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.
No.
The kingdom of God came with power AFTER the fall of the Old Testament Congregation and pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost that empowered people of God to preach the salvation gospel, right here and then. Not when the physical temple was destroyed in 70AD.
I didn't claim that the antecedent of "their" was a singular person. The "their" is the transgressors - specifically the ten kings of the end times fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, which the little horn person in that chapter comes up among those ten kings.Edit: additionally “their” is plural so any antecedent cannot be referring to a singular person, as you claim.
Randy, the king of fierce countenance of Daniel 8:23 stands up against the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25. It is talking about the beast of Revelation leading the kings of the earth to make war against Jesus.So when He says that there will be a "time of the end," it can mean the time in which Israel is brought low enough to cancel their agreement with God. It signals the end of an era, the end of Israel's covenant relationship with God.
Based on this response, it’s pretty clear you misunderstand me.
I didn't claim that the antecedent of "their" was a singular person. The "their" is the transgressors - specifically the ten kings of the end times fourth kingdom of Daniel 7, which the little horn person in that chapter comes up among those ten kings.
Grammatically, transgressors can and does in that sentence.Thank you for clarifying, your argument seemed to point to Zelenski alone.
However, grammatically, transgressors cannot be the antecedent. So that’s just plain wrong.
Douggg, English doesn’t have gendered words like the Greek or Hebrew, so your example doesn’t work. You are comparing apples to oranges.Grammatically, transgressors can and does in that sentence.
I will give you an example....
In the latter time of their kingdom, the citizens of Russia will be led by someone that the bible calls Gog.
In that sentence, citizens is the antecedent of "their". Their kingdom is Russia.
In Daniel 8:23, instead of citizens, transgressors is the antecedent of their. It does not say the name of the kingdom in Daniel 8:23,
but from Daniel 8:9 we can know that the little horn comes from north and west of Israel with a strong army.
And from Daniel 7, regarding the fourth kingdom in that chapter, we can know that the ten kings and the little horn (who looks more stout than his fellows in the text), are the transgressors and the little horn person the king of fierce countenance in Daniel 8:23.
The fourth kingdom (made up of former Roman Empire nations) in the end times is the EU, which has the strong army.
Maybe. We shall see...
So you agree that the Kingdom of God has already come with power through the Church? That Christ has already established His kingdom?
claninja, pronouns in English like he and she are gender specific.Douggg, English doesn’t have gendered words like the Greek or Hebrew, so your example doesn’t work. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The "their" in that verse are the ten endtimes "kings" which kings is both plural and masculine.“Their”, in vs 23, in the LXX, is masculine and plural, therefore it’s antecedent must be masculine and plural.
Correct. 70ad being only one of the visible signs of Christs absolute authority and that his kingdom had come.
Douggg, that’s not what is meant by English not being a gendered language. Nouns, in English have no gender. Nouns in Greek and Hebrew have gender. In Greek and Hebrew the gender of the pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. That’s why transgressors CANNOT be the antecedent, because it doesn’t match in gender to the pronoun “their”.claninja, pronouns in English like he and she are gender specific.
The "their" in that verse are the ten endtimes "kings" which kings is both plural and masculine.
"queens", on the other hand, would be feminine.
The little horn person will stand up against the Prince of princes, at the time of the end. Prince of princes is an obvious referral to Jesus.
Considering some of the parables of kingdom include the destruction of Jerusalem, I would completely disagree with you. 70ad was easily a sign that proved Christ is true and that the kingdom of God had come with power in the first century.No. this has nothing to do with 70AD.
Because the specific prophecy, without mixture, is that not one stone would be left standing one upon another and the city would be laid even with the ground. By contrast, not one word about 70 AD, the Romans, Titus, or desecrations of the Temple by Roman soldiers. Indeed, it was already desolated by His people (The Jews) many years prior so it wasn't the Holy Temple anymore. So how could it be the Holy Temple of Christ's prophecy in 70AD?! Truly it is clear that the desecration/desolation of the Temple would be by those who are called "His People," His congregation. Indeed it said that the saints would be persecuted "for His Sake." Did the Romans march on Jerusalem because Christians spoke for Christ's sake? Of course not! The whole thing is wrought with inconsistencies and contradictions.
Ezekiel 12:25
The Word that the Lord spoke came concerning the rebellious house of Israel and wasn't "prolonged" until 70 AD. It did come to pass. Right at the Cross. Not as the 70 AD theorists suppose it should, but "exactly" as God always intended it to come to pass. Consider wisely:
- "For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD."
Matthew 23:37-38
- "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
- Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
"This" Jerusalem was not left desolate after 70 AD, but right when they destroyed the Holy Temple, not when Romans destroyed an unholy one. And in three days it was rebuilt, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Because they knew not the time of their visitation. And true to the Lord's words, not one stone was left standing in that desolation, an entirely new structure was built, with stones that sit upon Christ. With some made of wood, hay, and stubble, their true nature is only revealed by fire.
Therefore, 70AD wasn't a sign!
Selah.
Considering some of the parables of kingdom include the destruction of Jerusalem, I would completely disagree with you. 70ad was easily a sign that proved Christ is true and that the kingdom of God had come with power in the first century.
The word transgressors in itself is not gender specific. But since the transgressors - coming to a full - refers to the ten kings in place - which those transgressor kings are gender specific.Douggg, that’s not what is meant by English not being a gendered language. Nouns, in English have no gender. Nouns in Greek and Hebrew have gender. In Greek and Hebrew the gender of the pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. That’s why transgressors CANNOT be the antecedent, because it doesn’t match in gender to the pronoun “their”
The word transgressors in itself is not gender specific. But since the transgressors - coming to a full - refers to the ten kings in place - which those transgressor kings are gender specific.
And this why it is so important that we should have a functional knowledge of how Greek and Hebrew works, otherwise we can make the Bible say whatever we desire.s an irrelevant argument that you making anyway because the little horn person stands up against the Prince of princes - which is what the beast will do at the time of Jesus's return.
Of course those with carnal mind, like the Jews, thought Christ was talking about the physical city and the temple when Christ was really talking about the destruction of his people, his Old Testament congregation, the temple of his body. They are the stones of the building that God talked about. Not physical stones of the unholy temple in 70AD.
Because the king of Babylon of chapter 2 does not stand up to the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 at the time of the end.Douggg, by using your own made up logic, what’s to stop me from claiming the antecedent of “their” in Daniel 8:23 is the king of Babylon in chapter 2?
so Christ never predicted the destruction of the literal temple building, is that what you are saying?
Because the king of Babylon of chapter 2 does not stand up to the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 at the time of the end.
And the king of Babylon is singular - whereas "their" is plural.
The transgressors in Daniel 8:23 are the ten kings which the little horn person comes up in their midst.
Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their (the ten kings) kingdom (the EU), when the transgressors are come to the full (the ten kings in place), a king of fierce countenance (the little horn), and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
Yes.
Like the Jews of Christ's day, both the premillennialists and Preterists have a carnal mind, thinking that Christ was talking about physical stones of the building falling, whether it was in 70AD or in the future temple. But Christ sees His people "AS" stones of the building. They are Christ's old testament building - the congregation. Because of their rejection of the Messiah and by fulfilling Daniel 9:26, it fell and in three days, Christ confirmed a covenant and rebuilt it, this time with a New Testament congregation with Christians as living stones. This is where Christ is now a chief cornerstone of this building! This is the kingdom that comes with power with the Holy Spirit, anointing the New Testament Saints to bring Gospel to the world! Selah! All of this did NOT take place in 70AD!
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?