The Prince that shall come?

ebedmelech · Jan 2, 2013

Biblewriter said:
It wholly escapes my powers of logic to understand how even one person could even imagine that Jerusalem was "the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth." At the time this was written, Jerusalem was reigning over exactly--- nothing!

That would be because again you're reading it literally! John tried to clue you in by saying it is "mystically" called Sodom and Egypt in Rev 11. Did you even look at what "mystically" means??? It means "spiritually"...which is why I keep saying to you that Revelation is spiritual application, yet you continue to deny that. That should clue you in to Ezekiel 16! Take off the "literal glasses" and you can see it!!!

Now...if you cannot figure it out from God calling her a harlot...you never will. It even goes back to when Jeremiah prophesied of Jerusalem she had a "harlots forehead" in Jeremiah 3:3:
Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no spring rain. Yet you had a harlots forehead;

If you have read the OT prophets...how does one deny this is Jerusalem???

JLB777 · Jan 2, 2013

Interplanner said:
Many times prophecy does not come to fulfillment exactly as stated. Look at what Acts 15 says Amos 9 means! for Paul in 1 Thess. it wouldn't matter that much: he had already declared Israel under God's wrath for all the resistance to the Gospel, and it was at least 20 years until the confllict turned hot.

I don't mean to suggest at all that Josephus is on a level with Scripture, but how many Jewish priests recorded the events (who would have any sort of background about Jerusalem or Daniel...)? Bizarre things would happen, including a near-melt-down of the Roman federal government, which would expose tiny Judea to enemies on the east side licking their chops (that in itself is another reason Jesus told the Judaizers to knock it off about the freedom fight). If Paul had a position, I'm quite sure he wanted Rome intact because its transportation and communication allowed the Gospel to move all over quickly, and he did call for prayer for societal stability in I Tim 2.

In the 1700s a German painter took up the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem and it shows the historic understanding strongly. Up in the clouds above the burning city are the 3 synoptic gospel-writers and Paul, and 4 angels with or above them. Each of them are reading from scrolls they wrote. Josephus' sword is dangling over the city (he said he heard an intense burning sound and saw a huge bright sword hanging over the city). My point is that only recently did the majority of Christians auto-jump to modern times for the situating of Mt 24 & //s and 1 Thess 1, 2. This would baffle many of our predecessors.

--Inter

Many times prophecy does not come to fulfillment exactly as stated.

How about this -

Maybe you are just wrong and the scriptures really are true!

JLB

ebedmelech · Jan 2, 2013

JLB777 said:
How about this -

Maybe you are just wrong and the scriptures really are true!

JLB

Inter...I have to stand with JLB...I have no clue what you mean here...it's like walking in the fog...

Interplanner · Jan 2, 2013

David's fallen tent restored is the nations coming to faith, in Acts 15's use of Amos 9.

Joel 2 is quoted in Acts 2 but not all of it is right then, right there.

He shall be born of a virgin, yet the conservative Greek scholar E. Goodrick, under whom I was trained, showed that it didn't have to be a virgin to be fulfilled, and that the Greek word chosen rarely meant virgin.

You are making my house a den of robbers, yet the term used is 'leistes' which is insurgents, rebels, brigands. Who may have robbed, but to describe the cleansing of what was going on at the temple as political rebels was...not very exact. I understand that to be to have impact later in the 7th decade when the gospel story would be reread, and there were many Judaistic brigands.

In the case of Josephus and his seeing a sword, why couldn't that be a sign of the Son of Man?

Actually, I don't know the exact thing that is a problem. Amos 9 in Acts 15? The restoration of David's ruins is the nations coming into faith and the new Israel.

--Inter

Interplanner · Jan 2, 2013

How about this: I will send you Elijah. But "John was Elijah--if you can accept it." So prophecy forces us to be attentive, to use some imagination, to be bold.

Mal 4:3 you will trample down the wicked, and they will be ashes... Last I checked there were no trampling Christians and their bleeding, bruised, wicked victims in the early church. But of course, in beliefs and declarations, this was certainly true. Many mistaken beliefs were as good as ashes when the apostles were done with the whole counsel of God.

--Inter

JLB777 · Jan 2, 2013

Interplanner said:
How about this: I will send you Elijah. But "John was Elijah--if you can accept it." So prophecy forces us to be attentive, to use some imagination, to be bold.

Mal 4:3 you will trample down the wicked, and they will be ashes... Last I checked there were no trampling Christians and their bleeding, bruised, wicked victims in the early church. But of course, in beliefs and declarations, this was certainly true. Many mistaken beliefs were as good as ashes when the apostles were done with the whole counsel of God.

