Not so complicated...

jgr · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
There is only one person identified as Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9.

Correct. "He" in verse 27 refers back to the referent "the prince" in verse 26, which refers back to the referent "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, all one and the same Person.

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
Jesus's people were not the Romans. The prince who shall come is a completely different person from Messiah the Prince.

It changes the understanding a bit to change the wording to "Jesus's people". In Daniel it's written that "the people of the Prince" will destroy the city and sanctuary. The Israelites were "of the Prince" but not all were "Jesus's people".

In my belief....Jesus referred back to this prophecy when He said this:

Matthew 21:40-41 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

matthew 21: 43-44 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”(e)

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

jgr said:
Correct. "He" in verse 27 refers back to the referent "the prince" in verse 26, which refers back to the referent "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, all one and the same Person.

Who was hailed as the messiah, King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Jesus, John 12:12-15.

Who was cutoff, four days later, rejected by his own people, as being the King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Christ the King of Israel, Mark 15:31-32.
Jesus.

Who is not called Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9, but a prince just the same? The prince who shall come, who will confirm the covenant with many for one week, 7 years. The Antichrist.

Who to this day rejects that Jesus is the messiah and is looking for another to be the King of Israel/messiah ? The Jews (Judaism), Israel.

What covenant requires to be confirmed on a 7 year cycle? the Mt.Sinai covenant, Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

What new covenant does not require to be confirmed on a 7 year cycle? The covenant for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life in Jesus.

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

jgr said:
"Data from the Pew Research Center that as of 2013, about 1.6 million adult Americans of Jewish background identify themselves as Christians, most are Protestant."

And that's just Americans.

Not including the rest of the world.

Not including all of history since Calvary.

Lots of 'em.

Looks like the dispen "Gentile church" is just a myth.

Yep.

So you would side with Satan and say the church is in disbelief?

Luke 18:8 may literally be true. No one found to be raptured alive in Christ. Noah and 7 others. The next time Lot and 2 others. Perhaps the reason why there were only 2 witnesses left is because they were the only two humans beings left to rapture. How dire do you want to make God's Word?

Keep trying to pin theology on my post, but it is futile. God's Word is all I care to go by, and the only thing left is the 1000 years to be "pre" about. But if you think the church is going to be dead last, you do not accept the Atonement as happening on the Cross in 30AD. Every other point is just man made theology.

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
Who was hailed as the messiah, King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Jesus, John 12:12-15.

Who was cutoff, four days later, rejected by his own people, as being the King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Christ the King of Israel, Mark 15:31-32.
Jesus.

Agreed.

Douggg said:
Who is not called Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9, but a prince just the same? The prince who shall come, who will confirm the covenant with many for one week, 7 years. The Antichrist.

No....because, as it's been posted quite a few times in several different ways....the grammar doesn't allow for that. The "He" in the sentence "shall confirm a covenant with many" goes back to the only singular subject in the passage - Messiah the Prince.

Daniel 9:25-27
Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah,(g) the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It (Jerusalem)will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress.Then after the sixty-two weeks(h) the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing.

Then the people (of the prince who is to come) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,

***the way we properly identify who "he" is that confirms the covenant is to trace back to the ONLY singular subject. "People" are not singular...."people" are plural. "People" are "they" not "he".

The only other singular subject is "Messiah the Prince" that you've already agreed is Jesus.

Douggg said:
The opening post by me in this thread in no way suggests that Michael, the angel, nor Jesus, the Lord God Amighty is the great opposer to God

This is an example of that being done. When a person takes a passage like this (Daniel 9) that's about Jesus and states:

"Who is not called Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9, but a prince just the same? The prince who shall come, who will confirm the covenant with many for one week, 7 years. The Antichrist."

........that is what's being done. It's substituting antichrist in the place of Jesus. There is no mention of antichrists in the entire Old Testament.

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Do you understand the English languages use of two negatives in one sentence?

"not" + "un-" = belief

Romans 11:23

(ESV) And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

(ESV+) And R7even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

(Geneva) And they also, if they abide not still in vnbeliefe, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graffe them in againe.

(GW) If Jewish people do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted onto the tree again, because God is able to do that.

(KJV) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

(KJV+) AndG1161 theyG1565 also,G2532 if they abide notG3362 G1961 still in unbelief,G570 shall be graffed in:G1461 forG1063 GodG2316 isG2076 ableG1415 to graff them inG1461 G846 again.G3825

(NKJV) And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

(YLT) And those also, if they may not remain in unbelief, shall be graffed in, for God is able again to graff them in;

If this is the kind of double-talk that is needed to make Dispensational Theology work, why do people hang onto it?

