The Making of a Covenant in Dan.9:27

[precepts]

What post?


Quasar92

Post #40 on page 2

 

[Quasar92]

Post #40 on page 2

You wrote: "Has the thought ever crossed your mind, Mr. PhD (and Denominational Christianity), that the covenant that was to be confirmed was the old testament covenant since they were returning from Babylon?

Yours and Denominational Christianity's stumbling block is refusing the stone that the builders refused. Here is the context and the proof of what and who the text is referring to concerning the covenant to be confirmed, in Daniel."

FYI, I don't respond to people who trash others. Capiche!

My response to your claims are found in post #28!


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

1 John 2:18 does inform us that antichrist is not a singularity. The papacy was the prevailing antichrist of its time, fulfilling the prophecies of the little horn in Daniel 7, and of the man of sin in 2 Thes. 2:3-4.

King James (the King James):

"Rome is the Seat of the Antichrist."

"...Popery is in deed The mysterie of iniquitie..."

"The Pope is Antichrist..."

"Antichrist and his clergie...not only infect the earth...but rule also over the whole..."

From the 1769 King James Bible Introduction:

"...writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of Sin, as will not be healed,)"

Jesus informs us who the final world ruler is, whom Satan will give his throne, power and great authority to in Rev.13. He is the beast out of the sea, the Antichrist, while his right hand man, is the beast out of the earth, the False Prophet. I suggest you read it. Review verse 18, referring to one specific person.


Quasar92

 

[jgr]

Jesus informs us who the final world ruler is, whom Satan will give his throne, power and great authority to in Rev.13. He is the beast out of the sea, the Antichrist, while his right hand man, is the beast out of the earth, the False Prophet. I suggest you read it. Review verse 18, referring to one specific person.


Quasar92

Do you think King James read it?

Rev. 13:18
Roman papal title: VICARIVS FILII DEII - Vicar of the Son of God - assumed by each pope
Sum of Roman numerals: 666

 

[precepts]

You wrote: "Has the thought ever crossed your mind, Mr. PhD (and Denominational Christianity), that the covenant that was to be confirmed was the old testament covenant since they were returning from Babylon?

Yours and Denominational Christianity's stumbling block is refusing the stone that the builders refused. Here is the context and the proof of what and who the text is referring to concerning the covenant to be confirmed, in Daniel."

FYI, I don't respond to people who trash others. Capiche!

My response to your claims are found in post #28!


Quasar92

Calling you Mr. PhD is trashing you? Boy, do you have thin skin. And post #28 cannot answer the question of the context being post Babylon. My observation is that you, Denominational Christianity, nor the world can address the facts. Go figure.

 

[Quasar92]

Do you think King James read it?

Rev. 13:18
Roman papal title: VICARIVS FILII DEII - Vicar of the Son of God - assumed by each pope
Sum of Roman numerals: 666

Which of the Popes is going to be the Antichrist, according to your views?

Rev.13:18 "18 This calls for wisdom.AP)'> Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Calling you Mr. PhD is trashing you? Boy, do you have thin skin. And post #28 cannot answer the question of the context being post Babylon. My observation is that you, Denominational Christianity, nor the world can address the facts. Go figure.

<SNIP> The remark comes across to me as nothing other than sarcasm! Capiche?!


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Which of the Popes is going to be the Antichrist, according to your views?

Rev.13:18 "18 This calls for wisdom.AP)'> Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.


Quasar92

Is the Antichrist and Number 666 in Hebrew Nero(n)?

THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST in Rev.13:18:

During Roman occupation it was illegal for citizens to criticise the Roman leadership. If the Jews wanted to criticize, they would have to invent a code language. Babylon for instance was the code for the Roman Empire. The harlot of Babylon would be the name for the Caesar. The heads of the beast would be representative of the power structure of the Roman Empire.