--Inter

More grasping at the wind.

JLB

Interplanner · Jan 3, 2013

Actually it is a complete pattern. It follows Luke 4s use of Is 61. ie, today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. Which in turn exists because of Luke 1:67+. I don't know how anyone can miss this--the very dedication prophecy of Jesus. It just doesn't happen to be futurist!

You can't just dismiss, sir, because that assumes you have established some platform. We are currently trying to define your platform, as to whether it is fresh timber or full of torredo worms (a Pacific coast ocean worm that eats 1/2" diameter holes in cedar and fir til the wood sinks or collapses).

I don't know of any place where the NT validates a return to Judaistic practices in the future (with a chance of it being in a deceptive sense). But more important: I don't know why it would need to.

YEsterday a participant tried to tell me (actually for a week now) that Acts 1:7 is an absolutely clear validation of a restored Israel kingdom. Yet the only thing that is clear is its displacement: it is none of our business (which stops most inquiries here) and v8 shifts or redirects the whole attention of the paragraph! "But you..." shifts it to the mission of the Gospel, which is what Acts is all about. It is why there is nothing in Acts in any teaching in it about a future Israel. The resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers because it proves justification from sins (Acts 13's sermon), which is the message God wants all to know and declare, first the Jew and then the nations. Finally, when Paul could have calmed down his accusers in 26, he tells them their hopes as learned in Judaism are already fulfilled. It was his neck!

Futurism is stuck in literalism and reads the OT directly ie, apart from what the apostles say. Its roots are in Judaism, and it is veiled.

--Inter

JLB777 · Jan 5, 2013

Interplanner said:
Actually it is a complete pattern. It follows Luke 4s use of Is 61. ie, today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. Which in turn exists because of Luke 1:67+. I don't know how anyone can miss this--the very dedication prophecy of Jesus. It just doesn't happen to be futurist!

You can't just dismiss, sir, because that assumes you have established some platform. We are currently trying to define your platform, as to whether it is fresh timber or full of torredo worms (a Pacific coast ocean worm that eats 1/2" diameter holes in cedar and fir til the wood sinks or collapses).

I don't know of any place where the NT validates a return to Judaistic practices in the future (with a chance of it being in a deceptive sense). But more important: I don't know why it would need to.

YEsterday a participant tried to tell me (actually for a week now) that Acts 1:7 is an absolutely clear validation of a restored Israel kingdom. Yet the only thing that is clear is its displacement: it is none of our business (which stops most inquiries here) and v8 shifts or redirects the whole attention of the paragraph! "But you..." shifts it to the mission of the Gospel, which is what Acts is all about. It is why there is nothing in Acts in any teaching in it about a future Israel. The resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers because it proves justification from sins (Acts 13's sermon), which is the message God wants all to know and declare, first the Jew and then the nations. Finally, when Paul could have calmed down his accusers in 26, he tells them their hopes as learned in Judaism are already fulfilled. It was his neck!

Futurism is stuck in literalism and reads the OT directly ie, apart from what the apostles say. Its roots are in Judaism, and it is veiled.

--Inter

Nothing you are saying has anything to do with this thread.

Please stay on topic!

I know you are desperate to come up with something that supports your theology, but there is nothing in the scriptures.

The distinction is clear. Messiah was cut off 33 AD.
Destruction of the city and sanctuary was 70AD.

The chronological order of events is unmistakable!

Are you suggesting verse 27 somehow reverts back in time?

JLB

Interplanner · Jan 5, 2013

re reversion:
yes you will find in the literature that 27 is often seen as a "couplet" or restatement or overlapping. The "confirm" then connects back to being cut off (the Gospel), and as you can see both 26 and 27 spread out to the desolated end. I have seen this in numerous treatments. Hebrew parallelism is often discussed in reference to the Psalms, Isaiah, etc., no reason it can't be here.

To me, the really interesting thing is that 27's subject can also be read negatively ('confirm' can be translated 'to make harsh terms') and 'to end sacrifice and offering' can thereby refer to the murder of the last priest before the destruction of temple, so that they ended. The Zealots did that; believing the existing system to be corrupt and impure, they didn't care that they ended it. This preserves a little bit of validity of the existing worship system.

re the topic of the post:
I only detoured into the apostles hermeneutics as a supporting reason for why the Anointed One would be Christ. And why the "ruler" who will come (v26s) could be one of the Judaizers. They didn't tear the temple down, but they agitated an enemy who would. The blame falls on the Judaizers, but the Romans did the dirty work of it.

re the theology:
what theology is that? I'm a historian through the artefacts of language and words (I've never been on a 'dig'). I "excavate" Dan 9 and Mt 24 & //s, the only official interp of Dan 9 in the NT.

