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

BABerean2 said:

You seem to be promoting a dual-covenant time period between Calvary and 70 AD, in order to make your version of Preterism work.

Click to expand...

This is basically a foundation of Preterism belief. Dual-covenant is false and is not support by Scripture. Once Christ confirms a new covenant at the Cross, the old covenant ceased, right there! There is NO NEED FOR physical fulfillment of the destruction of old covenant temple and the city in 70AD! It is just another example of Jewish fables they are holding on.

BABerean2 said:

Based on your logic above, modern Orthodox Jews are still in captivity to the law and therefore the Old Covenant system is still in effect.

Click to expand...

I would argue no because they cannot perform the ceremonial laws of temple worship.

BABerean2 said:

I could go buy a sheep and erect a stone altar to make an animal sacrifice for my sin.
As a matter of fact a local man who claims to be a rabbi has done that very thing.
Would the sacrifice of that sheep in any way bring back the Old Covenant system?
No. Because that system of sacrifices ended at Calvary, instead of during 70 AD.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. The cross made the old covenant obsolete and the glory of the new covenant far surpassed the glory of the old covenant. However, even though the Old covenant was outdated and obsolete, unbelieving Jews, who were still captive to law, were still practicing old covenant Judaism. God, through Jerusalem's and the temple's destruction, completely removed that old, obsolete covenant. No Jew has been able to practice old covenant Judaism for the last 2000+ years.

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

2 Corinthians 3:11 11for if that which is being made useless [is] through glory, much more that which is remaining [is] in glory.

BABerean2 said:

You are ignoring the world "till" below in Galatians chapter 3.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Click to expand...

No, I agree with you. The cross made the old covenant obsolete.

BABerean2 said:

Both the Book of Galatians and the Book of Hebrews were written to correct the idea that you are promoting.

Click to expand...

Am I promoting that the old covenant was fully accepted by God after the cross, and that salvation could be worked through via the old covenant? No

I think you may be misunderstanding me. And that could totally be my fault if I worded something confusing. If I, i did apologize

Let me clarify: the old covenant became obsolete at the cross. It was still being practiced by unbelieving Jews (and some believing jews). God removed the old obsolete covenant in 70AD at the temples destruction. No one has been able to practice old covenant Judaism for the last 2000+ years.

BABerean2 said:

We can very often latch onto a few verses that might be used to defend our doctrine. You have done this with Hebrews 8:13.

Click to expand...

It would be helpful then for me if you could explain why Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:11 states the old covenant is fading away (present tense) and the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:13 states it will soon disappear (present tense).

BABerean2 said:

Did that statement mean that the animal sacrifices being done during the temple at that time were accepted by God for the sins of the people?

Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. It was an old obsolete covenant.

BABerean2 said:

You seem to be promoting a dual-covenant time period between Calvary and 70 AD, in order to make your version of Preterism work.

Click to expand...

There was definitely a time when unbelieving jews (and some believing Jews) were practicing the old obsolete covenant, while the new covenant existed. This would have occurred from the cross to 70ad.

The old obsolete covenant was completely removed by God in 70AD by Jerusalem and the temples destruction.

TribulationSigns said:

This is basically a foundation of Preterism belief. Dual-covenant is false and is not support by Scripture. Once Christ confirms a new covenant at the Cross, the old covenant ceased, right there! There is NO NEED FOR physical fulfillment of the destruction of old covenant temple and the city in 70AD! It is just another example of Jewish fables they are holding on.

Click to expand...

Do preterists believe God was pleased by and accepted the temple sacrifices under the old obsolete covenant after the cross? No, they don't. So please don't spread false rumors.

Davy said:

Dan.9:27 is about the Dan.11:31 events by the "vile person", which is a pointer to the future Antichrist who will come to Jerusalem and play God in a newly built temple by the Jews, which is what Apostle Paul taught in 2 Thessalonians 2, .

Click to expand...

There is no connection between the three.

claninja said:

I would argue no because they cannot perform the ceremonial laws of temple worship.

Click to expand...

If a temple is rebuilt in modern Jerusalem and animal sacrifices are renewed, will the Old Covenant go back into effect?

.