666 would refer to Nero Caesar. In the Hebrew Art of Gematria, every letter has a numeric value. If you convert Nero Caesar to Hebrew and convert it to Gematria you will get the number 666. The Letter N in Hebrew has a value of 50. When you convert Nero in Hebrew, it would be Neron, but some jews would say Nero, meaning it could be 616 or 666. Old manuscripts of the book of Revelations also have 616 instead of 666. Again, this need to use numbers instead of names was used in order to avoid directly criticizing the political establishment for fear of being arrested.
If you want a further analysis read the chapter on Revelations in Bart D Ehrman's book: "A historical introduction into early christian writings". Professor Ehrman teaches at the university of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is a textual critic of early Christian Writings.

SO TO HEBREW GEMMATRIA WE MUST TURN IF WE ARE TO MAKE SENSE OF THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST BEING THE NUMBER OF A MAN...

If we use a Hebrew Aramaic Gemmatrial system (where each Hebrew Letter has a corresponding NUMBER attached) the system works like this:

ALEPH =1 = (' )
BETH =2 =B
GIMMEL =3 =G
DALED =4 =D
HEH =5 =H
VAV =6 =V and O
TSAYIN =7 = Z
CHET =8 = CH
TET =9 = T
YUD =10 = Y or I
KAPH =20 = K
LAMED =30 = L
MEM =40 = M
NUN =50 = N
SAMEK =60 = S
Q'AYIN =70 = 'Q
PHE =80 = F
TSADEH = 90 = TZ
QUPH =100 = Q or K or hard C
RESH =200 = R
SHIN/SHIN =300 = S or SH
TAV =400 = T or TH

Since the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder (Book of Revelation) has TWO competing gemmatria for the "name of the beast", and was written during the 1st Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72) the correct individual would presumably have to fit both 616 and 666 found in the 2 competing manuscript families for this marginal insertion...

The Roman Emperor NERO fits the bill nicely (he was the infamous sadistic but "Divine" Emperor-Caesar of Rome in AD 66 when the Revolt in Judaea broke out and used to burn Jews (i.e. Jewish Messianic Christians) in Rome in his gardens by dipping them in tar so they'd be able to light up the courtyard better!)

The Emperor Nero's hidden "gemmatrial" (i.e. Kaballistic-numerological) name in Hebrew Letters (with the letter VAV used for LONG O) would have been either written in Hebrew letters as: N R O N Q S R (=666, add them up) = this is the preferred version as spoken by the Greeks or else as: N R O Q S R (i.e. 616).

NERO was probably the original intent of the writer, but the "Book of Revelation"was re-written so many times in its long literary history, (e.g. in 96 AD (re-edited) with another Emperor (Nero-Domitian) in mind, and the text was applied to every succeeding generation where "persecution of the Elect" was in effect.)

Despite the "rhetoric of hope" for the "Elect" in the Book of Revelation which was meant to strengthen the resolve of those fighting the "Beast" contrary to the hopes of the writer, Jerusalem did not descend from the sky as promised, and 900,000 Palestinian Jews lost their lives in a war which, according to Josephus, should not have been ever found/

From another source:

In Roman times, the language used was Latin, and Nero was "Nero" ! That is his Latin name! Also, in Italian, the name is "Nero"! Many of the romance languages developed from Latin - Italian, French, Spanish. In Greek and in Hebrew, Nero was Neron

When Nero Caesar's name is transliterated into Hebrew, which a first-century Jew would probably have done, he would have gotten Neron Kesar or simply nrwn qsr, since Hebrew has no letters to represent vowels. "It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666. Jastrow's lexicon of the Talmud contains this very spelling."5 When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values: n=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, q=100, s=60, r=200 = 666. "Every Jewish reader, of course, saw that the Beast was a symbol of Nero. And both Jews and Christians regarded Nero as also having close affinities with the serpent or dragon. . . . The Apostle writing as a Hebrew, was evidently thinking as a Hebrew. . . . Accordingly, the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name - that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment that he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as "Neron Kesar."6

The fragment supports the reading of some Greek New Testament manuscripts that read 616 instead of 666. Why would someone making a copy of the Revelation scroll make such a number change? "Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616." A Latin copyist might have thought that 666 was an error because Nero Caesar did not add up to 666 when transliterated into Latin. He then changed 666 to 616 to conform to the Latin rendering since it was generally accepted that Nero was the Beast. In either case, a Hebrew transliteration nets 666, while a Latin spelling nets 616. Nero was the "man" and either 666 or 616 was his number.


