explains what the abomination is to his gentile audience:

Luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near.

Davy said:
I already mentioned this difference with the Daniel prophecy, but you bypassed it. What Antiochus did in 170 B.C. Jerusalem is the blueprint for the endtime Antichrist, not the Roman army having a cookout.

I bypassed it because it didn't answer my question. Please provide scripture that shows the 2nd temple will be destroyed and a 3rd temple rebuilt to be destroyed again.

Wow, Roman army having a cookout? Seems you do not know your history of the Jewish-Roman war.

Davy said:
You cannot use Matthew 23 to try and explain Matthew 24. That is an error you folks often try to do, but it doesn't work. Matthew 23 was what Jesus said to unbelievers while in the temple. Matthew 24 is what Jesus said to His disciples while upon the Mount of Olives. Those are two separate conversations and sets of prophecies.

Absolutely incorrect

Matthew 21-23 take place in the temple courts. Matthew 24:1-2, the prediction of the temple destruction, takes place right outside the temple, which is in complete context of his teaching of the destruction of Israel with the parable of wicked tenants, parable of wedding feast, and woes to the scribes and pharisees.

When they get to the mountain of olives in matthew 24:3, the disciples ask when will this (destruction of the 2nd temple, which Jesus predicted just outside the temple in vs 1-2) happen.

These are not 2 separate prophecies, but a continual teaching about what is to come on the nation of Israel.

Davy said:
What we see with those examples is the destruction of old Babylon being used as a blueprint for a dual fulfillment of the destruction upon the Revelation Babylon system at the end of this world when Jesus returns. This is why in Revelation the Isaiah 21 phrase about historical Babylon, i.e., "Babylon is fallen, is fallen", is repeated.

SO you believe literal historical Babylon will become a nation again?

Davy said:
This is why both Apostles Paul and Peter proclaimed the "day of the Lord" in connection with the very end of this world, and Peter proclaiming it's an event when God's consuming fire will burn man's works off this earth, a complete world changing event like the flood of Noah's day, except with fire this next time (2 Pet.3).

Why did the disciples believe they were living at the end of world, or more correctly translated end of the age? Did someone tell them that the end would happen during their generation?

Davy said:
Thus the Isaiah 13 section about the "day of the Lord" destruction is actually about the end of this world, as Peter and Paul showed, but it is used as a type for the old destruction of Babylon by the Medes there.

the day of the Lord is used a lot in the OT, especially when speaking about judgement on nations. THere have been many "days of the Lord"

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

The Times said:
Daniel is praying and suplicating on behalf of his people the Jews, for their sins.
Gabriel explains to Daniel when the Messiah will come (70th week prophecy), when he will be crucified, how the Gentiles who were once not called God's people, are then called Messiah's people because the Kingdom went to them, whose people (Gentiles) are the Messiah's who destroy Jerusalem, how the Messiah confirms the Covenant for salvation (remember Daniel's prayer and suplications).

Within that same paragraph, the focal point is Jesus Christ and the Covenant of God, established within the 1st Century. That is what Daniel 2:44 states that God will do.

The Dan.9 prophecy is about Jerusalem and Daniel's people the Jews, not Christianity. The people of the prince that destroyed the city and sanctuary are the Romans under the Roman general Titus, they were not Gentile Christians under the New Covenant. That's a totally crazy idea, that it was Messiah's people (i.e., Christians) that destroy the city and sanctuary.

Davy · Apr 13, 2018

claninja said:
Actually, no he doesn't. He points to the temple in their direct line of sight. He is talking about the destruction of the temple right in front of them.

Yes, actually, Jesus did point to another temple for the end of this world within His Olivet Discourse:

Matt 24:15
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
KJV

Mark 13:14
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
KJV

Dan 11:31
31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
KJV

The placing of that abomination is about the setting up of an idol in false worship, and requires a standing "sanctuary" (or temple). That's the subject there.

Historical Antiochus Epiphanes almost fulfilled the Dan.11 prophecy of the "vile person". Antiochus is the blueprint for the final Antichrist. He took Jerusalem in 165 B.C., went into the temple and sacrificed swine on the altar, spread its broth inside, and then setup an idol image to Zeus worship and demanded all to worship it.

For the end of this world, the coming Antichrist will do likewise, in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem which orthodox Jews even today have the materials ready to build.

jgr · Apr 13, 2018

Davy said:
The Dan.9 prophecy is about Jerusalem and Daniel's people the Jews, not Christianity. The people of the prince that destroyed the city and sanctuary are the Romans under the Roman general Titus, they were not Gentile Christians under the New Covenant. That's a totally crazy idea, that it was Messiah's people (i.e., Christians) that destroy the city and sanctuary.

You continue to hallucinate.

If you were to take this passage of Scripture to your optometrist and tell him/her that you see the word "Titus" in it, what do you presume the response would be?

How about a referral to a psychiatrist?

What's beyond crazy is to disbelieve, deny, and reject the Jews' own testimony about their own history and their own responsibility for the destruction that they caused.

It's called psychosis, and it requires psychiatric intervention.

WHY IS DANIEL 9:24-27 ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE ?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads