Daniel's 9:26 & 27: what is the Author's intent?

[Marcus O'Reillius]

6 hours ago, inchrist said:

False this is a blatant open attack on scriptures.

You should really apologize for this ad hominem attack.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

6 hours ago, inchrist said:

The impossibility of humans or angelic beings giving life to inanimate objects makes a literal intent highly unlikely in this text. The purpose of the text is to  deceived the inhabitants of the earth. This was warned in scripture  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Rev 13:14-15 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

1. Scripture says it, so not only IS it possible, it WILL BE.  Scripture does NOT say the abomination comes to life, per se as a sentinel being - it says it will speak.  HOW that is done, is NOT said.  And it is not within your power to dictate what will be, cannot be.

2. The purpose of the text is to REVEAL.  This is a crucial bit of information not found ANYWHERE else.  There is no two 0r three witness test to God's Prophecy.

3.  Despite the fact that Jesus forewarned us before He revealed the true nature of the abomination, that does NOT prove the purpose of Jesus' Revelation to John.  The deception is a matter of the lack of faith as Paul instructed concerning the end-times.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

6 hours ago, inchrist said:

When scripture blatantly tells you ~ Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."  That includes prophecy....

No.  This a blatant misuse of Scripture stripping away CONTEXT and then taking the point, and misapplying to a subject the original text DOES NOT ADDRESS.

This is an error.
It shows how dangerous it is to myopically focus on one thing - and miss the whole picture.
-- Like taking "confirm" a covenant and applying to Jesus without everything around it being considered.

Discipline and Prayer
If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.  Mt 18:15-18 NASB

CONTEXT:

16 If private confrontation does not work, the next step (backed by Deut 19:15) is to take two or three witnesses (though the text form of the quotation is much disputed: cf. Gundry, Use of OT, p. 139). Doubtless this Deuteronomic law was designed for what we would call "secular" cases. But the distinction is artificial and should not be pressed for the Israelite nation understood itself to be not a nation like others but a theocratic nation, God's chosen people. In conformity with his customary interpretation of the Scriptures, Jesus perceives the link joining his messianic community with ancient Israel.

It is not at first clear whether the function of the witnesses is to support the one who confronts his erring brother by bringing additional testimony about the sin committed (which would require at least three people to have observed the offense) or to provide witnesses to the confrontation if the case were to go before the whole church. The latter is a bit more likely, because Deuteronomy 19:15 deals with judicial condemnation (a step taken only by the entire assembly), not with attempts to convince a brother of his fault. By the united testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter "may be established" (stathe, lit., "may be made to stand"--though the rise of deponents in Hellenistic Greek, including the use of stathe, implies that "may stand" is a superior rendering; cf. Zerwick, par. 231; Turner, Syntax, p. 57).  Expositor's Bible Commentary on v.16

EVERY MATTER - does NOT include God's Word.  This is strictly a human function which replicates the Court of God the Father whereby no one can be judged guilty in a he-said/she-said dispute.

Again!  Like with Gal 3:17, we find inchrist misusing Scripture.
A good scholar would debate honestly.  Someone who is trying to "win" the argument rather than debate so as to explore Scripture and its meaning: is not a good scholar.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

As to the pronoun reverting to the last person mentioned, inchrist says:

7 hours ago, inchrist said:

Sorry but that is not how the Hebrew language functions.....you applying english grammar.
Secondly you ignore the entire hebrew written style of hebrew parallelism.

The laughable aspect of trying to correct grammar is when poor grammar is used in the critique: ".....you applying english grammar". 
It should read: "...language functions.  You're using English grammar."

Second of all, I have books on Hebrew grammar, and the rule is the same.
I've even had people try to tell me that rule does not apply if the person is an object of a preposition - but that simply is not the case either.

Third of all, "Hebrew parallelism" is not a grammatical rule.
However, parallel accounts, and parallel construction are aspects of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

5 hours ago, inchrist said:

Based on Marcus logic there is onlyone plave in scripture that the word baptized for the dead,"  is found but in 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul writes: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" (NIV). We can go baptize the dead.....

Context - Context - Context.

The unapologetic inchrist - and I can really feel the love here - is ignoring context again and is trying to create a strawman argument by putting words in my mouth.

Paul is referencing a practice; not proposing it.  Learned people get that...

inchrist has:

1. Tried to tie the Abramaic Covenant where God split the sacrifice in half and walked through to the use of "middle" in Daniel 9:27 based a flawed exegesis called: First Mention.
2. Tried to say Gal 3:17 was from Daniel to Jesus when in fact, Paul is talking about the Law from Abraham to Moses.
3. Tried to say that there cannot be a talking image when Scripture says there is.
4. Tried to say that a rule of the common application in human matters of having witnesses support a judgment extends to prophecy.

These are marks of poor scholarship, and the misuse of 1Co 15:29 is just more evidence against his flawed theology.

[OneLight]

I have locked the thread due to too many violations of the Terms of Service where the person is debated and not the subject.  I will go through the thread one post at a time and see if this can be salvaged when I have the time.  If not, it will remain locked.

Edited to say the thread will not be reopened.  If there is any question as to why, please PM me for an explanation, not a debate.  To save time, I will say that there are many violations of the ToS and underhanded insults throughout the whole thread.