Then I'll be waiting for that third party to present itself.
How could the earthly ministry of Jesus continue for another three years if it had only lasted three and a half years? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Already explained.
But if you're not able or willing to understand, then leave it for those who are.
Sure. In the meantime, I've demonstrated grammatically via antecedents that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Messiah.
Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate grammatically that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Antichrist.
There is nothing within the context of Daniel 9:27 that identifies the one confirming a covenant with the many for seven years as being the Messiah. The Covenant established by the Messiah is an everlasting Covenant without need of renewal and is not a pre-existing covenant. The covenant of the Anti-Christ is a temporary pre-existing covenant which he breaks half way through its tenure. That is what the context of that passage reflects and that should be enough.
If it is not enough, that is because you reject its plain sense meaning.
No you haven’t. In fact we are warned against declaring as doctrine what the scriptures have not. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6) That is why I cannot declare the earthly promises as they pertain to Israel cancelled.
The inferior OC Mosaic Priesthood was replaced by the NC Priesthood in Christ at the Cross and 70ad................The Covenant made in Christ is an everlasting covenant.
The false messiah gives recognition to a covenant that already appears to be in existence and is temporary. The true Messiah replaces an inferior Covenant with a Superior Covenant that lasts for eternity.
There is nothing within the context of Daniel 9:27 that identifies the one confirming a covenant with the many for seven years as being the Messiah. The Covenant established by the Messiah is an everlasting Covenant without need of renewal and is not a pre-existing covenant. The covenant of the Anti-Christ is a temporary pre-existing covenant which he breaks half way through its tenure. That is what the context of that passage reflects and that should be enough.
Sorry, but that's not a grammatical argument.
Grammar is objective, encapsulating the rules associated with every language.
Because of grammar's objectivity, its rules must be applied before context is considered.
Context is subjective, relating to interpretation.
It cannot be considered until grammar's rules are applied first.
Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.
Awaiting your grammatical argument.
Haven't for you.
Have for anyone able and willing to understand the meaning and significance of the New Testament in Christ's Blood.
Hebrews 8
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.
The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished.
They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.
The burden of proof is just as much on you to provide NT scriptures that those things pertaining to Israel have been cancelled out.
. I’ve already provided scriptures that at the very least imply that the foretelling of land restoration to the Jewish people was still in effect, but you have rejected them as even evidence pointing to such
You have put forth nothing that explicitly states or even implies that land restoration no longer applies to the nation of Israel.
But nonetheless, if you agree that the Hasmonean dynasty was not the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, then perhaps you will consider that the reestablishment of Israel as a nation once more in 1948 may be setting the stage for that eventual fulfillment.
I believe that God dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, but Ezekiel and Paul are not talking about the same form of God’s presence. Paul is speaking of God’s presence through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Ezekiel foretells of God coming to dwell among His people directly.
You have yet to provide scriptural evidence from Deuteronomy 30:1-6 that such was one-time fulfillment and not an ongoing fulfillment until their ultimate reconciliation with God through Christ when He returns to reign.
That may be the case in the world of men, but this is not necessarily the case with God. God’s promissory clauses could only be made null and void if the new contract which He has instated has not expressly cancelled them out. If they are not expressly cancelled out, they are still in effect and in this case, land restoration for the Jews. Furthermore, He has continued to leave the door open for the Jews to experience all the blessings He has promised them, which they will experience, along with the promises we have in Christ, if they no longer remain in unbelief but embrace Christ, which they eventually are destined to do.
I believe that Jesus is Shepherd over all who come to Him, and as far as the fulfillment of the cited passage goes, (Ezek. 34:23) I believe it is possible that it is in reference to Christ. But because this is speaking of a time that has not yet come to pass, we cannot yet know how its fulfillment will play out. We do know Christ will be ruling over all the earth when it is fulfilled.
Creation itself also bears witness to the glory of God all over the world, but it takes the Gospel to open men’s eyes to that. Creation had been proclaiming the hope of the Gospel before men were sent out into the world to preach it, but not every nation or people had been exposed to the Gospel in Paul’s day.