Quasar92

 

[precepts]

Quasar92, post:
"WHO IS "HE" WHO CONFIRMS A COVENANT IN DAN.9:27 ?"

"(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note)."

- The funny thing about this, Mr. PhD, is that educated people don't promote doctrines based on reading comprehension errors by accident. I don't have a PhD, but I know how to read. The antecedent of the pronoun "he," in Dan 9:26, cannot be the "prince who is to come" because that phrase is in a subordinate clause. The main clauses are about the Messiah. Plus there's no 3rd covenant to be confirmed. There is, and will always be, but two, the old and the new covenants concerning Israel. And besides that, there is no longer Jew nor Gentile.

The colon ( : ) is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon precedes an explanation or an enumeration, or list.
- Wikipedia: Colon (punctuation) - Wikipedia

The phrase "the prince who is to come" is in the subordinate clause that follows the colon as an explanation of how the Mess--h is cut off. This might be denied by you and others as a matter of free speech, but the grammatical fact can't be denied in a court of law, which leaves no room for errors when it comes to reasoning and logic.


Quasar92, post:
"It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ."

"We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision..."

- Again, Mr. PhD, why are there so many different interpretation of this prophecy if you think your interpretation is fact? I'm tired of people arguing their different interpretations when they can't prove it, the reason why there are so many different interpretations. And I'm not going to provide the facts/truth because it would be a waste of time. But, educated people taking scripture out of context is the 8th wonder of the world.


Quasar92, post:
"And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)"

- You're making mountains out of mole hills. Dan 7:21 tells us the 4 beast kingdoms are 4 beasts/kings. Each beast kingdom represents a beast/king. Do you care to name these 4 kings?


Quasar92, post:
"(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire?"

- You are speculating. Nothing in Dan 9 proves the "prince who is to come" is from the Roman empire. And like I told you before, that phrase is in an "appositive" clause. It is a subordinate clause that is "going into further details," an explanation of what was said before the colon. It is a reading comprehension error, that there shouldn't be a debate about in an educated world. So, Mr. Young and Mr. Mauro are correct. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why they, being educated men, would not point out the educated answer of it being in a subordinate clause as an "appositive" of it's main clause, the Mess--h being cut off, as an explanation of how the Mess--h is cut off.

As for it being an everlasting covenant that's being confirmed, it is in parable form. Because the vision sealed is the vision of what Christ kingdom will look like in heaven. The prophesies have double meanings. Simply thinking that the prophesy can't be referring to Israel, post Babylon, because it says they will never be rooted up and will dwell in peace forever, doesn't mean that the context isn't post Babylon. It is referring to the heavenly kingdom, that was sealed up at the crowning of Joshua/Yahsha the high priest, interpreted as "Jesus," post Babylon. That, like I said in post #40, is yours and Denominational Christianity's stumbling block, a doctrine given to the world by the same said antichrist power of Rome, to scatter the holy people once again.

The week was not 7 literal yrs. It consisted of 1,260 days?/years! which is half of the week. The other half is the defilement of the old covenant by the Abomination of Desolation, that lasts to the 1335th day/year when the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed, not the earthly temple, as the Maccabees tried to interpret it.

So God speaks in parables. Thinking there will be a future, 3rd covenant is not wise. It is the antichrist power of Rome that is deceiving the world into thinking so, that has interpreted the scriptures to exclude the chief cornerstone. And if you have read my post #40, I provided the concrete proof for my claim.


Quasar92, post:
"Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ."

- This is as insane as saying that there will be a 3rd covenant involving animal sacrifice, as insane as saying there is still Jew and Gentile in the new testament covenant, being a Christian.


Quasar92, post:
"Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing..."

"Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse."