It is your point the living Nation of Israel is not capable of belief. They are still not abiding in Christ. They remain in unbelief. Are you saying modern translators know Israel is going to be forced to be saved in a day, or change their minds in a day? Does it matter which?

You are the one claiming God cannot do it, not me. Of course modern translators force the issue so Amil can believe their false theology that nothing is future, but all happened in the first century. Nothing in the theology pertains to today, because today is too specific in the inability to know the length of indefinite time. In some ways, they are more preterist than preterist, and the harlot church backs up their theology and turned heresy into some unyielding acceptable private interpretation. It glorifies Satan by "sweeping him under the rug", and denies a physical resurrection, because any bodily resurrection happened at the Cross the same moment Satan was aledgedly bound. Reverse psychology is still wrong psychology. Claiming Satan is bound, then deny all Scripture claiming he is a roaring lion by Peter, or he is still at work for 2500 years by Paul. Pretend he is bound, so we do not have to deal with Satan, is a bad approach to life. If glorifying Satan is pointing out that he is our Adversary from Eve to Job, and Moses to Christ, and from Christ to the 7th Trumpet, why does God's Word have so many verses about the Adversary?

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Who destroyed the city from within and burned down the Temple to keep it out of Roman hands?

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
I didn't know that was a JW belief.

ETA: I looked it up, and I agree with them here:

From link: Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. *
"Who Is Michael the Archangel? Is Jesus? | Bible Teach" https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/

What I disagree with the JW is that Michael/Jesus was a created being. I believe Jesus is God.....and that Michael is the preincarnate/postincarnate Jesus.

So, in your opinion, God wasn't involved in the fight between Michael and the dragon in Revelation 12:7?

Jesus is contending with Satan here....is He not?"

Matthew 4:1-11

Michael is still one of Jesus' angels. Not Jesus Himself, as some claim. Just like there are seven angels for the 7 churches, the Nation of Israel has Michael as their named angel. That is all. Nothing else to speculate on.

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
The "He" in the sentence "shall confirm a covenant with many" goes back to the only singular subject in the passage - Messiah the Prince.

Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence. four subjects, four verbs.
Here is the breakdown. Verbs in red. Subjects in blue.

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.

"Of the prince" is a prepositional phrase. "who shall come" is an adjective clause, describing the prince.

___________________________________________________

Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25 is Jesus. The Messiah cutoff in Daniel 9:26a is Jesus.

The he in Daniel 9:27 is the prince who shall come, not Messiah the Prince.

For me, diagramming sentences back in the eighth grade was the basis for me making charts fifty five years later. A big shout-out for Mrs Owens. :clap:

Timtofly · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
Are you saying the Cross wasn't God's plan before Adam & Eve sinned?

Was Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness a blood bath of some physical battle?

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence. four subjects, four verbs.
Here is the breakdown. Verbs in red. Subjects in blue.

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.

"Of the prince" is a prepositional phrase. "who shall come" is an adjective clause, describing the prince.

___________________________________________________

Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25 is Jesus. The Messiah cutoff in Daniel 9:26a is Jesus.

The he in Daniel 9:27 is the prince who shall come, not Messiah the Prince.

From what I can recall from grammar classes ages ago, you're identifying the sentence parts accurately (those may be verb clauses...but it doesn't make a difference either way).

But how you leap from identifying the subjects properly.......with only one singular subject that could possibly be the referent to the "He" in v. 27.....and dismiss that possibility that's right there in the passage in favor of a subject that doesn't even exist in the entire Old Testament.....that's where the explanation falls apart.

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
From what I can recall from grammar classes ages ago, you're identifying the sentence parts accurately (those may be verb clauses...but it doesn't make a difference either way).

But how you leap from identifying the subjects properly.......with only one singular subject that could possibly refer to the "He" and dismiss that possibility that's right there in the passage in favor of a subject that doesn't even exist in the entire Old Testament.....that's where the explanation falls apart.

The only possible antecedent for the he in Daniel 9:27 if following the rules of English grammar is the prince who shall come.

And it is impossible to know who the prince who shall come is, and what the confirming of the covenant with many for one week is - by Daniel 9 alone. It takes knowledge from a multitude of other passages in the bible.

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
The only possible antecedent for the he in Daniel 9:27 if following the rules of English grammar is the prince who shall come.

No, because just like how you identified that phrase, it's an adjective clause that modifies "the people". "The people" are the subject (like you identified ). "People" is plural and can't be the referent.

