Expect, or not to Expect? That is the question.

[Timtofly]

What we're doing is expressing opposing opinions--not declaring "facts" that the other one must accept as "fact." In my opinion, there is more than one "ruler" mentioned in Dan 9.

To say every mention of "ruler" has to be the same one can only be argued from each context in which it is used. It is not legitimate to just declare they are all the same person, unless each context bears that out.

Again, the "prince to come" mentioned in verse 26 is expressly mentioned in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which we *know* happened in the generation of Jesus. Jesus did not destroy the temple. Neither did the Jews destroy the temple. "Desolation" refers, in my view, to the destruction of the temple, and not merely to an act of sacrilege, though it is that as well.

Dan 9.27 bears no explicit reference to the 2nd Coming, or to the Last Trumpet. This is all conjecture on your part, since nothing there indicates the 2nd Coming of Christ. So again, this is not a "fact," but only your opinion.

It does not say the prince destroys the city. How is that a fact to you? Christ (Messiah) is the Prince that shall come.

If Daniel had claimed another prince of a different people would come and destroy, I could see your point. You are the one injecting thoughts not there.

You would have to claim that Daniel is wrong in stating the Messiah is also the Prince. Gabriel clearly stated the Messiah and Prince were one and the same.

I am pointing out that Messiah was the first coming. The Prince is all about the Second Coming. That Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD is not the point at all. Yes, it happened. It will not happen again, but the AoD did not happen twice. It already happened with Antiochus Epiphanies, not by Rome. At the Second Coming will be the AoD. Not the destruction. It was civil war that caused 70AD. If no civil war, then no Roman siege period.

 

[Timtofly]

Actually, they will have just passed thru the great ordeal of the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster. John was in Heaven, viewing future events on earth.

How can all those currently in Paradise die again in the 6th Seal? Only those on earth went through what happened on earth. Those currently in Paradise still met in the air, those from the earth.

 

[keras]

How can all those currently in Paradise die again in the 6th Seal? Only those on earth went through what happened on earth. Those currently in Paradise still met in the air, those from the earth.

Your fundamental error is to think people go to 'paradise', when they die.
Not so; the dead know nothing, they 'sleep' in the grave, waiting for their [temporary] resurrection to stand before God in Judgment. Rev 20:11-15

There will be no general resurrection of people when Jesus Returns. ONLY the Great Trib martyrs will be brought back to mortal life. Rev 20:4-5

 

[RandyPNW]

It does not say the prince destroys the city. How is that a fact to you? Christ (Messiah) is the Prince that shall come.

I said this prince was mentioned "in connection" with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. He presided over this act, but it was the Army under him that performed the act.

That is why it is said that "the people" of the prince shall do this act. And this is why Jesus said "armies" would surround Jerusalem. This Roman Army accomplished the act under the direction of the "prince," which was their general.

You cannot say this "prince" is the Messiah to come if the context does not bear this out. And it doesn't. Christ did *not* destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem, although as God I suppose you could say he supervised it from above.

I am pointing out that Messiah was the first coming. The Prince is all about the Second Coming. That Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD is not the point at all.

I completely disagree since that is precisely what is said!
Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Yes, it happened. It will not happen again, but the AoD did not happen twice. It already happened with Antiochus Epiphanies, not by Rome.

The whole point I'm making is that Jesus used the AoD as an expression of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem! And that happened, as Jesus said, "in this generation," ie in 70 AD.

You're not just arguing with me, brother, but with scores of serious and good Bible scholars. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. The facts are, Jesus said that Jerusalem would be destroyed in his generation, and it was, in 70 AD.

At the Second Coming will be the AoD. Not the destruction. It was civil war that caused 70AD. If no civil war, then no Roman siege period.

It was Jewish rebellion against the Romans that caused the Romans to come. Beyond that, it was the Lord directing this as a form of judgment against the Jewish People who had rejected Christ and who had determined to continue in their sinful ways.