- Again with the opinions, the author has overlooked the crowning of Joshua/Yahsha as high priest and king post Babylon, as the Mess--h, promised to be given the throne in Eze 21:25-27,

Eze 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
Eze 21:26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
Eze 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

- the cedar branch planted in Israel post Babylon, prophesied in the parable of the "two great eagles" in Eze 17, the entire chapter.

Eze 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
Eze 17:23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
Eze 17:24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

- It's an open and shut case:

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


Quasar92, post:
"How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside)"

"Ray adds..."

"In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)"

"(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15)."

- Again, these are unproven interpretations, pure speculations that can't be proven in a court of law.


Quasar92, post:
"(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation."

"In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character."


"Quasar92"

- Please!

 

[precepts]

<SNIP> The remark comes across to me as nothing other than sarcasm! Capiche?!


Quasar92

Your the one that's trashing. Capiche?

 

[BABerean2]

The remark comes across to me as nothing other than sarcasm! Capiche?!

Luk_6:42　 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

.

 

[Quasar92]

Quasar92, post:
"WHO IS "HE" WHO CONFIRMS A COVENANT IN DAN.9:27 ?"

"(1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to come in the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note)."

- The funny thing about this, Mr. PhD, is that educated people don't promote doctrines based on reading comprehension errors by accident. I don't have a PhD, but I know how to read. The antecedent of the pronoun "he," in Dan 9:26, cannot be the "prince who is to come" because that phrase is in a subordinate clause. The main clauses are about the Messiah. Plus there's no 3rd covenant to be confirmed. There is, and will always be, but two, the old and the new covenants concerning Israel. And besides that, there is no longer Jew nor Gentile.

The colon ( : ) is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon precedes an explanation or an enumeration, or list.
- Wikipedia: Colon (punctuation) - Wikipedia

The phrase "the prince who is to come" is in the subordinate clause that follows the colon as an explanation of how the Mess--h is cut off. This might be denied by you and others as a matter of free speech, but the grammatical fact can't be denied in a court of law, which leaves no room for errors when it comes to reasoning and logic.


Quasar92, post:
"It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ."

"We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision..."

- Again, Mr. PhD, why are there so many different interpretation of this prophecy if you think your interpretation is fact? I'm tired of people arguing their different interpretations when they can't prove it, the reason why there are so many different interpretations. And I'm not going to provide the facts/truth because it would be a waste of time. But, educated people taking scripture out of context is the 8th wonder of the world.


Quasar92, post:
"And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns)"

- You're making mountains out of mole hills. Dan 7:21 tells us the 4 beast kingdoms are 4 beasts/kings. Each beast kingdom represents a beast/king. Do you care to name these 4 kings?


Quasar92, post:
"(2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire?"

- You are speculating. Nothing in Dan 9 proves the "prince who is to come" is from the Roman empire. And like I told you before, that phrase is in an "appositive" clause. It is a subordinate clause that is "going into further details," an explanation of what was said before the colon. It is a reading comprehension error, that there shouldn't be a debate about in an educated world. So, Mr. Young and Mr. Mauro are correct. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why they, being educated men, would not point out the educated answer of it being in a subordinate clause as an "appositive" of it's main clause, the Mess--h being cut off, as an explanation of how the Mess--h is cut off.

As for it being an everlasting covenant that's being confirmed, it is in parable form. Because the vision sealed is the vision of what Christ kingdom will look like in heaven. The prophesies have double meanings. Simply thinking that the prophesy can't be referring to Israel, post Babylon, because it says they will never be rooted up and will dwell in peace forever, doesn't mean that the context isn't post Babylon. It is referring to the heavenly kingdom, that was sealed up at the crowning of Joshua/Yahsha the high priest, interpreted as "Jesus," post Babylon. That, like I said in post #40, is yours and Denominational Christianity's stumbling block, a doctrine given to the world by the same said antichrist power of Rome, to scatter the holy people once again.

