Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is the Christian YLT translation:

25 And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.

26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

The Leader is Messiah the Christ who came 2,000 years ago.
I agree. I've gone back and forth in the past on this as to whether verse 26 was talking about Jesus the Messiah or about a leader of the first century Roman empire and I decided awhile back that the verse is talking about the same Ruler/Prince/Leader that was just mentioned in the previous verse 25. That keeps the passage in context and doesn't create an awkward flow to the passage.

While it was the Romans who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD, it was the Jews, who were the people of the Messiah (Jesus Himself said He was a Jew), that rejected Christ and turned Him over to be crucified and they were ultimately responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Luke 19:41-44).
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There are two princes in Dan 9 -- one of them dies for our sins, makes the new Covenant etc and is called the "anointed one" ... while the other one "destroys" and is NOT called the "anointed one" -- as we saw here --

Nonsense! God did not talk about two princes at all. You are reading into Scripture to fit your doctrine.

The "other one" is your own making, not God. You simply take verse out of context and try to insert an "evil prince." That is what you are doing. It is wrong.

The people of the anointed (Christ) that should come were the Jews, and they did in fact destroy the Sanctuary. It was his own people that did it, and the Bible makes that perfectly clear. Which is why they were blinded, so are Preterists and Premillennialists who are making the same mistakes.

John 1:11
  • "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

Acts 4:10-11
  • "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
  • This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."
Hello?! The builders are the Jews, not Romans! Clearly, the people of the anointed prince that should come did in fact destroy the Sanctuary. Christ Himself told the Jews, NOT THE ROMANS, to "destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And they did, and He did. And do you even know what happened in 3 days? None of this took place in 70AD! And this Prince did confirm the covenant with many, and it was that same Prince Messiah in that same context. Not an evil prince, not the prince Titus, not the Antichrist of future events, but the same Messiah the Prince that was spoken of in that verse! That is why you are blind by your own doctrine! In our exegesis, which is the one where scripture interprets scripture, the only prince mentioned there (according to God's Word) is Messiah, the anointed! Not your evil prince.

The error of this type of World Event/History/Josephus type eschatology and interpretations is that it misses the point of scripture completely by keeping their eyes not on the Word/Christ, but on alleged history or events. By straining at a gnat, this system causes Christians to swallow a camel! It is a sad fact that most Christians still tend to this "Historicist type" of interpreting in presuming the fall of Israel took place in AD 70, when the Bible tells us plainly that it was at the cross. They miss the point by listening not to scripture but to their precious unbelieving historian Josephus. So just as surely as the Judaizers missed the point when Christ said "destroy this Temple and in three days I will rebuild it," Christians, especially Preterism and Premillennialism and their cousins, miss the point today. Neither let God be the interpreter, instead, they were/are reasoning it out in their own minds and through their own interpretations of historical events. There's nothing really different today than it was then.

Like I said, nothing new under the sun!
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Cutoff" is not a noun. A noun is a word for a person, place, or thing.
Doug, why are you so ignorant? What is your excuse for that?

Cutoff definition:

noun: cut-off; plural noun: cut-offs; noun: cutoff; plural noun: cutoffs
  1. a point or level that is a designated limit of something.
    "1 p.m. is the cutoff for being out of the woods"
  2. an act of stopping or interrupting the supply or provision of something.
    "a cutoff of aid would be a disaster"
A verb shows action or state of being. "was cutoff" is the compound verb in your sentence.
LOL. The word "cutoff" is not a verb. It can be an adjective or a noun, but not a verb. The Messiah was cut off (2 words), not cutoff.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Doug. Is this how you study scripture, too? You just make assumptions without doing any research? No wonder you get everything wrong in scripture. You can't even understand the difference between verbs and nouns.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
While it was the Romans who actually destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD

Keep in mind that the physical temple itself in 70AD was NOT HOLY since the Cross, to begin with in order to fulfill the prophecy. The veil rent in the temple the moment Christ died and it was done. Don't forget that Christ, himself, REBUILT the temple from the temple that is fallen in three days. The physical temple was no longer represented God and no longer Holy. The stones (Jews) were the spiritual builders of the temple that already fell down signifies the fall of the Old Testament Congregation at the Cross. Not physical stones. So 70AD was not what God talked about.

