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

[iamlamad]

7 hours ago, inchrist said:

Oh I cant but you can now? Seriously.

And by the way I just did with "coming" and "out of"..... You can throw you toys out as much as you want it wont change.

Yeh there is..."out of"... 

Um....where is the altar? Did it just happen to disappear now?

Prove that the 5th seal is not a multitude.

I understand this is your little catch phrase but since John has alot of Daniel in Revelation and statements like this from you

You have no foundation in scripture concerning Daniel which is greatly impacting your ability to understand Revelation.

You disregard scripture concerning more than one witness.

You discredit Christ's ability to know scripture. 

You discredit the Bible from prophecing the timing of Christs death.

You cant use tenses accurately.

You have elevated human perspective over God, which in itself is ironic since you have no evidence for such a perspective.

And I must belief you speak truth? Simply because you say so?

What I find amazing after admiting you have so few evidence you blindly and also fanatically belief in something that has no scriptual support. Its incredable. Been fascinating

Wow! You can't even get the sacrifices stopped in your theory, and you bash mine? Your theory failed on the first page you wrote, yet you will never admit it: the sacrifices kept right on after Christ's death, blowing your theory out of the water, so to speak. Yet you keep on hammering it, trying to force a square peg in a round hole. No matter HOW HARD you hit it, it will not fit! The sacrifices did not stop!

I can come in out of the rain: it does not mean the rain killed me!  As usual, what you claim as proof is only poof.

Again trying to create smoke and mirrors: there is a difference between being UNDER the altar and being in the throne room!  Are you really serious here?

How many martyrs were there When John got to see them?  Stephen was certainly one of them. Add to that those that Paul had put to death. Of course today there are multiplied millions. But we are talking when John saw those under the altar. That was when Jesus opened that seal. My guess is very shortly after 32 AD.  In other words, John was seeing these things around 95 AD, but what he was seeing was probably around 32 AD, right after Jesus ascended and took the book.

Did you not notice that the first hint of a long wait in the seals was this 5th seal? They had no idea how long it would be before their murders were judged. We know now, looking back, judgment would have to wait for the age of Grace to finish. So basically they were told they would have to wait until the very last church age martyr would be murdered. When would that be? What would cause the final church age martyr? Of course, the rapture of the church that ENDS the church age. So in reality they are told they are going to wait until the rapture of the church to see judgment come.

How amazing then, in THE VERY NEXT VERSE, the 6th seal brings the start of the judgment. Only, the rapture will take place just before the 6th seal.

The truth is, you don't understand Daniel properly, so you don't understand Revelation properly either. You cannot find the midpoint, and you don't know where the 70th week begins. And yet, you imagine it is I who have problems!

In the end, I will take what Daniel wrote over your theory of what he wrote, all day long. In verse 26, Jesus was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks ended. We don't know exactly when, so if you think you do, it is imagination. Then in verse 70 the subject has changed. It is a new HE. Of course with preconceived glasses, you miss that. Well, when it happens, you will know I have written truth. The ENTIRE 70th week is ahead of us, and it will be the man of sin entering the temple that will stop the daily sacrifices: and they WILL STOP.

Edited February 21, 2017 by iamlamad

[Marcus O'Reillius]

23 hours ago, inchrist said:

 never said the covenant is 7 yrs, nor did I say the covenant is limted to 7 years..its like you want to hear what you want to hear....I said the strengthening is 7 yrs. 

Making something up out of thin air.

gabar does not mean "strengthen" - that is a lousy translation by some guys working 400 years ago by candlelight.
gabar means, as a verb, to PREVAIL, and with strong overtones of military might, and it is also used to describe someone standing in opposition to God.

Some key questions your Preterist theology misses:

1. Give proper Scriptural authority in the Gospel, history, or Epistles that says Jesus "strengthened" any covenant for just seven years.
2. How did Jesus "strengthen" something He wasn't here for?
3. WHICH OT Covenant did Jesus "strengthen"?
4. Why isn't the NEW Covenant called the "Strengthened XYZ Covenant?
5. When specifically did the "strengthening" end of the NEW Covenant?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:17 AM, inchrist said:

 You see there is an established rule of interpreting scripture called  The Law of First Mention.

And here is where you go off the rails.

To define a word, in the Law of First Mention - which is not a LAW at all, but a technique proposed by some for illumination of Biblical meaning to everyday words.

The Law of "First Mention" simply means: "that the very first time any important word is mentioned in the Bible [usually, of course, is in Genesis, the first book of the Bible] Scripture gives that word its most complete, and accurate, meaning to not only serve as a "key" in understanding the word's Biblical concept, but to also provide a foundation for its fuller development in later parts of the Bible." - end quote.

What the so-called "Law" of First Mention does NOT allow you to do is to connect two passages based on a word solely on its appearance in both and throw context and theme right out the window.
_________________________________________________

To show how ludicrous this "LAW" is, it comes with another "LAW" - the Law of Numerical Structure of Scripture, which attempts to make the Bible into a study of numerology.

You have NOTHING to say that Jesus "strengthened" the Abramaic Covenant.

In one, God divides the offering.
In the other, an event comes in the middle of a length of time.

These are not the same.

_________________________________________________

Gen 15:7-16 And He said to him, I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it.  He said, O Lord God, how may I know that I will possess it? So He said to him, Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. The birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.
Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. God said to Abram, Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.

