Daniel 9:24 fulfillment

[BABerean2]

Jesus made NO covenant for a period of "one week" (7 years) and then broke it in the middle of the 7 years. Nor did Jesus anoint the most holy place in Jerusalem, and that is what the Dan.9:24 anointing the most holy is about.

The text says nothing about the covenant being broken in the middle of the week.
You are adding that to make modern Dispensational Theology work.

Christ clearly stated that He is the temple. Therefore, He is the Holy place.

Daniel chapter 9 is about the New Covenant Messiah.
Do you think the angel Gabriel "forgot" to mention the New Covenant?

Are you denying that Christ fulfilled the New Covenant found in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:22-24?

..................................................................................

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.


Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.


Daniel 9:27

And he (a) 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 (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

.

 

[jgr]

Question: if what you state above is the intent of the Author, please tell us, was John mistaken in what he wrote in Revelation? Is Revelation then a history book?

Was Jesus mistaken when He said to John He was to show John things in the future?

Is Revelation 19 and 20 some events in history that no one can pinpoint when?

Thinking that would be silly in my mind: Jesus has NOT returned and set up His earthly Kingdom. Jesus has NOT returned with the armies of heaven and won the battle of Armageddon. Therefore there are still prophecies of Jesus that remain to be fulfilled.

You are assuming that because I've demonstrated from Christ's own words that He has already fulfilled Daniel 9:24, therefore I believe that all of Revelation has also been already fulfilled.

Your assumption is incorrect. There is much in Revelation and elsewhere about the Second Coming.

Yet, the prophecies in Revelation do not preclude Christ's fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 and many other Old Testament prophecies at His First Coming.

Jesus has NOT returned and set up His earthly Kingdom.

Daniel had something to say as well about the Kingdom.

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Christ came during the days of the fourth king and kingdom described by Daniel, that of the Roman empire. He set up His Kingdom in those days.

It was and is not an earthly kingdom. (John 18:36)

 

[A71]

Please Davy. Paul frequently explained how the earthly Jerusalem was a shadow of the Heavenly one. Consider the Book of Hebrews, chp 9.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

In plain English, the Most Holy Place is in heaven, and what Paul is telling us here, John confirms in Revelation where we see Christ on God's throne.

Talking about taking Scripture totally out of context! The Daniel 9:27 & 11 scripture in question has nothing to do with Jesus fulfilling it at His first coming. Jesus made NO covenant f

or a period of "one week" (7 years) and then broke it in the middle of the 7 years. Nor did Jesus anoint the most holy place in Jerusalem, and that is what the Dan.9:24 anointing the most holy is about.

To say Jesus fulfilled Dan.9:27 and thus Dan.11 which must go with it, is to say Jesus is the "vile person" and "little horn" of the Book of Daniel. Because some brethren are deceived on men's doctrines, they will taint our Lord Jesus with the identity of the "vile person" by saying Jesus fulfilled Dan.9:27, just so they can keep their false doctrine of man.

 

[Davy]

You're assuming that I'm assuming. Your assumption is incorrect. No true historicist believes that all prophecy has already been fulfilled.

In your post 213 you tried to use Luke 24:44 to prove Dan.9:24 was fulfilled at Christ's first coming. So now you're playing games by denying it.

 

[Davy]

You are assuming that because I've demonstrated from Christ's own words that He has already fulfilled Daniel 9:24, therefore I believe that all of Revelation has also been already fulfilled.

Your assumption is incorrect. There is much in Revelation and elsewhere about the Second Coming.

Yet, the prophecies in Revelation do not preclude Christ's fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 and many other Old Testament prophecies at His First Coming.



Daniel had something to say as well about the Kingdom.

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Christ came during the days of the fourth king and kingdom described by Daniel, that of the Roman empire. He set up His Kingdom in those days.

It was and is not an earthly kingdom. (John 18:36)

None of what you're saying supports your theory that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:24. All one need do is simply read... Daniel 9:24 which Daniel was told is about JERUSALEM and his people (THE JEWS) and then take a look at what those Jews in Jerusalem today believe, and it's so... easy to know Dan.9:24 is not fulfilled yet. The majority of the Jews in Jerusalem today still REJECT Christ Jesus, and thus their sin is still not covered, which is one of the qualifying factors of the Dan.9:24 verse.

 

[BABerean2]

None of what you're saying supports your theory that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:24. All one need do is simply read... Daniel 9:24 which Daniel was told is about JERUSALEM and his people (THE JEWS) and then take a look at what those Jews in Jerusalem today believe, and it's so... easy to know Dan.9:24 is not fulfilled yet. The majority of the Jews in Jerusalem today still REJECT Christ Jesus, and thus their sin is still not covered, which is one of the qualifying factors of the Dan.9:24 verse.

You are saying that Christ failed in His mission to provide a sacrifice for sin, by claiming that Daniel 9:24 has nothing to do with Acts 10:38 or Hebrews 10:16-18.

We do not follow a failed Messiah.

Read what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36, if you think Christ failed to fulfill Daniel 9:24.

You also need to read Romans 9:27 if you think all of Israel will follow Christ.

.

 

[Davy]

Please Davy. Paul frequently explained how the earthly Jerusalem was a shadow of the Heavenly one. Consider the Book of Hebrews, chp 9.

....
In plain English, the Most Holy Place is in heaven, and what Paul is telling us here, John confirms in Revelation where we see Christ on God's throne.