BABerean2 said:

If a temple is rebuilt in modern Jerusalem and animal sacrifices are renewed, will the Old Covenant go back into effect?

.

Click to expand...

I would say no, as it would have to be God who would renew the old covenant to make it effective. And that will never happen, as the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross. And the new covenant far surpasses the old covenant in every way.

Side note, I don’t believe a temple will ever be rebuilt. Multiple attempts have been made and all have been thwarted.

claninja said:

I would say no, as it would have to be God who would renew the old covenant to make it effective.

Click to expand...

You just answered the question about whether or not there were two covenants in effect between Calvary and 70 AD.


Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hopefully, you will be willing to adjust your form of Preterism to agree with your statement above.

I have had to change what I once believed several times during the last 5 years, because some of what I believed did not match up to what was written in God's Word.
Several of those changes were produced by interaction on this forum.

.

BABerean2 said:

You just answered the question about whether or not there were two covenants in effect between Calvary and 70 AD.

Click to expand...

BABerean2 said:

Hopefully, you will be willing to adjust your form of Preterism to agree with your statement above.

Click to expand...

I guess being ‘in effect’ would be poor wording in regards to the old covenant after the cross. Better wording would probably be:

The old covenant became obsolete at the cross. Unbelieving Jews (and some believing Jews) continued to practice the ways of the obsolete covenant, until it was impossible to do so (70ad destruction of temple).

This would explain why Paul was saying it was about to disappear. Not that it was ‘effective’, but that it was still being practiced.

BABerean2 said:

I have had to change what I once believed several times during the last 5 years, because some of what I believed did not match up to what was written in God's Word.

Click to expand...

Same with me. And I appreciate your patience when discussing things like this with me.

Blessings in Christ brother

David Kent said:

Yes sorry about posting the verses without chapter. My mistake, The Olivet was a result of the woes declared in the temple and not unconnected. Jesus said their house was left unto them desolate and all those woes would come upon that generation, which of course the generation that crucified the Messiah. The disciples were astounded by that comment and when they arrived at Olivet they drew the attention of Jesus to the size of the stones. Jesus told them that not one stone would be left upon another. They asked him Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? Jesus told them that it would be when they saw the Abomination of Desolation standing where it should not, and Luke tells us it was when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Jesus also said it would be a time where there would be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, false prophets and false Christs. All this happened in that period.

Matthew asked a supplementary question "and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Which of course was nothing to do with the previous discussion.

Click to expand...

I disagree. What Jesus said in the temple was a different discourse, and was about the blind Pharisees and the end of their controls at Jerusalem for that time. The signs He gave His disciples in Matt.24 are about the very end of this world in the last generation that will see His 2nd coming.

In Matt.24:2, I do believe Jesus was pointing to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, also. Notice I said also, but in the sense of Biblical dual fulfillment, and not according to your belief.

Just as Antiochus IV historically represented the "vile person" of Dan.11 involving the placing of the "abomination that maketh desolate", Jesus showed us that is a dual fulfillment prophecy, as Antiochus almost fulfilled it to a tee, but our Lord gave a warning about it long after the time of Antiochus, revealing it's final fulfillment is for a later time (like at the end of this world).

Likewise, at Christ's 2nd coming in our near future, this next temple today's Jews will build will be destroyed with not one stone standing on top of another.

David Kent said:

There is no connection between the three.

Click to expand...

There is a definite connection.

The Dan.11 events the "vile person" does is what the Dan.9:27 verse is about. The "vile person" makes a "league" with a small people in Jerusalem, then sacrifices are going on, and then he stops the sacrifices and instead places the "abomination that maketh desolate".

That "vile person" is also the "little horn" of the Dan.8 chapter, because the "little horn" ends the daily sacrifice and casts down the sanctuary (pointing to desolation of the temple which Antiochus IV did, and that the final Antichrist in our future will do in today's Jew's new temple they will build.)

And the "little horn" of Dan.8 is the beast king of Rev.17 which the ten horns give their power to in the last hour (tribulation timing). That's the one Jesus warned us of in Matt.24:23-26 and Paul in 2 Thess.2:3-4.

All definite connections about a prophecy of the coming Antichrist at the end of this world.