Moreover, the New Testament congregation (now as a temple rebuilt by Christ) has already become a kingdom representative and went out with Power and Authority from God since Pentecost. Long before 70AD.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@jgr

Here is something positive and uplifting to dwell upon, from Ephesians 1.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Yes. And:

Hebrews 8

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,685
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why do you see the prince to come as being a future Antichrist when we know that the city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD? If it was referring to a Roman ruler/prince then it would be someone who was the ruler/prince of the Romans in 70 AD.
My reasoning is...

1. Christ in context of the Jewish expectation of the messiah is to be the great King of Israel descended from king David. In John 4:25, Christ and messiah are equated to each other. In Mark 15:32, "Christ, the king of Israel".

2. "Anti" - the prefix - means instead of and/or against. In the case of the Anti-christ, it means both instead of and against - Jesus the true Christ.

3. In Judaism, based on some scriptures, they believe the messiah (moshiach in their terminology) will fight the battles of God in defending Israel.

4. In Judaism, the messiah well teach them how to follow Torah, which includes the law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 31:9-13, Moses established as requirement of all future leaders of Israel, on a 7 year cycle, to have the law read to the gathering of the nation at the place of God's choosing.

The Jews (Judaism) take that event to take place on the temple mount as the place of God's choosing.

5. In Daniel 9:21, Daniel acknowledged seeing Gabriel for the first time in the vision - inferring to the vision Daniel had in Daniel 8 concerning the little horn and his desolation of the temple, in the end times, which Gabriel explained - but Daniel did not understand (Daniel 8:27) simply because there was not enough information given.

6. In Daniel 9:22, Gabriel says he is "now" come forth to give thee skill and understanding. That is, to give more information about the little horn vision, so that Daniel could understand about the little horn, and the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the desolation of the temple - in "the time of the end" (Daniel 8:17).

7. In Daniel 9:24, to seal up the vision and prophecy, i.e. fulfill the vision and prophecy about the little horn person.

8. In Daniel 7, the little horn rises from the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire (the people who destroyed the temple and city in Daniel 9:26), in the end times because that is when the vision of the little horn is in Daniel 8.

9. In Daniel 8:23, the little horn stands up, an idiom for prepares to go to war.

10. In Daniel 8:9, the little horn waxes strong to the south and east, toward the promised land.

11. In Daniel 8:25, the little horn destroys many by peace.

12. In Daniel 8:25, the little horn meets his end when he attempts to stand up against the Prince of princes, Jesus. The little horn will be "the beast" at that time. (so we know from his opposition to Jesus that the little horn is antichrist in spirit.)

_________________________________________________________

Putting all of those things together, the little horn person will become leader of the EU.

And when Gog/Magog appears imminent, the little horn person prepares to go to war, staging his army in Greece, one of the breakup kingdoms of Alexander's empire.

Gog/Magog will happen; Gog's army destroyed supernaturally by God.

In the aftermath following Gog/Magog, the little horn as the prince who shall come will move his EU army into the middle east on the premise of being the peace keeper in the region.

The Jews, many of whom believe that the messianic age will follow Gog/Magog, will think the little horn person is the messiah, in large part for his apparent intent to defend to them.

The false prophet will anoint the little horn person as the King of Israel - coming in his own name. It is then that the little horn becomes the Antichrist.

In that role, he will have the law read to the nation from the temple mount, confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant, and beginning the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

Which in the middle of the week as the Antichrist, he will violate the covenant, by declaring himself to have achieved God-hood, and stopping the daily sacrifice.

It will reveal himself to be the man of sin, and not the messiah after all to the Jews. And they will reject him from continuing as their king - ending his time as the Antichrist.