I well understand what Paul was pointing to in Hebrews 9, and also in Galatians about the Heavenly Jerusalem. Yet John was shown in Revelation the Heavenly Jerusalem is going to be coming down... out of Heaven to this earth (Rev.21). And that's for the world to come, NOT... this world we are still in today.

 

[Davy]

You are saying that Christ failed in His mission to provide a sacrifice for sin, by claiming that Daniel 9:24 has nothing to do with Acts 10:38 or Hebrews 10:16-18.

We do not follow a failed Messiah.

Read what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36, if you think Christ failed to fulfill Daniel 9:24.

You also need to read Romans 9:27 if you think all of Israel will follow Christ.

.

You are misapplying Scripture again.

Hebrews 10:16-18 is about The NEW COVENANT through Christ Jesus! It's to Christ's Church of 'believing' Israelite and Gentile! And you say that was fulfilled in JERUSALEM???? Even the early Apostles had to HIDE in Jerusalem because of the unbelieving JEWS! Christ's blood shed on the cross was fulfilled there, but NOT for the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, they rejected Him!!!

Like Daniel was told in Dan.9, the prophecy was about Jerusalem and his people, meaning the Jews!

Your lack of understanding the simple parameters of the Dan.9 Scripture being about Jerusalem and Daniel's people the Jews is because you instead have latched onto a doctrine from men you've been taught instead. It's really not that difficult to disprove Biblically when folks follow men instead the simplicity written in God's Word.

 

[A71]

I well understand what Paul was pointing to in Hebrews 9, and also in Galatians about the Heavenly Jerusalem. Yet John was shown in Revelation the Heavenly Jerusalem is going to be coming down... out of Heaven to this earth (Rev.21). And that's for the world to come, NOT... this world we are still in today.

No, because you are trying to say the anointing in the most holy place referred to in Dan9:24 is some whackjob future event, whereas Paul explains in Hebrews that it has already happened. Christ was anointed King of Israel in Heavenly places where he sat down on the throne of David when God sat him down

 

[A71]

@Davy you seem to be a lot more familiar with all the meretricious snake oil eschatologists who have slithered their pockets with lucre than the actual Scriptures themselves

 

[BABerean2]

Hebrews 10:16-18 is about The NEW COVENANT through Christ Jesus! It's to Christ's Church of 'believing' Israelite and Gentile! And you say that was fulfilled in JERUSALEM???? Even the early Apostles had to HIDE in Jerusalem because of the unbelieving JEWS! Christ's blood shed on the cross was fulfilled there, but NOT for the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, they rejected Him!!!

Like Daniel was told in Dan.9, the prophecy was about Jerusalem and his people, meaning the Jews!

I thought that most of us knew the events of His trial, being crucified, and His resurrection from the dead, which fulfilled the New Covenant, all occurred in and around the city of Jerusalem.

If He had not been rejected by a majority of His own people, He would never have been sacrificed for our sin.
Do you not understand that fact?

You are claiming that He was a failure.

Go back and read what Peter said to his own people on the Day of Pentecost.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


And what was the response of about 3,000 Israelites on that day?


Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

All of this was a part of God's plan for the world.

His first coming was not a failure.
It was a complete success based on the verse below.

Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

.

 

[Christian Gedge]

After the sixty-two weeks Messiah (Jesus) shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people (Roman troops in ad 70) of the prince who is to come (Titus, a roman general and prince) 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.

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing atoning sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)

Dan 9:26,27 (N.K.J.Version, my noted bracketed added)

 

[Christian Gedge]

I noticed that a previous poster claimed there is no record of Jesus ever making a 7-year covenant. This is a misunderstanding. Messiah never makes a 7-year covenant; he made an ETERNAL covenant! However, the 70th week was the period required to confirm the covenant.

The covenant that the Gentiles would receive the blessing of relationship with God was first given to Abraham. It was confirmed during the ministry of Christ during the 1st half of the 70th week, and the confirmation process continued during the ministry of the apostles for the 2nd half of the 70th week.

There was no (and there never will be) a 7-year long covenant.

 

[A71]

The Messiah is a mistranslation. The NRSV translates "mashiyach" as "an anointed one", which is correct. Literallly "an Anointed".
"Mashiyach karath am"

An anointed one shall be cut off from the congregation.

This is precisely what happened when the Church was taken out of Jerusalem by divine predetermination. The anointed Church was cut off from the congregation of apostate Passover Jews.

Once this simple thing is understood, then we can move forward with the correct understanding of the timeline of the 70 weeks.

 

[jgr]

The Messiah is a mistranslation. The NRSV translates "mashiyach" as "an anointed one", which is correct. Literallly "an Anointed".
"Mashiyach karath am"

An anointed one shall be cut off from the congregation.

This is precisely what happened when the Church was taken out of Jerusalem by divine predetermination. The anointed Church was cut off from the congregation of apostate Passover Jews.

Once this simple thing is understood, then we can move forward with the correct understanding of the timeline of the 70 weeks.

The terms appear to be interchangeable.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
anointed, Messiah
From mashach; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah -- anointed, Messiah.

 

[A71]

Anointing is just the act of pouring oil on someone, to signify they are taking high office. e.g. a King, or Priest.
E.G. Saul was anointed by Samuel

1 Samuel 10 (NRSV)
10 1 Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him; he said, “The Lord has anointed you ruler over his people Israel. You shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around.

In the New Covenant, we see first Jesus, and then the Church in Jerusalem at Pentecost, anointed with the Holy Spirit

Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

2 Corinthians 1:21
But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us,

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed due to consistent flaming.
MOD HAT OFF​