Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is only one person identified as Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9.
It changes the understanding a bit to change the wording to "Jesus's people". In Daniel it's written that "the people of the Prince" will destroy the city and sanctuary. The Israelites were "of the Prince" but not all were "Jesus's people".Jesus's people were not the Romans. The prince who shall come is a completely different person from Messiah the Prince.
Who was hailed as the messiah, King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Jesus, John 12:12-15.Correct. "He" in verse 27 refers back to the referent "the prince" in verse 26, which refers back to the referent "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, all one and the same Person.
So you would side with Satan and say the church is in disbelief?"Data from the Pew Research Center that as of 2013, about 1.6 million adult Americans of Jewish background identify themselves as Christians, most are Protestant."
And that's just Americans.
Not including the rest of the world.
Not including all of history since Calvary.
Lots of 'em.
Looks like the dispen "Gentile church" is just a myth.
Yep.
Agreed.Who was hailed as the messiah, King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Jesus, John 12:12-15.
Who was cutoff, four days later, rejected by his own people, as being the King of Israel coming in the name of the Lord? Christ the King of Israel, Mark 15:31-32.
Jesus.
No....because, as it's been posted quite a few times in several different ways....the grammar doesn't allow for that. The "He" in the sentence "shall confirm a covenant with many" goes back to the only singular subject in the passage - Messiah the Prince.Who is not called Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9, but a prince just the same? The prince who shall come, who will confirm the covenant with many for one week, 7 years. The Antichrist.
This is an example of that being done. When a person takes a passage like this (Daniel 9) that's about Jesus and states:Douggg said:The opening post by me in this thread in no way suggests that Michael, the angel, nor Jesus, the Lord God Amighty is the great opposer to God
It is your point the living Nation of Israel is not capable of belief. They are still not abiding in Christ. They remain in unbelief. Are you saying modern translators know Israel is going to be forced to be saved in a day, or change their minds in a day? Does it matter which?Do you understand the English languages use of two negatives in one sentence?
"not" + "un-" = belief
Romans 11:23
(ESV) And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
(ESV+) And R7even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
(Geneva) And they also, if they abide not still in vnbeliefe, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graffe them in againe.
(GW) If Jewish people do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted onto the tree again, because God is able to do that.
(KJV) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
(KJV+) AndG1161 theyG1565 also,G2532 if they abide notG3362 G1961 still in unbelief,G570 shall be graffed in:G1461 forG1063 GodG2316 isG2076 ableG1415 to graff them inG1461 G846 again.G3825
(NKJV) And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
(YLT) And those also, if they may not remain in unbelief, shall be graffed in, for God is able again to graff them in;
If this is the kind of double-talk that is needed to make Dispensational Theology work, why do people hang onto it?
Who destroyed the city from within and burned down the Temple to keep it out of Roman hands?Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come 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.
Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Michael is still one of Jesus' angels. Not Jesus Himself, as some claim. Just like there are seven angels for the 7 churches, the Nation of Israel has Michael as their named angel. That is all. Nothing else to speculate on.I didn't know that was a JW belief.
ETA: I looked it up, and I agree with them here:
From link: Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. *
"Who Is Michael the Archangel? Is Jesus? | Bible Teach" https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/
What I disagree with the JW is that Michael/Jesus was a created being. I believe Jesus is God.....and that Michael is the preincarnate/postincarnate Jesus.
So, in your opinion, God wasn't involved in the fight between Michael and the dragon in Revelation 12:7?
Jesus is contending with Satan here....is He not?"
Matthew 4:1-11
Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence. four subjects, four verbs.The "He" in the sentence "shall confirm a covenant with many" goes back to the only singular subject in the passage - Messiah the Prince.
From what I can recall from grammar classes ages ago, you're identifying the sentence parts accurately (those may be verb clauses...but it doesn't make a difference either way).Daniel 9:26 is a compound sentence. four subjects, four verbs.
Here is the breakdown. Verbs in red. Subjects in blue.
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.
"Of the prince" is a prepositional phrase. "who shall come" is an adjective clause, describing the prince.
___________________________________________________
Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25 is Jesus. The Messiah cutoff in Daniel 9:26a is Jesus.
The he in Daniel 9:27 is the prince who shall come, not Messiah the Prince.
The only possible antecedent for the he in Daniel 9:27 if following the rules of English grammar is the prince who shall come.From what I can recall from grammar classes ages ago, you're identifying the sentence parts accurately (those may be verb clauses...but it doesn't make a difference either way).
But how you leap from identifying the subjects properly.......with only one singular subject that could possibly refer to the "He" and dismiss that possibility that's right there in the passage in favor of a subject that doesn't even exist in the entire Old Testament.....that's where the explanation falls apart.
No, because just like how you identified that phrase, it's an adjective clause that modifies "the people". "The people" are the subject (like you identified ). "People" is plural and can't be the referent.The only possible antecedent for the he in Daniel 9:27 if following the rules of English grammar is the prince who shall come.
But we do know, from this passage, that the purpose was this:And it is impossible to know who the prince who shall come is, and what the confirming of the covenant with many for one week is - by Daniel 9 alone. It takes knowledge from a multitude of other passages in the bible.
The people is not the antecedent. The prince who shall come is the antecedent. The people destroying the city 100 years after the messiah is cutoff, proves that the antecedent cannot be messiah the prince, but the prince who shall come.No, because like how you identified that phase, it's an adjective clause that modifies "the people". The people are the subject (like you identified ). "People" is plural and can't be the referent.
Copy and paste from the King James Bible. It is "the" transgression, not "their" transgression in verse 24, as is in the Berean study bible.But we do know, from this passage, that the purpose was this:
Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
.......the theme of Jesus as Prince seems to continue into the New Testament
Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Cross (just as the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years....but that's another topic).The people is not the antecedent. The prince who shall come is the antecedent. The people destroying the city 100 years after the messiah is cutoff, proves that the antecedent cannot be messiah the prince, but the prince who shall come.
The temple was destroyed in 70AD. But because of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Hadrian has the city plowed under in 135AD.Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Cross (just as the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years....but that's another topic).
There are 4 subjects and 4 verbs in verse 26. The issue is not over the "he" being some person involved in destroying the temple and city.You identified 4 possible subjects. "People" destroyed the city and the sanctuary.....that can't be a "He". I just edited post #153 to include an example using a similar sentence structure.
Right.....and "of the prince" and "is to come" are not subjects. You have been identifying those phrases properly.There are 4 subjects and 4 verbs in verse 26. The issue is not over the "he" being some person involved in destroying the temple and city.
The "he" is in verse 27. A different sentence. The "he" in that sentence refers back to the prince who shall come.
Well, I am not making that mistake, to come up with the wrong conclusion......and something else you can do is just drop the descriptive phrases or substitute a description that's not in reference to a person (that's where the confusion is). For instance:
Know and understand this: From the issuance of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people 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 (Messiah) will confirm a covenant with many for one week
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?