The AoD was a term used for sacrilege and destruction, the destruction of the temple and done within the holy city. In Luke, Luke substituted the words "surrounded by armies," committed to desolating the temple. The AoD = the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

Please compare these two versions of the same Discourse in the exact same place in the Discourse. They are obviously saying the same things, using slightly different ways of expressing it:

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

the AoD = armies
the holy place = Jerusalem

 

[keras]

The whole point I'm making is that Jesus used the AoD as an expression of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem! And that happened, as Jesus said, "in this generation," ie in 70 AD.

Why then, did Paul say; ...the Adversary will enthrone himself in God's Temple and will claim to be God. 2 Thess 2:4
This is a specific statement, a prophecy that is not fulfilled yet. It will be when a man rises to world power. Revelation 13:5-8
Jesus will destroy his army and chain him up at His Return. Rev 19:11-21 & 20:1-3

 

[RandyPNW]

Why then, did Paul say; ...the Adversary will enthrone himself in God's Temple and will claim to be God. 2 Thess 2:4
This is a specific statement, a prophecy that is not fulfilled yet. It will be when a man rises to world power. Revelation 13:5-8
Jesus will destroy his army and chain him up at His Return. Rev 19:11-21 & 20:1-3

I believe Paul here is making reference to the prophecy of the Antichrist in Dan 7, where he is referred to there as the "Little Horn."

The Olivet Discourse is based on Dan 9, where the emphasis is on Jesus' first coming, and on the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in that generation.

 

[keras]

I believe Paul here is making reference to the prophecy of the Antichrist in Dan 9, where he is referred to there as the "Little Horn."

I don't see any reference to the 'little horn' in Daniel 9.
He is mentioned in Revelation 17:9-14; all prophesies of the end times, yet to be fulfilled.

The Olivet Discourse is based on Dan 9, where the emphasis is on Jesus' first coming, and on the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in that generation.

The OD prophesies of near and far events.
Both described differently and both either happened as stated and will happen as stated.

 

[Timtofly]

Your fundamental error is to think people go to 'paradise', when they die.
Not so; the dead know nothing, they 'sleep' in the grave, waiting for their [temporary] resurrection to stand before God in Judgment. Rev 20:11-15

There will be no general resurrection of people when Jesus Returns. ONLY the Great Trib martyrs will be brought back to mortal life. Rev 20:4-5

Paradise certainly is not deep space. It is the Garden of Eden, Adam and his sinful offspring were banned from. Jesus claimed that day, Paradise was opened because of the Atonement of the Cross. You quote Solomon, who died and probably went to the grave, Abraham's bosom. Probably, unless he went to sheol. The NOSOS theory. Those out of God's will, tend to loose hope more than their eternal salvation. Compare David's, valley of the shadow of death, to Solomon's bleak nothingness. Seems Solomon did not want to face Abraham?

The whole OT was brought out of Abraham's bosom, not just a select few, at the Cross. They entered Paradise with Jesus when He ascended on Sunday after He told Mary He was going to ascend.

Many in Paul's newly formed congregations across Greece, heard about that, and thought they missed out. Paul assured them all the dead in Christ go to Paradise upon physical death.

Today we have been taught a different approach, and that all the dead have to wait like those in Abraham's bosom had to wait. Yet that teaching contradicts part of what Paul wrote as it changes other parts of Paul's writings.

The actual aspect that the church is waiting for is the joining of our spirit, being glorified. John symbolized that glorification process in the 5th Seal. Paul said all would change, and the dead have been changed. The soul left this corruptible body on earth, for a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise. All there have been changed already. What all are waiting for is the glorification part. The first resurrection, physical is the body. Already done, the living have not prevented that process.

That means those in Paradise are not waiting for us today, to recieve the first resurrection. They are waiting for the second part, the joining of the spirit, glorification. Paul termed that putting on immortality (being like God, a light). John termed that putting on a robe of white. Jesus demonstrated the "robe of white" on the mount of Transfiguration when He became as bright as the sun. When we put on our spirit we will shine like the stars. Obviously we do not have on the spirit right now. We have the Holy Spirit in us, as interest, until the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

I said this prince was mentioned "in connection" with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. He presided over this act, but it was the Army under him that performed the act.