The week was not 7 literal yrs. It consisted of 1,260 days?/years! which is half of the week. The other half is the defilement of the old covenant by the Abomination of Desolation, that lasts to the 1335th day/year when the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed, not the earthly temple, as the Maccabees tried to interpret it.

So God speaks in parables. Thinking there will be a future, 3rd covenant is not wise. It is the antichrist power of Rome that is deceiving the world into thinking so, that has interpreted the scriptures to exclude the chief cornerstone. And if you have read my post #40, I provided the concrete proof for my claim.


Quasar92, post:
"Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ."

- This is as insane as saying that there will be a 3rd covenant involving animal sacrifice, as insane as saying there is still Jew and Gentile in the new testament covenant, being a Christian.


Quasar92, post:
"Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing..."

"Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse."

- Again with the opinions, the author has overlooked the crowning of Joshua/Yahsha as high priest and king post Babylon, as the Mess--h, promised to be given the throne in Eze 21:25-27,

Eze 21:25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
Eze 21:26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
Eze 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

- the cedar branch planted in Israel post Babylon, prophesied in the parable of the "two great eagles" in Eze 17, the entire chapter.

Eze 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
Eze 17:23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
Eze 17:24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

- It's an open and shut case:

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


Quasar92, post:
"How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside)"

"Ray adds..."

"In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III)"

"(3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15)."

- Again, these are unproven interpretations, pure speculations that can't be proven in a court of law.


Quasar92, post:
"(4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation."

"In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character."


"Quasar92"

- Please!

Show me where I have made any claim to have a PhD from any post I have done at this site ! Do not allude to me as Mr.PhD again, or I will file a complaint against you!

Dan.9:26 "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.Jesus has been put to death and the The people of the prince who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."

Jesus has been put to death. The people of the prince to come, is the Roman army and the prince to come is the Roman general Titus, who later became the Emperor of Rome.

None of the above characters have a thing to do with those of the following verse, 27.

Dan.9"27 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

All three of the "he's" in verse 27 are the man of lawlessness, the Antichrist, as recorded in 2 Thess.2:4.


The following is from Thomas Ice, PhD:

"What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "make a firm covenant with the many for one week," that is seven years. Non-literal interpreters of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy usually attempt to make this covenant a reference to Christ’s covenant to save His people, usually known as the covenant of grace. "This, then, is a confirming of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace that Christ confirms (Rom. 15:8)," claims Dr. Gentry. Dr. Gentry and those advocating a similar view, must resort to a non-textual, theological interpretation at this point since there was no seven-year covenant made by Christ with the Jewish people at the time of His first coming. They must back off from the specifics of the text in verse 27 and import in a theological interpretation, thus providing us with a classic example of spiritualization or allegorical interpretation.

If this is supposed to be a reference to the covenant of grace, then "it may be observed first that this would be a strange way to express such a thought," notes Dr. Wood. Christ’s salvation covenant is not limited to seven years rather it is an eternal covenant. Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is to be made with "the many." This term always refers in some way to Israel throughout the book of Daniel (Daniel 11:33, 39; 12:3). Thus it is a narrow term, used in a specific context. It is not a broad term, synonymous with the language of global salvation. Further, "it is evident that the covenant is subsequent to the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, in the twenty-sixth verse; therefore, it could not have been confirmed at the First Advent," says G. H. Pember. Such an interpretation does not fit this text and it does not account for the seven years that Gabriel says this covenant will be in place. Dr. Wood further explains:

Since a covenant as described in verse 27 has not yet taken place in reference to the nation of Israel, it must therefore follow that this will be a yet to occur future event. This then, demands a postponement of the seventieth week with a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years.

This passage clearly says that the length of the covenant that "he" will make will be for one week or seven years. I suppose that this could mean either that the covenant will be predetermined to last seven years or that it does not specify a length of time when made, but as it turns out, is only in existence for seven years. Many of those who believe that the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks has already been fulfilled around the time of Christ’s first coming teach that the first half of the seventieth week was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry. "We know Christ’s three-and-one-half-year ministry," says Dr. Gentry, "was decidedly focused on the Jews in the first half of the seventieth week (Matt. 10:5b; cf. Matt. 15:24)." G. H. Pember objects to such a view with the following:

Once again we have seen in this installment on the seventy weeks that the text of this passage supports a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the seventieth week is still future to the time in which we now live. "Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin." Maranatha!"