--Inter

Steve Petersen · Jan 5, 2013

Still 2:1 against Future Antichrist. Go team!

Interplanner · Jan 6, 2013

re future antichrist 1 to 2:
yes, historically speaking, it really comes down to Messiah/Christ or the opponent who stands in the holy place. A person could elaborate a 'repeat of history' but don't bother unless you are really familiar with the historic one to begin with.

--Inter

JLB777 · Jan 7, 2013

Interplanner said:
re reversion:
yes you will find in the literature that 27 is often seen as a "couplet" or restatement or overlapping. The "confirm" then connects back to being cut off (the Gospel), and as you can see both 26 and 27 spread out to the desolated end. I have seen this in numerous treatments. Hebrew parallelism is often discussed in reference to the Psalms, Isaiah, etc., no reason it can't be here.

To me, the really interesting thing is that 27's subject can also be read negatively ('confirm' can be translated 'to make harsh terms') and 'to end sacrifice and offering' can thereby refer to the murder of the last priest before the destruction of temple, so that they ended. The Zealots did that; believing the existing system to be corrupt and impure, they didn't care that they ended it. This preserves a little bit of validity of the existing worship system.

re the topic of the post:
I only detoured into the apostles hermeneutics as a supporting reason for why the Anointed One would be Christ. And why the "ruler" who will come (v26s) could be one of the Judaizers. They didn't tear the temple down, but they agitated an enemy who would. The blame falls on the Judaizers, but the Romans did the dirty work of it.

re the theology:
what theology is that? I'm a historian through the artefacts of language and words (I've never been on a 'dig'). I "excavate" Dan 9 and Mt 24 & //s, the only official interp of Dan 9 in the NT.

--Inter

yes you will find in the literature that 27 is often seen as a "couplet" or restatement or overlapping.

[FONT=&quot]The prophecy runs chronologically! [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The "going forth of the command until Messiah The prince" is in chronological order.

Messiah the Prince to the destruction of the city and sanctuary is in chronological order.

The events of the prophecy are in chronological order!

Why would anyone think that the events of verse 27 would somehow come before the events of verse 26?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off - [/FONT][FONT=&quot]33 AD[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. - [/FONT][FONT=&quot]70 AD[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
It is necessary to understand from the language of verse 26 that the prophecy spans the time frame to 70 AD, yet does not include the 70 th week!

Do you see the 70th week mentioned anywhere in the language of verse 26?

Your overlapping statement would suggest that the events of verse 27 would be found in verse 26 as well.

Verse 27 deals explicitly with the 70 th week, which clearly comes after the 69th week.

The 69th week ended in 33 Ad with the event of "Messiah the Prince".

The destruction of the city and sanctuary were prophesied in verse 26 and came to pass in 70 AD.

The events of verse 27 are entirely different and deal with -

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."RSV[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The confirming of a covenant for 7 years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A distinct 3 1/2 year period. 1260 days, time,time and a half of time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Temple activities resumed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The destruction of the desolate one.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Paul describes in detail this destruction of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]desolator.

[/FONT]8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The question remains -

Did Jesus desolate the temple?

Was Titus destroyed by The Lord in 70 Ad.

JLB

[/FONT]

Gideon · Jan 7, 2013

JLB777 said:
[FONT=&quot]
The events of the prophecy are in chronological order!

Why would anyone think that the events of verse 27 would somehow come before the events of verse 26?[/FONT]

No, I dont think so. Verse 26 provides an overarching summary. Then verse 27 goes back and fills in the details - first the details of the 70th week, then the details of the destruction. It is not uncommon for authors to write in such a way.

Interplanner · Jan 7, 2013

Good obs, Gideon. It is called Hebrew parallelism. More in Psalms and Isaiah and minor prophets but it can show up anywhere and any size. for ex., Gen 1 and then 2. Overlapping, different emphases.

--Inter

JLB777 · Jan 8, 2013

Gideon said:
No, I dont think so. Verse 26 provides an overarching summary. Then verse 27 goes back and fills in the details - first the details of the 70th week, then the details of the destruction. It is not uncommon for authors to write in such a way.[/size]

Then verse 27 goes back and fills in the details - first the details of the 70th week,

Where is the 70 th week in verse 26?

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.

No where in verse 26 is the the 70 th week mentioned, nor is the phrase "one week" mentioned.

Verse 26 runs through 70 AD with no mention of the 70 th week!

It is not uncommon for authors to write in such a way.

Please give us a reference of this "not uncommon" writing method.