Davy said:

In Matt.24:2, I do believe Jesus was pointing to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, also. Notice I said also, but in the sense of Biblical dual fulfillment, and not according to your belief.

Click to expand...

Biblical Dual Fulfilment is not a thing though...

There is Type/Shadow - Then Fulfilment in scripture, but nothing is taught to be Fulfilled two times...though if it were, then why not 3 or 4 or 100 Fulfillments?

Are you waiting for another Virgin Birth in the sense of "Biblical Dual Fulfilment"? Why Not?
How about another Crucifixion?
Was Calvary a mere type of some future, greater, more fulfilling sacrifice for Sin?
Why Not?

What scriptural teaching prevents one from affixing this "dual fulfillment" theory of yours upon EVERY passage? And again, what teaching prevents us from anticipating multiple fulfillments beyond merely 2?

Where does the Bible teach us to determine which prophecies have this "Dual Fulfillment' and which do not? and who does the Bible say is qualified to proclaim when one particular prophecy has this dual fulfillment while another does not?

I think you have invented a doctrine here out of thin air because I cannot find even one single scriptural passage that even remotely teaches what you claim.

Let's look closely at the passage you are referring to:
Matthew 24:2
And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Jesus own words Fully refute you here.

His phrase "Do you not see ALL THESE THINGS" completely rule our some other building thousands of years removed from the one he was showing His disciples that very moment as being included in any sort of prophetic utterance.
Your claim is EXACTLY akin to claiming Jesus was telling His disciples in Matthew 24:2 that the White House or Great Pyramid would be destroyed stone by stone some day... which is utter nonsense.

Matthew 24:2 was solely and completely FULL-FILLED in AD70. Period, Full Stop. Over, ended. FULL-Filled. Just like the word actually means.

Make no mistake about this friend, Just Like Jesus does not need to be crucified again, there is no need for another temple to be destroyed again to satisfy Jesus' proclamation in Matthew 24:2.

Likewise, at Christ's 2nd coming in our near future,

Click to expand...

It's always near with you guys isn't it?... though I can never determine what you mean by near... you say in one breath near means 2000+ years, then in the next breath you say it means next week or next month or next year..

Really you shouldn't use terms that have no discernable meaning when you say it.

this next temple today's Jews will build will be destroyed with not one stone standing on top of another.

Click to expand...

And Jesus will be crucified again 40 years before that event?

Davy said:

I disagree. What Jesus said in the temple was a different discourse, and was about the blind Pharisees and the end of their controls at Jerusalem for that time. The signs He gave His disciples in Matt.24 are about the very end of this world in the last generation that will see His 2nd coming.

In Matt.24:2, I do believe Jesus was pointing to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, also. Notice I said also, but in the sense of Biblical dual fulfillment, and not according to your belief.

Just as Antiochus IV historically represented the "vile person" of Dan.11 involving the placing of the "abomination that maketh desolate", Jesus showed us that is a dual fulfillment prophecy, as Antiochus almost fulfilled it to a tee, but our Lord gave a warning about it long after the time of Antiochus, revealing it's final fulfillment is for a later time (like at the end of this world).

Likewise, at Christ's 2nd coming in our near future, this next temple today's Jews will build will be destroyed with not one stone standing on top of another.

Click to expand...

Antiochus as I said did not desolate Jerusalem like the Babylonians and the Romans.

Daniel 11 is a continual prophecy from the Greek empire till the end of it and the coming of Christ At the end of the chapter, the willful king is Herod.

Those who were to place the abomination of desolation were those who came in the ships of Chittim, the Romans. They were the only 'they' in those verses, Antiochus was not a 'they,' he was a 'he'.

• There was only one AoD and that was still future when Jesus spoke.

David Kent said:

Antiochus as I said did not desolate Jerusalem like the Babylonians and the Romans.

Daniel 11 is a continual prophecy from the Greek empire till the end of it and the coming of Christ At the end of the chapter, the willful king is Herod.

Those who were to place the abomination of desolation were those who came in the ships of Chittim, the Romans. They were the only 'they' in those verses, Antiochus was not a 'they,' he was a 'he'.

• There was only one AoD and that was still future when Jesus spoke.

Click to expand...