By Thomas Ice, PhD


The Bible reveals each of the 70 weeks of Dan.9[24-27 is for a seven year period of time.



360 Hebrew prophetic year X 483 = 173,880 days.

1. 32 years [AD] X 365 days in our year = 11,680 days.
2. 445 years [BC] X 365 days in our year = 162,425 days.
3. Total 174,105 days divided by 365 = 477 years.
4. Plus 24 days between the date of the decree in 445 BC and Jesus cut-off in 32 AD = 477 years, 24 days
5. Subtract one year because there is no year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD. = 476 years, 24 days.
6. 476 years X 365 days = 173,740 days +24 = 173,764 Days
7. Add days of the leap years over 476 years. Divided by 4 = 119 days = 173,883 days
8. Subtract 1/128 Calendar year day for every solar year: Leap year omitted every 128 years.= -3 days = 173,880 days!

Which reveals the 360 day prophetic year of Israel is the very same as our present 365 day year when all the corrections have been made to the latter.



Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Luk_6:42　 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

.

Your self righteousness is showing!


Quasar92

 

[BABerean2]

Show me where I have made any claim to have a PhD from any post I have done at this site ! Do not allude to me as Mr.PhD again, or I will file a complaint against you!

How many times have you made a reference to your degrees from Bible colleges, and have also used that fact to belittle the scriptural knowledge of those here who do not have a seminary degree?

.

 

[precepts]

Show me where I have made any claim to have a PhD from any post I have done at this site ! Do not allude to me as Mr.PhD again, or I will file a complaint against you!

Then why did you wait until now to correct me, if you knew you never made the claim? I could have sworn you did end the post with your name and PhD, but maybe I was mistaken. To err is human, my apologies.

Dan.9:26 "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.Jesus has been put to death and the The people of the prince who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."

Jesus has been put to death. The people of the prince to come, is the Roman army and the prince to come is the Roman general Titus, who later became the Emperor of Rome.

After I went thru all the trouble to explain Dan 9:26, this is what you're coming back with, an essay contest? What? You can't address the facts? Figures!

None of the above characters have a thing to do with those of the following verse, 27.

I did explain everything in the last post. What is this, an attempt to save face?

Dan.9"27 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

All three of the "he's" in verse 27 are the man of lawlessness, the Antichrist, as recorded in 2 Thess.2:4.

You can write an essay, but you don't know what an appositive clause is? I don't think so. This is case in point.

The following is from Thomas Ice, PhD:

"What is it that "he" will do? The antichrist will "make a firm covenant with the many for one week," that is seven years. Non-literal interpreters of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy usually attempt to make this covenant a reference to Christ’s covenant to save His people, usually known as the covenant of grace. "This, then, is a confirming of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace that Christ confirms (Rom. 15:8)," claims Dr. Gentry. Dr. Gentry and those advocating a similar view, must resort to a non-textual, theological interpretation at this point since there was no seven-year covenant made by Christ with the Jewish people at the time of His first coming. They must back off from the specifics of the text in verse 27 and import in a theological interpretation, thus providing us with a classic example of spiritualization or allegorical interpretation.

If this is supposed to be a reference to the covenant of grace, then "it may be observed first that this would be a strange way to express such a thought," notes Dr. Wood. Christ’s salvation covenant is not limited to seven years rather it is an eternal covenant. Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is to be made with "the many." This term always refers in some way to Israel throughout the book of Daniel (Daniel 11:33, 39; 12:3). Thus it is a narrow term, used in a specific context. It is not a broad term, synonymous with the language of global salvation. Further, "it is evident that the covenant is subsequent to the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, in the twenty-sixth verse; therefore, it could not have been confirmed at the First Advent," says G. H. Pember. Such an interpretation does not fit this text and it does not account for the seven years that Gabriel says this covenant will be in place. Dr. Wood further explains:

Since a covenant as described in verse 27 has not yet taken place in reference to the nation of Israel, it must therefore follow that this will be a yet to occur future event. This then, demands a postponement of the seventieth week with a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of years.