Expositor's Bible Commentary. 7-16 These verses, as v.18 shows, recount the establishment of a covenant (berith) between the Lord and Abram. Thus it is fitting that in many respects the account should foreshadow the making of the covenant at Sinai. The opening statement "I am the LORD who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans" (v.7) is virtually identical to the opening statement of the Sinai covenant (Exod 20:2): "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt." The expression "Ur of the Chaldeans" is a reference back to 11:28 and 31, grounding the present covenant in a past act of divine salvation from "Babylon," just as Exodus 20:2 grounds the Sinai covenant in an act of divine salvation from Egypt. The coming of God's presence in the awesome fire and darkness of Mount Sinai (Exod 19:18; 20:18; Deut 4:11) appears to be intentionally foreshadowed in Abram's pyrotechnic vision (vv.12, 17). In the Lord's words to Abram (vv.13-16), the connection between Abram's covenant and the Sinai covenant is explicitly made by means of the reference to the four hundred years of bondage of Abram's descendants and their subsequent "exodus" ("and afterward they will come out [yese'u]," v.14).

So HOW did Jesus "strengthen" this Covenant when it was already accomplished?

DO the overwhelming majority of Christians coming into God's Kingdom AFTER the "strengthening" of this Abramaic Covenant NOT enjoy the promise to "come out of" this world with all the treasures we will have in Heaven?

No, that is NOT the case.  Jesus' NEW Covenant did not cease to be after seven years - but it does end when He comes again and gathers up the Elect - those who believe He will deliver them by faith.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

And in this totally inane conversation inchrist never said how Jesus prevailed the fulfilled Abramaic Covenant nor how it ceased to be prevailed after seven years.

inchrist clamors for two or three witnesses yet can't provide a single witness that the New Covenant is a strengthened Old one. 

[iamlamad]

How much simpler it is to just believe it as written: the "He" that confirms the covenant and causes the daily sacrifices to stop, is closely related to the "he" of the people that destroyed the city and the sanctuary. That would be a leader of the "Rome" of the future. Without a doubt, he is alive today in the world.   Why is using the correct rules of pronouns so difficult for some?

[iamlamad]

Inchrist wrote,

What you failed to realise, and youve done this a number of times where you have failed to read scripture correctly. What was fulfilled was proclaiming the acceptable year in Isaiah 61....what was not fulfilled was Christ ministry when Christ spoke Isaiah 61, his ministry only just began....where YOU CAN FIND CHRIST IN HIS VERY OWN ACTIONS CUTTING OFF HIS MINISTRY in Isaiah 61. What is called a prophetic act.

Let's examine this and see who fails to read scripture correctly:

Isaiah 61:1  
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;                       That happened at His baptism.
because the Lord hath anointed me                             That happened at His baptism.
to preach good tidings unto the meek;                        He was anointed (at His baptism) to preach.
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,          God sent Him to accomplish this job. AT the time Jesus quoted this, He was sent.
he hath sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives,  God sent Him: at the time Jesus quoted this, He was already sent.
he hath sent me [for]the opening of the prison to them that are bound;  God sent Him: at the time Jesus quoted this, He was already sent.

All these fulfilled ON THE SPOT when Jesus said it was fulfilled.

...and the day of vengeance of our God:  Jesus was NOT YET sent for the day of Vengeance! This is why Jesus did not quote this. 

What we see here is a GAP right in the middle of a sentence in the middle of a verse: a gap that is still ongoing. Jesus has not yet come for vengeance.

In the same way, Daniel put a gap between 9:26 and 9:27. And we are still looking for that entire 27th verse to be fulfilled.

[iamlamad]

8 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Well how much easier would it be to provide 2 or 3 witnesses to establish a doctrine?

Why is this so difficult to some?

It has been done over and over, and you don't believe them. How about Paul telling us the man of sin will enter the temple? How about Jesus telling us there will be an abomination in the temple?

[Spock]

I am so glad to see your name back on this board iamlamad because you have always been a blessing for me to read.  This post here is just another example of your clear thinking and analysis of a passage that has been abused and misused. 

Why people want to take something fairly obvious and convolute it is beyond me. If one misses the peace treaty or covenant with many, you won't miss the abomination of desolation. It will slap you in the face when it occurs. And of course, Jesus cautioned us about this event, especially for those living in Judaea. 

I hope you post more thread starters. 

Spock out

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Jesus did not "PREVAIL" the Abramaic Covenant.

He made a NEW Covenant: one in which fulfills the promise to increase Abraham's "children".
Totally different verb.

The action of prevailing (by military might) a covenant to begin the one 'seven' is done by the same one -
- associated with the midpoint Abomination -the talking image of the King of the North- and -
- has God's desolations, which have been decreed, being "poured out" upon the "desolator".

Now even if we allow the complete upheaval of language where word meaning takes wild flights of fancy to suit strange theology and eschatology -
There was no midpoint abomination three and a half years later, and -
None of God's desolations, the Trumpet and Bowl Judgments, were accomplished in the fourth decade A.D.

Now when the pronoun in gabar reverts to the last person mentioned - the prince who will come -
Then the anti-Christ forces through -prevails- a covenant around the Middle East Crisis, which gives Israel title to the Temple Mount to build her temple.
Before the midpoint, the false prophet nukes Iran,
Causing a reaction (planned and coordinated between the two) for the King of the North to invade.
Upon reaching Jerusalem, he is welcomed by their capitulation and the false prophet awards him a prize: the talking image of the man.
This sets in motion God's response which leads up to the final battle to end all war at Armageddon, finishing the pouring out all the desolations upon the ant-Christ.

[iamlamad]

Or perhaps Israel will win her side of World War 3, by defeating so thoroughly those who attack her , that it will be her enemies that ask for a 7 year peace treaty, and someone in leadership signs that covenant, agreeing they will stop fighting. And during that war Palestine will have been driven out of Jerusalem and off of the temple mount. Maybe Israel will give them permission to enter their temple - if they are nice. It is just another scenario. We know Israel must remain until the battle of Armageddon.