Here's an example that's often used - a similar sentence:

Saying that the "he" in verse 27 is some antichrist, is similar to misinterpreting the following sentence, "Steven went to the store beside the house owned by Mr. Brown, and he purchased a loaf of bread." To say that the "he" at the end of the phrase is Mr. Brown is to make the same error as do the Futurists when they say that the "he" in verse 27 is antichrist. The ‘"he" in my example of Steven going to the store is of course referring to Steven. It is not Mr. Brown. It cannot be due to the grammar I used. "Steven" is the subject. Mr Brown is only a side note! And that .is exactly the manner in which the prince that shall come is involved in the discussion. He is a side note. ~ "What Is the Truth About “the Prince” in the 70 Weeks of Daniel" What Is the Truth About “the Prince” in the 70 Weeks of Daniel

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
And it is impossible to know who the prince who shall come is, and what the confirming of the covenant with many for one week is - by Daniel 9 alone. It takes knowledge from a multitude of other passages in the bible.

But we do know, from this passage, that the purpose was this:

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

.......the theme of Jesus as Prince seems to continue into the New Testament

Acts 5:29-32
But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, in order to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
No, because like how you identified that phase, it's an adjective clause that modifies "the people". The people are the subject (like you identified ). "People" is plural and can't be the referent.

The people is not the antecedent. The prince who shall come is the antecedent. The people destroying the city 100 years after the messiah is cutoff, proves that the antecedent cannot be messiah the prince, but the prince who shall come.

______________________________________________

kjv, Daniel 9:

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 [in 135AD one hundred years later]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
But we do know, from this passage, that the purpose was this:

Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
.......the theme of Jesus as Prince seems to continue into the New Testament

Copy and paste from the King James Bible. It is "the" transgression, not "their" transgression in verse 24, as is in the Berean study bible.

Even in the Berean study bible....

20While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain— 21while I was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to give you insight and understanding. 23At the beginning of your petitions, an answer went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly precious. So consider the message and understand the vision:

The vision that Gabriel was referring to that concludes with the end of 70 weeks - is the one in Daniel 8 about the little horn's transgression of desolation to take place at the time of the end.

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
The people is not the antecedent. The prince who shall come is the antecedent. The people destroying the city 100 years after the messiah is cutoff, proves that the antecedent cannot be messiah the prince, but the prince who shall come.

Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Cross (just as the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years....but that's another topic).

You identified 4 possible subjects. "People" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.....that can't be a "He". I just edited post #153 to include an example using a similar sentence structure.

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Cross (just as the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years....but that's another topic).

The temple was destroyed in 70AD. But because of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Hadrian has the city plowed under in 135AD.

mkgal1 said:
You identified 4 possible subjects. "People" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.....that can't be a "He". I just edited post #153 to include an example using a similar sentence structure.

There are 4 subjects and 4 verbs in verse 26. The issue is not over the "he" being some person involved in destroying the temple and city.

The "he" is in verse 27. A different sentence. The "he" in that sentence refers back to the prince who shall come.

__________________________________________________

The 70 weeks will complete the vision Daniel had in Daniel 8 regarding the vision of the transgression of desolation by the little horn in the time of the end. Gabriel was associated with explaining that vision, and in Daniel 9 gives Daniel more insight and understanding regarding that vision, which the daily sacrifice is stopped.

To understand Daniel 9, a person has to understand what vision in verses 20-23 Gabriel is talking about.

The first 69 weeks of Daniel 9 are all complete, Messiah the prince arriving in Jerusalem hailed as the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord. Four days later crucified as his own rejected him as their King of Israel.

The 70th week is time of the end when the vision of the little horn and his stopping the daily sacrifice and transgression of desolation will take place. And when he dares to stand up against the Prince of princes - Jesus.

mkgal1 · Nov 13, 2020

Douggg said:
There are 4 subjects and 4 verbs in verse 26. The issue is not over the "he" being some person involved in destroying the temple and city.

The "he" is in verse 27. A different sentence. The "he" in that sentence refers back to the prince who shall come.

Right.....and "of the prince" and "is to come" are not subjects. You have been identifying those phrases properly.

Look at this example:

Not so complicated...

.....and something else you can do is just drop the descriptive phrases or substitute a description that's not in reference to a person (that's where the confusion is). For instance:

Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And He (Messiah) will confirm a covenant with many for one week

Douggg · Nov 13, 2020

mkgal1 said:
.....and something else you can do is just drop the descriptive phrases or substitute a description that's not in reference to a person (that's where the confusion is). For instance:

Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And He (Messiah) will confirm a covenant with many for one week

Well, I am not making that mistake, to come up with the wrong conclusion.

The prince who shall come is the one who will confirm the covenant with many of one week. And not Messiah the Prince.

Not so complicated...

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Similar threads