This passage clearly says that the length of the covenant that "he" will make will be for one week or seven years. I suppose that this could mean either that the covenant will be predetermined to last seven years or that it does not specify a length of time when made, but as it turns out, is only in existence for seven years. Many of those who believe that the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks has already been fulfilled around the time of Christ’s first coming teach that the first half of the seventieth week was fulfilled by Christ’s ministry. "We know Christ’s three-and-one-half-year ministry," says Dr. Gentry, "was decidedly focused on the Jews in the first half of the seventieth week (Matt. 10:5b; cf. Matt. 15:24)." G. H. Pember objects to such a view with the following:

Once again we have seen in this installment on the seventy weeks that the text of this passage supports a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the seventieth week is still future to the time in which we now live. "Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin." Maranatha!"

By Thomas Ice, PhD


The Bible reveals each of the 70 weeks of Dan.9[24-27 is for a seven year period of time.



360 Hebrew prophetic year X 483 = 173,880 days.

1. 32 years [AD] X 365 days in our year = 11,680 days.
2. 445 years [BC] X 365 days in our year = 162,425 days.
3. Total 174,105 days divided by 365 = 477 years.
4. Plus 24 days between the date of the decree in 445 BC and Jesus cut-off in 32 AD = 477 years, 24 days
5. Subtract one year because there is no year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD. = 476 years, 24 days.
6. 476 years X 365 days = 173,740 days +24 = 173,764 Days
7. Add days of the leap years over 476 years. Divided by 4 = 119 days = 173,883 days
8. Subtract 1/128 Calendar year day for every solar year: Leap year omitted every 128 years.= -3 days = 173,880 days!

Which reveals the 360 day prophetic year of Israel is the very same as our present 365 day year when all the corrections have been made to the latter.



Quasar92

Case in point, the stone the builders refuse.

Here's a nugget: The abomination of desolation was the forsaking of the old covenant.

Dan 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.

- The end of what war?

Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

- Who's the "prince of the covenant"? and two" floods"?

Dan 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

- Which "holy" covenant will this "he" be against? And I hope you take the time out to answer specifically this question, because it refutes you claim of there being a future covenant.

 

[jgr]

Which of the Popes is going to be the Antichrist, according to your views?

"...going to be the Antichrist" is exclusively dispensational speculative futurism. The Reformers recognized antichrist as an extant and already historical reality in the form of each successive pope in the papal system. And VICARIVS FILII DEI has never been repudiated by the papacy; indeed, as John Paul II has written:

"The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity."

666 would refer to Nero Caesar. In the Hebrew Art of Gematria, every letter has a numeric value. If you convert Nero Caesar to Hebrew and convert it to Gematria you will get the number 666. The Letter N in Hebrew has a value of 50.

How many people in the general population today immediately recognize most or all of the letters in "VICARIVS FILII DEI" which are also numeric, and know the values of most or all of them?

A large, and quite possibly majority, percentage of the population.

How many people in the general population today know the gematric value of the letters in the Hebrew conversion of "Nero", or for that matter any gematric values outside of the Roman alphabet numeral system?

Approximately zero.

The relationship between VICARIVS FILII DEI, and the number 666 and its significance, is evidence that can be readily seen and understood.

 

[BABerean2]

Here's a nugget: The abomination of desolation was the forsaking of the old covenant.

Did "the abomination of desolation" have anything to do with the events of 167 BC, when Antiochus Epiphanes had a statue set up in the Jewish temple, and had a pig slaughtered on the altar, and killed thousands of Jews?

Are those events of 167 BC related to the verse below?

Joh 10:22　 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter.　

.

 

[precepts]

Did "the abomination of desolation" have anything to do with the events of 167 BC, when Antiochus Epiphanes had a statue set up in the Jewish temple, and had a pig slaughtered on the altar, and killed thousands of Jews?