Later, he becomes the beast of Revelation, dictator of the EU, kingdom of the beast.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Because people have their eyes so firmly on physical history and worldly events, rather than spiritual "biblically verified" events, they don't grasp the significance of the prophecy. The same reason Christians have looked for Keyser, Trump, the European market, The Pope, Palestine, Israel, Russia Saudi Arabia, Egypt, national Israel, and 70AD, as somehow prophetic. And have been doing so for year after year, always being proven wrong. Because they look to world history and men as interpreters instead of Biblical history, the biblical record, and God as interpreter. It is the age-old error of "unsound hermeneutics" rather than intellect or reason.

Mark 9:11-12
  • "And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
  • And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought."
It's not that the prophesy was wrong, it was that their "historicist type" interpretation of it was wrong. The moral of the story, you cannot take a historical biblical text from the period in which it was constructed, and try and force a historical/physical fulfillment based on that text. Just because something in the text was stated historically in the Old Testament doesn't mean Elijah would be reincarnated, or a literal/physical city called Babylon was going to either exist or fall, to fulfill the Biblical prophesy of these things happening. Once we start to practice a sound logical and reasonable system of accepting that "interpretations belonging to God," the Bible opens up exponentially. And we come to see the error of such a historicist (the belief in ongoing historical fulfillment) hermeneutic. Remember, that is why the Judaizers missed the coming of their Messiah. Because they were looking for a historical king that would come and set them free from Roman rule, government and bondage. You will never come to a correct interpretation by applying this biblically historical text from the period in which it was constructed, to the same [type] fulfillment today.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There are two princes in Dan 9 -- one of them dies for our sins, makes the new Covenant etc and is called the "anointed one" ... while the other one "destroys" and is NOT called the "anointed one" -- as we saw here -- in Dan 9

Dan 9

Vs 25

New International Version
“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (457 B.C.) until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ (483 years) It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.​

NASB
25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (457 B.C. ) until Messiah the Prince (anointed one) there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (483 days = 483 years); it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.​


Vs 26

New International Version
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,(after 27.A.D. ) ’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler (Caesar) who will come will destroy the city (Rome) and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.​

(after the 69 weeks ends. So 27 A.D. 483 years into the 490 year contiguous timeline)​

NASB
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks (after 27 A.D.) the Messiah (anointed one) will be cut off (crucified Christ) and have nothing, and the people of the prince (Rome) who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.​

27 And he (Messiah) will make a firm covenant (1 Cor 11:25) with the many for one week (7 years), but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering (Heb 10:4-12); and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate (pagan Rome, Caesar) , even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”



Nonsense! God did not talk about two princes at all. You are reading into Scripture to fit your doctrine.

You have free will - so of course you are free to ignore whatever Bible details you wish.

The "other one" is your own making, not God. You simply take verse out of context and try to insert an "evil prince." That is what you are doing. It is wrong.

false accusations... not a very compelling form of argument.

The people of the anointed (Christ) that should come were the Jews,

False. The Jews already existed at the time Daniel is writing Dan 9.

Do you have any other suggestions??
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My reasoning is...

Filled with speculations, I can see that.

Putting all of those things together, the little horn person will become leader of the EU.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

And when Gog/Magog appears imminent, the little horn person prepares to go to war, staging his army in Greece, one of the breakup kingdoms of Alexander's empire.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

Gog/Magog will happen; Gog's army destroyed supernaturally by God.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

In the aftermath following Gog/Magog, the little horn as the prince who shall come will move his EU army into the middle east on the premise of being the peace keeper in the region.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

The Jews, many of who believe that the messianic age will follow Gog/Magog will think the little horn person is the messiah, in large part for his apparent intent to defend to them.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

The false prophet will anoint the little horn person as the King of Israel - coming in his own name. It is then that the little horn becomes the Antichrist.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

In that role, he will have the law read to the nation from the temple mount, confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant, and beginning the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

Which in the middle of the week as the Antichrist, he will violate the covenant, by declaring himself to have achieved God-hood, and stopping the daily sacrifice.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

It will reveal himself to be the man of sin, and not the messiah after all to the Jews. And
they will reject him from continuing as their king - ending his time as the Antichrist.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.

