Daniel 9:

[Douggg]

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.

The text would have been presented differently, if that person were part of the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

He would have been presented as the leader and his army destroying the temple and city.

And army is not even mentioned in Daniel 9:26. Nor as the prince who shall come being responsible for the destruction of the temple and city.

______________________________________________________

Gabriel is giving understanding about the little horn person of the time of the end, as being the prince who shall come.

 

[Douggg]

Goodness gracious. How can anyone make sense of all that? Is the truth really that convoluted? I don't believe so.

It is not near so complicated as it appears at first glance.

Basically, it boils down to knowing what the concept of the Antichrist is.

Knowing that the stopping of the daily sacrifice and desolation of the temple will be by the little horn in the time of the end.

Knowing what the Jews believe in regards to the messiah, and how they will be fooled for a while.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The text would have been presented differently, if that person were part of the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

No, it wouldn't have. Once again you are making something up in your own mind that scripture itself doesn't say.

When the United States has been at war with other countries, has the President (Commander in Chief) been directly involved in combat on the front lines? Obviously not. Even high ranking military officers usually do not directly take part in combat. Instead, they give the orders to others. So, it is not a requirement for a leader of an army to directly take part in combat.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It is not near so complicated as it appears at first glance.

Oh, yes it is. Do you know of anyone else who agrees with you on your understanding of all this? I'm not asking if someone else believes in a future Antichrist, I'm asking if anyone else agrees with your particular understanding of all the things you wrote in your post. I doubt it. Does God reveal truth to just one person?

Basically, it boils down to knowing what the concept of the Antichrist is.

There is no singular Antichrist. John made it clear that there are many antichrists and anyone (not just one person) who denies Christ is an antichrist. Just look up the word "antichrist" in scripture and you can see that.

Knowing that the stopping of the daily sacrifice and desolation of the temple will be by the little horn in the time of the end.

Wrong. Jesus put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings long ago when He put an end to the old covenant on the cross and ushered in the new covenant by His blood at that time.

 

[Douggg]

No, it wouldn't have. Once again you are making something up in your own mind that scripture itself doesn't say.

When the United States has been at war with other countries, has the President (Commander in Chief) been directly involved in combat on the front lines? Obviously not. Even high ranking military officers usually do not directly take part in combat. Instead, they give the orders to others. So, it is not a requirement for a leader of an army to directly take part in combat.

But the prince who shall come is not said to be leader of the Romans at the time the temple and city are destroyed.

 

[TribulationSigns]

View attachment 307557

This error-prone chart should be entitled, "The Chart of Speculations with mathematical gymnastics."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

But the prince who shall come is not said to be leader of the Romans at the time the temple and city are destroyed.

Where does it say he's not? How can "the people of the prince" be the prince's people if he's not even around when they are? If he's not around when they are alive then it doesn't make sense to call them his people. Once again, you are denying the obvious.

 

[jgr]

The text would have been presented differently, if that person were part of the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

He would have been presented as the leader and his army destroying the temple and city.

I'm completely confident that the Holy Spirit and Daniel presented it correctly.

And army is not even mentioned in Daniel 9:26. Nor as the prince who shall come being responsible for the destruction of the temple and city.

Last time I checked, an army was comprised of people. And the leader of the people of an army is responsible for the missions that they carry out.

 

[Douggg]

Oh, yes it is. Do you know of anyone else who agrees with you on your understanding of all this? I'm not asking if someone else believes in a future Antichrist, I'm asking if anyone else agrees with your particular understanding of all the things you wrote in your post. I doubt it. Does God reveal truth to just one person?

I don't know, because I don't know what everyone in the world thinks. I do know that there are others who think the same on certain elements of what I wrote.

Eschatology is not something that most people of the world think about much, imo.

There is no singular Antichrist. John made it clear that there are many antichrists and anyone (not just one person) who denies Christ is an antichrist. Just look up the word "antichrist" in scripture and you can see that.

antichrist - singular - shall come. One specific antichrist.

Wrong. Jesus put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings long ago when He put an end to the old covenant on the cross and ushered in the new covenant by His blood at that time.