It would be presumptuous to assume that inspired scripture is to be likened to authors of Fairy Tales such as the like of Alice in Wonderland.

It is this type of lackadaisical carelessness with God's word that leads to such heretical teachings as Preterism.

JLB

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2013

re parallelism:
did mean where are examples of parallelism? see #54.

re where is the 70th week mentioned:
the unit 490 years includes the list of 7 things accomplished by Messiah in v 24. That being the subject of the "answer that was given" (v23), those things are synonymous with Messiah being cut off which occurs in the final week. The latter restates the former. In its positive and Messianic sense, 27 restates this: Messiah (the "answers" subject) makes a new covenant, and ends sacrifice and offering. (I mention positive sense, because there could be double-entendre here, and 'confirm' can mean to 'make harsh'--an intriguing way of describing the very negative form of Judaism that developed in that generation).

To answer the question where is the 70th week, I think you will see that it is the event of Messiah being cut off, and the new covenant he makes during that week (NIV "in the middle of that 'seven'). There is the reference that seems to have eluded you.

Best not to come with any assumptions and just see what's there. We have all been taught by very well-intentioned people, but they may not have had the commensurate language skills or historical background for what they were handling. This happens a lot.

--Inter

Gideon · Jan 8, 2013

JLB777 said:
Where is the 70 th week in verse 26?

After the sixty-two weeks if my math is correct.

JLB777 said:
Please give us a reference of this "not uncommon" writing method.

Hebrew parallelism is one such example. No need for me to repeat Inters explanations.

JLB777 said:
It is this type of lackadaisical carelessness with God's word that leads to such heretical teachings as Preterism.

Yes, extremes of preterism and futurism can get a bit heretical cant they?

JLB777 · Jan 8, 2013

Gideon said:
After the sixty-two weeks if my math is correct.

Hebrew parallelism is one such example. No need for me to repeat Inters explanations.

Yes, extremes of preterism and futurism can get a bit heretical cant they?

Its your ability to understand what you read that is the issue.

24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. Daniel 9:24

To bring in everlasting righteousness

Notice that in order to fulfill the word spoken by Daniel, that is to say, the 70 weeks being completed, then the requirements following the time span of 70 weeks would need to be met. One of which would be everlasting righteousness.

The 70 weeks of time are determined for Daniels people and Daniels city.

The Jewish people and Jerusalem.

It would be foolishness at best to think that everlasting righteousness would be brought in for these people and for this city, while they are in a state of unbelief about the Messiah.

Jesus said 
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:40-43

Everlasting will be brought in when these two things are accomplished.

The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

There will be no more unrighteous people left for they will have been removed.

Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

The righteous will shine forth as the sun, as Jesus demonstrated for us an an example of the righteous state of being that God intended for Adam and Eve, and all their offspring to walk in as a reflection of the image of God.

1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. Matthew 17:1-2

Until the angels gather all those who practice lawlessness and cast them into the fire, and the righteous shine forth as the sun, then everlasting righteousness will be something we look forward to.

Then the Glory of The Lord will cover the earth as the water covers the sea.

JLB

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2013

re righteousness:
Maybe brush up on Rom 3. You see, if you take just one of the 7 expressions and analyze it and take them all away from Messiah being cut off 'but not for himself'--then you may have a point, if you qualify it. However, all 9 things (#9 being the confirmed covenant) are being presented to us as one unified event.

Whether you realize this about righteousness as a term here, or not, you need to see what imputed righteousness in Romans means. It is not inherent or intrinsic to the recipient; it is credit. Imputed righteousness deals with debt and God is willing to impute all of Christ's to us, now that the Gospel is accomplished. We have a ministry of reconciliation. This term does entail enmity, but doesn't start there. It starts with sin as a debt. The debt issue needs to be reconciled; we can't stay there in debt. Our debt was transfered to our benefactor Christ, while his good credit is accounted to us! That is the Gospel. It changes lives, but it is not the individual changed life itself. It is the historic announcement.

But again, that is only 1/9th of what Daniel is communicating. The important thing is that Messiah is the answer to Israel's debt (its sins) which is what the huge prayer was about. God answered the prayer with the paradox: Messiah would come and atone for sin but many in Israel would reject this and this would lead to a catastrophe for Israel, because rejecting the Gospel would be an abomination that would desolate it.

--Inter

Gideon · Jan 8, 2013

Ah, imputed righteousness.

"To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
(Romans 4:5-8)

The Prince that shall come?

Who is/was the Prince that shall come?

The Future Antichrist

Jesus the Prince of Peace

Titus the Roman Prince

Someone else

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency