Not so complicated...

Douggg said:

It seems to me like you are trying to prove that Jesus is Michael.

Click to expand...

As I've already posted - whether Michael is preincarnate Christ Jesus or not....we can't deny that He (Michael) is in alliance with God. He is a prince mentioned by name in the book of Daniel.

Michael and The Messiah (whether they're the same or acting together) are not antichrist....not the little horn....not the beast (as suggested in the OP).

In Daniel 9....the only singular pronoun applies to Jesus. "The people" are not a "He".....the proper pronoun would be "they" if referring to them.

Douggg said:

Which should tell you to take what those commentators had to say with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Why is that? Because they disagree with your conclusion? I'm going to side with them over a modern futurist understanding that seems to not have any others in agreement.

Douggg said:

But no-one is making that argument of Michael doing anything other than what God wants.

Click to expand...

Show me any other prince in Daniel that could fall into the category of "antichrist" or any opposer of God. Throughout Daniel....the mention of "prince" is equal to those contending for God and even Daniel's people.

IOW.....to suggest the people (v. 27) of the prince....were people of an antichist or people of an opposer of God doesn't fit.

Douggg said:

biblical Judaism" is a concocted term.

Click to expand...

It's a description. One form of Judaism is from the Bible.....another began much later and is based on the Talmud and has nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant or the Temple religious system that has disappeared.

Douggg said:

No, because they are in error from what the bible says about Michael in Daniel 10:13 of Michael being ONE OF the chief princes, one of the good angels. And another angel, an evil angel - in the same verse as the prince of Persia.

Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Click to expand...

I don't wish to get high-sided on this issue....because, as I said, either way....it's the same team. The suggestion in the OP is that the people in Daniel 9:27 belong to an antichrist.....the beast....the little horn. I don't see any support for that.

However.....there's support that the people of Daniel 9:27 belong to Daniel's people (the Israelites) because that is who "came to destroy the city and the sanctuary". It's history. We have hindsight to make sense of it now.

Douggg said:

No-one is saying that either Michael the angel, nor Jesus the messiah, is the antichrist, little horn, or beast.

Click to expand...

The OP for this thread suggests that.

The people of the prince destroyed the city and the sanctuary. That was the Jewish zealots in 70 AD. That was prophesied in Daniel 9.....and the only Prince in that passage is Messiah. This is suggested in the OP:

Douggg said:

Messiah the Prince is Jesus the rightful King of Israel - who came in the name of the Lord. Jesus was rejected by the Jews to be their King of Israel, and cutoff, crucified. Which is in Daniel 9:26.

Click to expand...

He wasn't rejected by all Jews, but yes, this is about Jesus the Prince....agreed. He is the only singular subject of the passage.

Douggg said:

The prince who shall come is the another that Jesus spoke of in John 5:43,

Click to expand...

That is a presumption....and it's also ignoring the grammar of Daniel 9 (where the *people* of the Prince to come are mentioned).

"People" cannot be the "He" mentioned in v. 27, because the pronoun for "people" is "they" not "He".

Douggg said:

His own received him not.

Click to expand...

As I've posted before.....if ALL Israelites rejected Him, we wouldn't have Christianity.

Douggg said:

The Romans destroyed the temple (70 AD)

Click to expand...

Actually.....the Jewish zealots did most of the damage first:

Josephus.org

Douggg said:

His own received him not.

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

Of course it is talking about the majority making up Israel.

If, for understanding's sake, you carried forward what it said in verse 25 - Messiah the Prince. And noted it in Daniel 9:26

Daniel 9:26-27
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed.
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah [ The Prince ] will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people [plural subject] of the [not Messiah the Prince] prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And He [the prince who shall come] will confirm a covenant with many for one week.

The Romans destroyed the temple (70 AD) and plowed Jerusalem under (135 AD). Jesus own (people the Jews) received him not.

Jesus's people were not the Romans. The prince who shall come is a completely different person from Messiah the Prince.

Click to expand...

While it was the Romans who literally, physically destroyed the temple buildings and the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, I'm not sure if that is what the prophecy is referring to in terms of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. I've gone back and forth on that.