The signs Jesus gave in Matt.24 involving the coming pseudo-Christ and the placing of the "abomination of desolation" is... the event of the "vile person" from Daniel 11 that will place the "abomination that maketh desolate". This is what Antiochus IV did in 170-165 B.C. Jerusalem in the 2nd temple with an idol to Zeus.


Thus, the "abomination of desolation" is about the desolation of the temple with an idol, and NOT about the destruction of that temple. This is why the signs Jesus gave there is about the end of this world, and not 70 A.D., because the Romans destroyed the temple before... they could spiritually desolate it like Antiochus did.

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

Dan 9:27
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

Dan 11:31-32
31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
NIV

David Kent said:

Antiochus as I said did not desolate Jerusalem like the Babylonians and the Romans.

Click to expand...

From "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus, Book 12, chapter 7

"6. When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. But as soon as he, with the whole multitude, was come to Jerusalem, and found the temple deserted, and its gates burnt down, and plants growing in the temple of their own accord, on account of its desertion, he and those that were with him began to lament, and were quite confounded at the sight of the temple; so he chose out some of his soldiers, and gave them order to fight against those guards that were in the citadel, until he should have purified the temple. When therefore he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of incense], which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them. He also took down the altar [of burnt-offering], and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as were hewn with iron tools. So on the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, which the Macedonians call Apeliens, they lighted the lamps that were on the candlestick, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of shew-bread], and offered burnt-offerings upon the new altar [of burnt-offering]. Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred and forty-eighth year, and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].

7. Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies. "


Josephus confirms above the understanding of the Jews of his time, who knew that Daniel had predicted the events of 167 BC, by Antiochus Epiphanes.
Josephus confirms it as a historical fact.


John 10:22 is a reference to the celebration of Hanukkah each year by the Jews of Jesus time.


The Book of Matthew was addressed mainly to a Jewish audience. Jesus was telling the Jews of His time that something similar to 167 BC would happen during 70 AD. Not only did Antiochus desecrate the temple, but he also attacked the city killing thousands of Jews and stopped the temple sacrifices. The temple sacrifices would also stop in 70 AD, due to the destruction of the temple. Based on John 10:22, the Jews were well aware of this historical fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Luke’s Gospel was written to more of a Gentile audience, so he spelled it out for them.


Matthew 24:15-16 and Luke 21:20-21 are clearly parallel accounts, because we have the exact same warning to flee from Judea to the mountains in the second verse of each Gospel.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TribulationSigns said:

This is basically a foundation of Preterism belief. Dual-covenant is false and is not support by Scripture. Once Christ confirms a new covenant at the Cross, the old covenant ceased, right there! There is NO NEED FOR physical fulfillment of the destruction of old covenant temple and the city in 70AD! It is just another example of Jewish fables they are holding on.

Click to expand...

Friend, Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matt 5:17-18). From AD 66-70, the city of Jerusalem fell under the powerful curses outlined in Lev 26 and Deut 28! If that old covenant was no longer extant, Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen under the curses prescribed in Lev 26 and Deut 28.

parousia70 said:

Friend, Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matt 5:17-18). From AD 66-70, the city of Jerusalem fell under the powerful curses outlined in Lev 26 and Deut 28! If that old covenant was no longer extant, Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen under the curses prescribed in Lev 26 and Deut 28.

Click to expand...

"Valid contract" until 70AD? LOL. Show us the Scripture where it said this.

No...

The Old Covenant with the physical city and the temple as a representation has ALREADY expired when Christ died. The stones of the builder in Matthew 24:1-2 is not physical stones but represents the people of the congregation!

Matthew 23:37-38
[37] 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!
[38] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The physical city did not kill the prophets. Jerusalem "WAS" a BODY of Christ, the people of the Prince, who have come and destroy him. It is THEM who have been judged for rejected their Messiah the Prince. THe children are people of the congregation. So they are desolate. The kingdom was taken from them and gave to another. NO physical destruction is needed!

Matthew 21:42-43
[42] Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
[43] Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The builders were the people of the congregation who were working in a SPIRITUAL kingdom that their physical city, temple, and sacrifice SIGNIFIES OF! Because they (Jews) rejected their Messiah the Prince, the kingdom was taken from them SPIRITUALLY, and gave to a holy nation that brings forth the fruits, SPIRITUALLY, which is the CHURCH! Therefore the old covenant ended and the new covenant anew! No need for physical destruction of city or temple.