Are those events of 167 BC related to the verse below?

Joh 10:22　 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter.　

.

Haven't we had this conversation before? And I don't see how sacrificing a pig equals abandoning the old covenant.

 

[BABerean2]

Haven't we had this conversation before? And I don't see how sacrificing a pig equals abandoning the old covenant.

Antiochus Epiphanes also commanded that the Jews stop animal sacrifices and this was done for over 3 years. He also commanded that children not be circumcised.
The Jews of Jerusalem were forced at the point of the sword to abandon the Old Covenant system for about 3-1/2 years.

Hanukkah celebrates the cleansing of the temple and the renewal of animal sacrifices.
(John 10:22)

These facts can be found in the writings of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.

from Wars of the Jews

"Book 1, Chapter 1

CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS.
FROM THE TAKING OF JERUSALEM BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, TO THE DEATH OF HEROD THE GREAT.
HOW THE CITY JERUSALEM WAS TAKEN, AND THE TEMPLE PILLAGED [BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES]. AS ALSO CONCERNING THE ACTIONS OF THE MACCABEES, MATTHIAS AND JUDAS; AND CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JUDAS.
1. AT the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1) concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves.
3. Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus’s generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son.
4. Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom, and in his hatred to the Jews also.
5. So this Antiochus got together fifty thousand footmen, and five thousand horsemen, and fourscore elephants, and marched through Judea into the mountainous parts. He then took Bethsura, which was a small city; but at a place called Bethzacharis, where the passage was narrow, Judas met him with his army. However, before the forces joined battle, Judas’s brother Eleazar, seeing the very highest of the elephants adorned with a large tower, and with military trappings of gold to guard him, and supposing that Antiochus himself was upon him, he ran a great way before his own army, and cutting his way through the enemy’s troops, he got up to the elephant; yet could he not reach him who seemed to be the king, by reason of his being so high; but still he ran his weapon into the belly of the beast, and brought him down upon himself, and was crushed to death, having done no more than attempted great things, and showed that he preferred glory before life. Now he that governed the elephant was but a private man; and had he proved to be Antiochus, Eleazar had performed nothing more by this bold stroke than that it might appear he chose to die, when he had the bare hope of thereby doing a glorious action; nay, this disappointment proved an omen to his brother [Judas] how the entire battle would end. It is true that the Jews fought it out bravely for a long time, but the king’s forces, being superior in number, and having fortune on their side, obtained the victory. And when a great many of his men were slain, Judas took the rest with him, and fled to the toparchy of Gophna. So Antiochus went to Jerusalem, and staid there but a few days, for he wanted provisions, and so he went his way. He left indeed a garrison behind him, such as he thought sufficient to keep the place, but drew the rest of his army off, to take their winter-quarters in Syria.
6. Now, after the king was departed, Judas was not idle; for as many of his own nation came to him, so did he gather those that had escaped out of the battle together, and gave battle again to Antiochus’s generals at a village called Adasa; and being too hard for his enemies in the battle, and killing a great number of them, he was at last himself slain also. Nor was it many days afterward that his brother John had a plot laid against him by Antiochus’s party, and was slain by them.
ENDNOTES
(1) I see little difference in the several accounts in Josephus about the Egyptian temple Onion, of which large complaints are made by his commentators. Onias, it seems, hoped to have :made it very like that at Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions; and so he appears to have really done, as far as he was able and thought proper. Of this temple, see Antiq. B. XIII. ch. 3. sect. 1--3, and Of the War, B. VII. ch. 10. sect. 8."

.

 

[Quasar92]

How many times have you made a reference to your degrees from Bible colleges, and have also used that fact to belittle the scriptural knowledge of those here who do not have a seminary degree?

.

First of all, show me one single post where I have alluded to any degrees I have earned! In the second place, where I have questioned the formal Bible training to you as well as to one or two others, is where you and others dogmatically promote false doctrine or theology!


Quasar92