Right now I'm leaning towards believing that it's actually referring to the Jews who were the cause of the eventual destruction and desolation of Jerusalem and that would mean the prince is the same prince that was mentioned previously, which was the Messiah.

My basis for this understanding is this passage:

Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

Notice that He declared already at that time that their house (the temple) was spiritually desolate. Shortly after that they had Him crucified and the veil of the temple was torn in two, signifying that it was no longer the temple of God at that point and no longer would God require animal sacrifices to be performed there because Christ made His "once for all" sacrifice.

So, while it was the Roman armies who actually destroyed Jerusalem and the temple buildings, the reason it happened was because of the Jews (not all, but a majority) having rejected Christ. So, in that sense it was the Jews who were responsible for destroying "the city and the sanctuary". They were the people of Messiah the prince because He said Himself at the time that He was the King of the Jews.

Regardless of all that, as mkgal1 has pointed out to you already, the last individual antecedent who the focus was on before Daniel 9:27 was Messiah the Prince in the first part of verse 26. The reference to "the people of the prince" did not change the focus to another prince (if that is even speaking of a different prince, which I doubt) but rather to "the people" of the prince. So, that means the "He" of verse 27 is pointing back to the last individual to be the focus, which was clearly Messiah the prince.

To conclude that the one confirming the covenant would be an Antichrist instead of Christ is just unbelievable to me. You couldn't interpret a verse worse than that if you tried.

Who else but Jesus could put an end to animal sacrifices and offerings? No one. And He did just that by way of His once for all sacrifice on the cross. He confirmed the new covenant with His shed blood on the cross. That fits the fulfillment of the prophecy perfectly and is something for all of us to celebrate.

But, instead your doctrine attributes the verse to some future Antichrist. That is just sad.

Douggg said:

His own received him not.

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

Of course it is talking about the majority making up Israel.

If, for understanding's sake, you carried forward what it said in verse 25 - Messiah the Prince. And noted it in Daniel 9:26

Daniel 9:26-27
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed.
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah [ The Prince ] will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people [plural subject] of the [not Messiah the Prince] prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And He [the prince who shall come] will confirm a covenant with many for one week.

The Romans destroyed the temple (70 AD) and plowed Jerusalem under (135 AD). Jesus own (people the Jews) received him not.

Jesus's people were not the Romans. The prince who shall come is a completely different person from Messiah the Prince.

Click to expand...

There is only one individual identified as a prince in the passage.

He is Messiah, confirmed Scripturally, historically, and grammatically.

The people of the prince (Daniel 9:26) refers to the Roman armies which were Messiah the Prince's (Daniel 9:25) agents and instruments to accomplish the judgment and destruction which He had prophesied. God's use of such instruments, and His characterization of them as "mine" even though pagan, can be found in several OT instances e.g.:

Jeremiah 25
9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

Jeremiah 43
10 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

God characterizes the pagan Nebuchadnezzar as "my servant" in using him and his armies against Judah and Egypt.

In the same way as Nebuchadnezzar, though a pagan, was God's servant in executing His judgment; so too were the pagan Roman armies (whose battle ensigns were abominations to the Jews) Messiah's people in accomplishing His purposes (the desolation of Jerusalem and Judea). (Daniel 9:26-27)

In addition, the Jews themselves, as the historical people of Messiah the Prince, were equally responsible for the suffering and destruction. Their own actions in defiling and destroying the buildings and temple prior to the Roman invasion are described by Josephus:

The Lamentation of Josephus
War 5.1.4 19-20

The darts that were thrown by the engines [of the seditious factions] came with that force, that they went over all the buildings and the Temple itself, and fell upon the priests and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, with their own blood. The dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.
Oh most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy internal pollutions! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer survive, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hast made the Holy House itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.

As seen, Josephus recognizes the Jews as complicit agents of their own destruction, and that destruction as Divinely orchestrated.

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."

The people, both Roman and Jewish, of the prince Messiah who was to come, were Messiah's agents and instruments in accomplishing His purposes of judgment and destruction upon those who had rejected Him.