1 Peter 2:6-10
[6] Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
[7] Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
[8] And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
[9] But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
[10] Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

This was the fall of the old covenant where builders (Jews) disallowed the Messiah, the same one that becomes the head of NEW temple building which is spiritual in nature through the church. Who is that holy nation that the kingdom was given to? The Church, of course, where Gentiles were once not people of God in the Old Covenant, but can be included under New Covenant in Christ!

With all the talking Jerusalem in 70AD did not get it. The doctrine concerning 70AD is man-made false doctrine because like the Dispensationalists, who are holding on to Jewish fables thinking that the physical temple was still "holy" or "valid" between the cross and 70AD despite the fact that the veil of the temple was rent the moment Christ, the stone which the builders disallowed, died. Their temple and city that represented Christ's body at that time was already destroyed:

Daniel 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.

parousia70 said:

Friend, Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matt 5:17-18).

Click to expand...

You must ignore the word "till" in Matthew 5:17-18, and Galatians 3:17-19, to make the above statement work.


Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.



Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

In the Book of Galatians the Apostle Paul makes it clear that salvation does not come through the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
Paul did not say that salvation could come through both the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, during the time period between Calvary and 70 AD.



Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.



Heb_9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb_9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.



Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
(This is quoted from the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

.

Davy said:

The signs Jesus gave in Matt.24 involving the coming pseudo-Christ and the placing of the "abomination of desolation" is... the event of the "vile person" from Daniel 11 that will place the "abomination that maketh desolate". This is what Antiochus IV did in 170-165 B.C. Jerusalem in the 2nd temple with an idol to Zeus.


Thus, the "abomination of desolation" is about the desolation of the temple with an idol, and NOT about the destruction of that temple. This is why the signs Jesus gave there is about the end of this world, and not 70 A.D., because the Romans destroyed the temple before... they could spiritually desolate it like Antiochus did.

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

Dan 9:27
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

Dan 11:31-32
31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
NIV

Click to expand...

You use the corrupt NIV which is an interpretation in this case, because it suits your view. All my quotes are from from the KJV

• 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.)

Why was the reader told to understand? If it was to be an idol in the temple, Christians would not need to be told to understand, but obviously Jesus had told them privately, and Luke tell us publicly. Speaking of the same event, he says:

• Luke 21:20. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

If it was to be an idol in the temple those in Jerusalem and Judea wold not be able to see it, only the priests in the temple would see it.

• Daniel 9:27 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.

The great error of you futurists is the same error as the unbelieving Jews, ascribing the works of the Saviour to Satan. Who could confirm the covenant with many, but the Lord Jesus..

• Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
• Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

It is made plain in other scriptures

• Gallatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

• Daniel 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.
  

This verse is somewhat ambiguous. Here the people are plural (they) in the following verse it reverts to the singular (he). There was only one Abomination of Desolation and that was still future when Jesus spoke. The powerful arms at that time were the Romans who stood against Antiochus. "On his part" is taken by many commentators in the past to mean against him. They, the Romans were later to place the abomination of desolation

David Kent said:

There was only one Abomination of Desolation and that was still future when Jesus spoke.

Click to expand...

Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

.

TribulationSigns said:

The kingdom was taken from them and gave to another. NO physical destruction is needed!

Matthew 21:42-43
[42] Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
[43] Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Click to expand...

Please put a Date on the fulfillment of the above.

When do you say this took place?

Don't forget, the event is cemented to this:

40 “Therefore, when the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

According to the Very words of Jesus Christ above, The Taking of the Kingdom from the wicked group and giving to another happens at "the coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men" which happens sometime AFTER This:

38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

So, at what point AFTER the Son was Killed do you say the Kingdom was taken from the wicked group and given to another at "the coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men"? if not AD 66-70?

Calvary most certainly does not fit.

Perhaps you believe we are still waiting for this event to take place?

Your posts seem to indicate you believe it has been fulfilled, so I am curious when you believe "The coming of the Lord to destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” took place?

Again, Calvary does NOT fit.