That is why it is said that "the people" of the prince shall do this act. And this is why Jesus said "armies" would surround Jerusalem. This Roman Army accomplished the act under the direction of the "prince," which was their general.

You cannot say this "prince" is the Messiah to come if the context does not bear this out. And it doesn't. Christ did *not* destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem, although as God I suppose you could say he supervised it from above.



I completely disagree since that is precisely what is said!
Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.



The whole point I'm making is that Jesus used the AoD as an expression of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem! And that happened, as Jesus said, "in this generation," ie in 70 AD.

You're not just arguing with me, brother, but with scores of serious and good Bible scholars. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. The facts are, Jesus said that Jerusalem would be destroyed in his generation, and it was, in 70 AD.



It was Jewish rebellion against the Romans that caused the Romans to come. Beyond that, it was the Lord directing this as a form of judgment against the Jewish People who had rejected Christ and who had determined to continue in their sinful ways.

The AoD was a term used for sacrilege and destruction, the destruction of the temple and done within the holy city. In Luke, Luke substituted the words "surrounded by armies," committed to desolating the temple. The AoD = the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

Please compare these two versions of the same Discourse in the exact same place in the Discourse. They are obviously saying the same things, using slightly different ways of expressing it:

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

the AoD = armies
the holy place = Jerusalem

You keep trying to force the OD into Daniel 9.

"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."

This does not mention armies, this does not mention AoD. Your imagination is placing undeclared actions into this verse.

The Jews are Jesus' people. He was born and lived in the first century. His own people recieved Him not, per John 1. His own people were killing each other and destroying Jerusalem. Daniel never prophecied in this chapter a Roman Army, nor an AoD. So if you want to point out the imagined points look elsewhere in the book of Daniel. What about the Flood that Daniel did mention in that verse? That could be symbolism of an army, but one can make symbolism say a lot of things. So far I have yet to see some one point that out. They keep wanting to claim Jesus as Prince is not the prince mentioned. When clearly Jesus' own people brought on, by their own actions and rejection of the Messiah, their own destruction.

Yes, Daniel 9:6 says the temple and city will be destroyed. It does not specifically state Rome once. Jesus is the Christ and ruler to come.

The first century Jews clearly already understood Antiochus Epiphanies brought about the AoD. No one needs the Roman Army as a sign of what is yet to come. If one does not accept a future AoD, they certainly will not prevent it from happening by posting their thoughts about it. It will happen despite one's belief system. Or it will not even be necessary. Revelation 13 is not the only possible outcome of the Second Coming event. It is the worse case scenario.

The Jews could have accepted their Messiah, even after the Resurrection. They chose to dig into their rebellion, instead of repentance. They chose the worse case scenario.

 

[RandyPNW]

You keep trying to force the OD into Daniel 9.

"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."

This does not mention armies, this does not mention AoD. Your imagination is placing undeclared actions into this verse.

No, it isn't my imagination that inspires my thoughts. It is *Jesus' interpretation* of the passage that inspires my thoughts! Jesus is the one who in the Olivet Discourse refers back to Daniel in this passage. Jesus used precisely the same words, ie AoD, that Dan 9 used. Jesus made the connection--not just me!

So when you say I'm using my "imagination," or "forcing application to Dan 9," you're not acknowledging the Scriptures I gave you to prove otherwise. In this case, perhaps you're not interested in honestly addressing the proofs I'm giving you?

If you wish to argue this honestly, you will have to address these issues--not concoct false accusations, depicting me as bypassing the Scriptures or "using my own imagination." I'm clearly basing my positions on Scriptures!

Jesus, if we compare one version of the Olivet Discourse to another, identified the AoD with Roman Armies. I showed you that both descriptions were used in the exact same place of the Discourse by Jesus. The AoD = Roman Armies who were abominable pagans breaking into the holy city and desolating the temple.

The Jews are Jesus' people. He was born and lived in the first century. His own people recieved Him not, per John 1. His own people were killing each other and destroying Jerusalem. Daniel never prophecied in this chapter a Roman Army, nor an AoD.