That's not what the Jews believe. And they will act on what they believe - right or wrong.

 

[Douggg]

Where does it say he's not? Regardless of who the people are, how can they be the prince's people if he's not even around at that time?

It is indicating the prince who shall come will be a Roman. The messiah was prophesied to be a Jew, right, long before he was born.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't know, because I don't know what everyone in the world thinks. I do know that there are others who think the same on certain elements of what I wrote.

Your view is very convoluted. You can't deny that. Just look at your charts. What a mess. So, I think it's safe to assume that very few, if any, entirely agree with you on some of those things. So, I ask again, do you think that God reveals the truth of some things to only one person?

Eschatology is not something that most people of the world think about much, imo.

No, but most Christians think about it at least to some extent.

antichrist - singular - shall come. One specific antichrist.

Why do you just completely ignore my points and not address them? I told you that John said there are many antichrists and anyone who denies Christ is an antichrist. Can you show otherwise?

That's not what the Jews believe. And they will act on what they believe - right or wrong.

What does that have to do with anything? What they believe means nothing and does not change the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead and He put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and ushered in the new covenant by His blood long ago.

 

[Douggg]

This error-prone chart should be entitled, "The Chart of Speculations with mathematical gymnastics."

I have charts and you don't. You do have a cartoonist avatar, I will give you that.

 

[Douggg]

Why do you just completely ignore my points and not address them? I told you that John said there are many antichrist and anyone who denies Christ is an antichrist. Can you show otherwise?

You did not mention John in your post. "antichrist shall come" - singular.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It is indicating the prince who shall come will be a Roman. The messiah was prophesied to be a Jew, right, long before he was born.

Unbelievable. You will do anything to deny the truth. It only makes sense that the prince would be the prince of the actual people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary and not someone who descends from them in the distant future. If it was talking about some future Antichrist it wouldn't make sense to call people who lived almost 2,000 years ago his people.

 

[Douggg]

Last time I checked, an army was comprised of people. And the leader of the people of an army is responsible for the missions that they carry out.

But the prince who shall come is not said to be the leader at the time of the destruction of the temple and city.

Gabriel is giving understanding that the little horn will be of the Romans, something previous revealed in Daniel 7, and then in Daniel 8 as being in the time of the end.

 

[jgr]

It is indicating the prince who shall come will be a Roman. The messiah was prophesied to be a Jew, right, long before he was born.

Still no understanding of antecedents, I see.

The antecedent of "the prince who shall come" is "Messiah the Prince".

He wasn't a Roman.

 

[Douggg]

It only makes sense that the prince would be the prince of the actual people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary and not someone who descends from them in the distant future.

No, it does not make sense. What makes sense is that the prince who shall come will be a Roman.

It does not say that the prince who shall come is the current leader of the people who will destroy the city and temple.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You did not mention John in your post. "antichrist shall come" - singular.

Yes, I did. The post was #104. Read it again. I said "There is no singular Antichrist. John made it clear that there are many antichrists and anyone (not just one person) who denies Christ is an antichrist. Just look up the word "antichrist" in scripture and you can see that.".

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

That is not referring to an individual Antichrist. That is referring to the spirit of antichrist that is in all of the many antichrists and was already in the world in John's time.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Do you agree that the spirit of antichrist was already in the world in John's time, Doug? If so, why do you keep insisting that there will be some future individual Antichrist? John did not teach such a thing.

No, it does not make sense. What makes sense is that the prince who shall come will be a Roman.

It does not say that the prince who shall come is the current leader of the people who will destroy the city and temple.

It doesn't have to say it specifically in order to understand that makes much more sense than believing it's talking about people who lived long ago as being the people of a future Antichrist.

 

[Douggg]

Still no understanding of antecedents, I see.

The antecedent of "the prince who shall come" is "Messiah the Prince".

please do not start with the faulty grammar arguments again.

 

[Douggg]

Yes, I did. The post was #104. Read it again. I said "There is no singular Antichrist. John made it clear that there are many antichrists and anyone (not just one person) who denies Christ is an antichrist. Just look up the word "antichrist" in scripture and you can see that.".

okay, I stand corrected. You did refer to John.