Later he become the beast of Revelation, dictator of the EU, kingdom of the beast.

The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
John 1:11
  • "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

Acts 4:10-11
  • "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
  • This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."
Hello?! The builders are the Jews, not Romans!

Hello -- you just changed subject and context. The Dan 9 text does not say "the builders of the sanctuary destroy the city".

Details still matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, historically, were the Romans.

Arch of Titus in Rome, carrying away the temple menorah...


982612202f66928514996c81fe5f66e3--arch-of-titus-roman-history.jpg

Both Romans and Jews qualify as "the people of the prince". Both were Prince Messiah's instruments of judgment and destruction.

Contemporary Jewish historians concur:

"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Do you have any other suggestions??

Yes, I suggest that based on your doctrine, you are spiritually blind to the Word of God concerning His People and His City. Not evil prince within the context.
 
Upvote 0

TribulationSigns

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 19, 2017
3,485
1,045
Colorado
✟414,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hello -- you just changed subject and context. The Dan 9 text does not say "the builders of the sanctuary destroy the city".

Details still matter.

Says someone who does not understand how to compare Scripture with Scripture.

I rest my case.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,685
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Filled with speculations, I can see that.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.



The Word of God does say that. It's your speculation.
upload_2021-10-22_11-29-41.jpeg
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Keep in mind that the physical temple itself in 70AD was NOT HOLY since the Cross, to begin with in order to fulfill the prophecy.
Where did I say that the physical temple was holy in 70 AD? I did not. It was still holy at the time Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, so that's why He could still call it "the holy place" at that time. But, it would no longer be holy and no longer be a place where God would meet with His people shortly after that when He died on the cross and the veil of the temple was torn in two to signify the end of the old covenant and ushering in of the new covenant.

The veil rent in the temple the moment Christ died and it was done. It no longer represents God and no longer Holy.
Of course! Where did I say otherwise?

The stones (Jews) were the spiritual builders of the temple that already fell down signifies the fall of the Old Testament Congregation at the Cross. Not physical stones. So 70AD was not what God talked about.
I disagree. You're not looking at the context of the Olivet Discourse, which is what I assume you're talking about here.

Tell me, do you understand that the temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at were the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time? Do you understand that Jesus had just left one of the actual physical temple buildings before the disciples marveled at them?

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The context here is clearly regarding the actual physical temple buildings that were standing at that time. Obviously, Jesus didn't depart from the spiritual temple and the disciples were clearly not marveling at the spiritual temple of God. You get that, right?

Right after the disciples said "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!, He replied by saying "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.". Jesus was clearly referring to the physical temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at and told them that they would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. And, they were in 70 AD. This is very simple and straightforward and you are not even seeing that.

You're just trying too hard here. Sometimes, scripture is simple and straightforward and sometimes it's not. We have to be able to discern literal text from figurative and you're not doing that correctly in this case.

You do know that Jerusalem and the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD, don't you? It showed how Jesus knew the future and knew exactly what He was talking about which is something to celebrate.

Now, this is where the preterists get things wrong, though. They think Jesus was only asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed, but He wasn't. He was also asked about His coming and the end of the age, which have not yet occurred. So, He talked about both events.

Moreover, the New Testament congregation has already become a kingdom representative and went out with Power since Pentecost. Don't forget that Christ, himself, REBUILT the temple from the temple that is fallen in three days.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that and agree with that, but it's just not what Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are two princes in Dan 9 -- one of them dies for our sins, makes the new Covenant etc and is called the "anointed one" ... while the other one "destroys" and is NOT called the "anointed one"

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9.

He is Messiah.

Yes, He was cut off, died for our sins, and confirmed His New Covenant.

He is also the prince whose people, the Romans and Jews, were His instruments of judgment, and in the destruction of the city and sanctuary.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My reasoning is...

1. Christ in context of the Jewish expectation of the messiah is to be the great King of Israel descended from king David. In John 4:25, Christ and messiah are equated to each other. In Mark 15:32, Christ the king of Israel.