Daniel predicted the rise of 4 kingdoms, including the one he was presently under. Counting from Babylon, the 4th kingdom was Rome. And Daniel described this 4th Kingdom, or Rome, as terrible and destructive. In ch. 9 Daniel describes the people under a future leader as destroying Jerusalem and the temple. The only people this fits in history were the Romans. I don't dispute that the Jews were guilty in rejecting Christ. That's what brought on this Roman judgment from God.

Yes, Daniel 9:6 says the temple and city will be destroyed. It does not specifically state Rome once. Jesus is the Christ and ruler to come.

Rome was *future* to Daniel, and he would not likely call it out *by name.* Daniel mentioned a *4th Kingdom.* That identifies Rome, which was the 4th after Babylon.

The first century Jews clearly already understood Antiochus Epiphanies brought about the AoD. No one needs the Roman Army as a sign of what is yet to come.

You don't get to dictate to God what He tells His Prophets! Jesus prophesied that Israel would be judged, for their irreligiosity, in his own generation, following his death. For you to say that is unimportant is incredible! Do you really think that after God had used Prophets all through Israel's history that Jesus would just summarily dismiss Israel as if it had never existed and move on with the international Gospel? I think not.

If one does not accept a future AoD, they certainly will not prevent it from happening by posting their thoughts about it. It will happen despite one's belief system. Or it will not even be necessary. Revelation 13 is not the only possible outcome of the Second Coming event. It is the worse case scenario.

I do not accept a future AoD because it isn't biblical. The AoDs happened in history. On the other hand, prophecy of the Antichrist exists. And it will happen.

You say my view is "my imagination." But you should be careful when claiming your interpretation is beyond mistake. The Scriptures indicated that *God* is the one who inspired Scriptures and so determines what they mean. We can make mistakes. We need God's help in determining what He meant to say.

 

[DavidPT]

No, it isn't my imagination that inspires my thoughts. It is *Jesus' interpretation* of the passage that inspires my thoughts! Jesus is the one who in the Olivet Discourse refers back to Daniel in this passage. Jesus used precisely the same words, ie AoD, that Dan 9 used. Jesus made the connection--not just me!

Once again I feel the need to bring this up. Suppose that you are living in the first century and that it is after Jesus' ascension but prior to 70 AD, and that you are then reading what Jesus said about Daniel and the AOD. Explain how by just consulting one or maybe two verses in Daniel 9 would have shed further light for them at the time? What you are concluding about some of these things, regardless whether you might be right or wrong, you are using hindsight, something they obviously didn't have at the time. Instead of concluding things in that manner, why not put yourself in their shoes at the time, then base some of your conclusions in that manner?

Matthew 24:15 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: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

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; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.


Already we can see something that is recorded in Matthew 24 but is not recorded in Daniel 9, but is recorded in Daniel 12, yet, you are suggesting that Jesus is only telling someone all they need to consult is one or two verses in Daniel 9 to be adequately enlightened. In Matthew 24 it is is verse 21 I'm meaning. That is not recorded in Daniel 9 but it is undeniably recorded in Daniel 12, though. But, maybe not everyone played connect the dots when they were growing up, or if they did, maybe they weren't very good at it? Maybe that explains some of it?

 

[RandyPNW]

Once again I feel the need to bring this up. Suppose that you are living in the first century and that it is after Jesus' ascension but prior to 70 AD, and that you are then reading what Jesus said about Daniel and the AOD. Explain how by just consulting one or maybe two verses in Daniel 9 would have shed further light for them at the time? What you are concluding about some of these things, regardless whether you might be right or wrong, you are using hindsight, something they obviously didn't have at the time. Instead of concluding things in that manner, why not put yourself in their shoes at the time, then base some of your conclusions in that manner?

The one or two verses in Daniel are not small things, but part of a long history of the Prophets condemning Israel for their idolatry and sin. Daniel brought forth a vision of their future from his time to the coming of Messiah. This was not a small thing, but part of the total picture the Prophets gave Israel of their future. They would be judged, and somehow the Kingdom of Messiah would still prevail and come.