Did the Gospel spread throughout of all of Africa in Paul’s day? Did his generation see it preached throughout all of Central Asia and the far east? Did any of the Apostles or Christ’s disciples of that first generation travel to Australia or the Americas to preach the Gospel? Did all of Europe hear the preaching of the Gospel from that first generation?
When Christ meant the Gospel had to be preached throughout the entire world, He didn’t mean just the Roman empire, He meant the entire world.
Why else would Jesus say that we cannot know the day nor the hour of His return?
Why else is it written that the coming of the Lord will be life a thief in the night?
Why else would Peter say, as it pertains to the Lord’s return that the Lord is not slow in keeping His promises as we understand slowness? (2 Pet. 3:9)?
As for the part of the Jews, they have always had a central role in prophetic fulfillment and will continue to have their part until all things are fulfilled and that is why it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that their rejection of Christ has delayed the fulfillment of a number of things to come.
King Josiah’s repentance delayed judgment upon Judah did it not? Ninevah’s repentance when Jonah pronounced a coming judgment upon them delayed their destruction didn’t it? Even king Ahab’s repentance over his murder of Naboth delayed the destruction of his household.
The lack of faith on the part of the Israelites delayed God's promise in fulfilling His declaration of the land promised them to be given into their possession. They had to wander around in the wilderness for 40 years. Had it not been for their lack of faith, they would have possessed the land promised to them sooner.
I never called the Church a building.
Had the Church continued to take the Gospel to all four corners of the earth and maintained its own members, all thing might have been fulfilled sooner and perhaps Christ might already be reigning on the earth today.
Peter was saying that what may seem like a long time to us is not a long time to God as it relates to Christ’s return.
The Roman empire was said to extend as far north as Germany so the Germanic tribes probably were under the jurisdiction of Rome, as far as the Romans were concerned though not willingly. Due to Roman forces being stretched thin, they were not able to hold this area for long. The Parthians were an empire that was a rival to Rome, but even the wars involving the Roman empire are but a small fraction of all the wars and rivalry between nations and kingdoms that have taken place throughout history and what wars took place in the first century still do not compare to the number of wars that have taken place in more recent centuries.
Not all the things that He said would happen happened prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. There are still things He said would take place that have not yet taken place.
What evidence do you have that they haven’t? I tried to keep a record of the number of earthquakes that happen each year, but the number of earthquakes that took place became more than I could keep up with, but that was alongside everything else I tried to keep track of.
Grammar has to do with proper communication and goes hand in hand with context. The two can never be made separate. Context is not subjective but is designed to reveal intended meaning to which there is a finality.
If context is subjective, then so is interpretation and if interpretation is subjective, then there can be no certainty of the intended meaning with the context and is then made to say whatever the reader desires it to say.
“Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.”
that statement running contrary to the those preceding it:
“its rules must be applied before context is considered.”
“The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished. They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.”
The New Covenant does not say that they were cancelled out as it pertains to Israel.
Do you believe that grammar applies to Scripture?
If so, you should be able to provide a grammatical argument.
Still waiting.
A covenant/testament is the sum of its contents.
The contents of a covenant/testament which is decayed and vanished are also decayed and vanished.
Under the definition of a covenant/testament, they would need to be respecified in the new covenant/testament to be in force and effect.
They have not been respecified.
Are you claiming the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then Gabriel forgot to even mention the New Covenant?
Is the context of Daniel 9 about the fulfillment of the New Covenant found in Matthew 26:28?
.
If that were the case, we would have no idea what the New Covenant has cancelled out and what it hasn't.
Grammar applies to scripture as it applies to any other writing. You yourself have not provided a so-called grammatical argument for your case as it pertains to the context of Daniel 9:27.
So the writer of Hebrews was wrong, and it's not decayed and vanished after all?
The OT contains the historical record of the decayed and vanished promises. We have a complete idea of what they were.
Compare them to the NT to see the differences.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?