2. "Anti" - the prefix - means instead of and/or against. In the case of the Anti-christ, it means both instead of and against - Jesus the true Christ.

3. In Judaism, based on some scriptures, they believe the messiah (moshiach in their terminology) will fight the battles of God in defending Israel.

4. In Judaism, the messiah well teach them how to follow Torah, which includes the law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 31:9-13, Moses established as requirement of all future leaders of Israel, on a 7 year cycle, to have the law read to the gathering of the nation at the place of God's choosing.

The Jews (Judaism) take that event to take place on the temple mount as the place of God's choosing.

5. In Daniel 9:21, Daniel acknowledged seeing Gabriel for the first time in the vision - inferring to the vision Daniel had in Daniel 8 concerning the little horn and his desolation of the temple, in the end times, which Gabriel explained but Daniel did not understand v27 simply because there was not enough information given.

6. In Daniel 9:22, Gabriel says he is "now" come forth to give thee skill and understanding. That is, to give more information about the little horn vision, so that Daniel could understand about the little horn, and the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the desolation of the temple - in "the time of the end" (Daniel 8:17).

7. In Daniel 9:24, to seal up the vision and prophecy, i.e. fulfill the vision and prophecy about the little horn person.

8. In Daniel 7, the little horn rises from the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire (the people who destroyed the temple and city in Daniel 9:26), in the end times because that is when the vision of the little horn is in Daniel 8.

9. In Daniel 8:25, the little horn stands up, an idiom for prepares to go to war.

10. In Daniel 8:9, the little horn waxes strong to the south and east, toward the promised land.

11. In Daniel 8:25, the little horn destroys many by peace.

12. In Daniel 8:25, the little horn meets his end when he attempts to stand up against the Prince of princes, Jesus. The little horn will be "the beast" at that time. (so we know from his opposition to Jesus that the little horn is antichrist in spirit.)

_________________________________________________________

Putting all of those things together, the little horn person will become leader of the EU.

And when Gog/Magog appears imminent, the little horn person prepares to go to war, staging his army in Greece, one of the breakup kingdoms of Alexander's empire.

Gog/Magog will happen; Gog's army destroyed supernaturally by God.

In the aftermath following Gog/Magog, the little horn as the prince who shall come will move his EU army into the middle east on the premise of being the peace keeper in the region.

The Jews, many of whom believe that the messianic age will follow Gog/Magog, will think the little horn person is the messiah, in large part for his apparent intent to defend to them.

The false prophet will anoint the little horn person as the King of Israel - coming in his own name. It is then that the little horn becomes the Antichrist.

In that role, he will have the law read to the nation from the temple mount, confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant, and beginning the 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9.

Which in the middle of the week as the Antichrist, he will violate the covenant, by declaring himself to have achieved God-hood, and stopping the daily sacrifice.

It will reveal himself to be the man of sin, and not the messiah after all to the Jews. And they will reject him from continuing as their king - ending his time as the Antichrist.

Later, he becomes the beast of Revelation, dictator of the EU, kingdom of the beast.
Goodness gracious. How can anyone make sense of all that? Is the truth really that convoluted? I don't believe so.

But, going back to Daniel 9:26, the context is regarding the people of the ruler/prince/leader destroying the city and the sanctuary and we know the city and the sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD. Therefore, it only follows that if it was talking about the Romans destroying the city and the sanctuary, as you indicated you believe is the case, then it has to be talking about what happened in 70 AD and their ruler/prince would need to have been around in 70 AD (otherwise he wouldn't be their ruler/prince) and not in the future. Nothing you said above specifically addresses this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Both Romans and Jews qualify as "the people of the prince". Both were Prince Messiah's instruments of judgment and destruction.

Contemporary Jewish historians concur:

"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."
Good point. While not all people are God's people in the sense of spiritual salvation, there is a sense in which all people are God's people because He created all people. And He can use the people He created however He wishes. In this case, He used both Jews and Romans to take out His wrath on the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0