When Jesus referred to Daniel, he did so with the expectation his listeners would immediately know what he was talking about. He did not have to spell it out in great detail, since as I said, it was a very broad picture of Israel's history, from Moses on down. Israel would embrace the covenant of Law, and still manage, as a nation, to fail it.

And so, Babylon happened, and as Jeremiah said, the people would experience exile for not just an entire generation, but more, an entire generation from cradle to the grave--70 years! But then God would find redemption even for their broken covenant to restart it with the rebuilding of the temple in Nehemiah's time.

And things would continue pretty much the same until once again, the city and the temple would fall. Israel would fall into religious hypocrisy and sin by the time of Christ, and would come under imminent judgment in his generation.

This would be in the very generation of Messiah. And it would come through a people under a certain coming prince, who the future generation would recognize as Rome.

It was critical for Jesus' Disciples to know about the coming destruction of Jerusalem because he wanted them to escape. Like Jeremiah they would be given to escape a judgment meant for a sinful nation, but not for those who obeyed and capitulated to God's edicts.

Jesus wanted his Disciples to know that the future of the Jewish Church would be in "survival mode," so that they would not feel abandoned, and be prepared to experience hardships without losing their faith. This also was great advice for the Church of all nations, who would, in their own nations, experience similar things, particularly in nations converting to Christ and then backsliding, like Israel did.

 

[Timtofly]

No, it isn't my imagination that inspires my thoughts. It is *Jesus' interpretation* of the passage that inspires my thoughts! Jesus is the one who in the Olivet Discourse refers back to Daniel in this passage. Jesus used precisely the same words, ie AoD, that Dan 9 used. Jesus made the connection--not just me!

So when you say I'm using my "imagination," or "forcing application to Dan 9," you're not acknowledging the Scriptures I gave you to prove otherwise. In this case, perhaps you're not interested in honestly addressing the proofs I'm giving you?

If you wish to argue this honestly, you will have to address these issues--not concoct false accusations, depicting me as bypassing the Scriptures or "using my own imagination." I'm clearly basing my positions on Scriptures!

Jesus, if we compare one version of the Olivet Discourse to another, identified the AoD with Roman Armies. I showed you that both descriptions were used in the exact same place of the Discourse by Jesus. The AoD = Roman Armies who were abominable pagans breaking into the holy city and desolating the temple.

It would help if you at least put the verses in your post. All I see is your imagination.

 

[RandyPNW]

It would help if you at least put the verses in your post. All I see is your imagination.

I put Scripture passages in all the time, when the subject calls for it. I'm not going to lace every post I make with Scriptures. If you have a particular point you need to verify with Scripture, let me know.

In post #249 I put in two passages. So no, you have more than "my imagination." And quite frankly, stating things that are said in Scriptures do not call upon your imagination, but rather, upon your verification. The Bereans searched things out for themselves.

Acts 17.11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

They didn't accuse Paul of drawing upon his "imagination," but recognized that he was making Scriptural claims, and searched *for themselves!*

I gave you the Scripture locations I was drawing upon. If you don't have enough background to look them up for yourself, how can you even argue against what I'm saying?

 

[RandyPNW]

I don't see any reference to the 'little horn' in Daniel 9.

Right. I mis-referenced! I meant to say the Little Horn is in Dan 7. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Timtofly]

Right. I mis-referenced! I meant to say the Little Horn is in Dan 7. Thanks for the correction.

Instead of a long post about studying the Scriptures a verse would have cleared this chapter 9 situation up quite nicely. Trying to figure out which verse in chapter 9 you were referring to was getting us no where.

 

[RandyPNW]

Instead of a long post about studying the Scriptures a verse would have cleared this chapter 9 situation up quite nicely. Trying to figure out which verse in chapter 9 you were referring to was getting us no where.

The mistake was putting ch. 9 in place of what I meant to write, ch. 7. Cross out "9" and put in "7." The Antichrist is in ch. 7--not ch. 9. I made a typo.