What is the COVENANT of Daniel 9:27?

[zone]

Ezekiel Temple is actually Heavenly Jerusalem ,because of what ezekiel stated on that last verse , and the name of the city from that day shall be, ‘The LORD is there.’

unless there is 1000 year rein and that what God calls in that timeline dunno really?

Ezekiel & John vision the same place but in diffrent time line dunno. but the only diffrence in Ezekiel and revelation is Ezekiel has a ocean that is healed, Revelation does not have a ocean

God bless

ezekiel's temple was a picture of the future - which included the second temple period, then Jesus Christ, the church, then New Jerusalem...

 

[Kerry]

the third temple will be built.

 

[zone]

the third temple will be built.

know ye not that ye are.....oh.n.m

 

[watcher2013]

None are so blind . . . .

2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 (NKJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
[SUP]2 [/SUP] not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
[SUP]4 [/SUP] who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

Again..as this particular verse is popularly related to the abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24:

I asked EG in this thread and I also started a new thread about it... and I will asked you also VCO...you can answer it in this thread or the in new one:

IN MATTHEW 24:

What Sign did Jesus gave concerning the destruction of the Temple?

 

[watcher2013]

When we are talking about the temple destroyed in 70 AD. Then you mention the second temple. People would expect you to be speaking of the other temple. The one we were speaking of. Since the one destroyed in 70 AD was the first temple destroyed (in our conversation)

don;t try to twist it now.

maybe what you have is "Wickedpedia"
1st temple destroyed by the Babylonian 2Ch36:19
2nd Temple destroyed by Romans 70AD

 

[VCO]

ezekiel's temple was a picture of the future - which included the second temple period, then Jesus Christ, the church, then New Jerusalem...

Even the early Church fathers understood it to be talking about a third Temple:

2 Thes. 2:4. This man is further described as the adversary of God. He will seek to replace the worship of the true God and all false gods with the worship of himself, and will proclaim himself to be God. The beast will tolerate the worship of no one or nothing but himself (cf. Rev. 13:5-8). He will set himself up on God’s throne in the inner sanctuary of God’s temple. This probably refers toa literal temple, but some suggest that it is a figurative reference to his occupying the most holy place in human worship, which rightfully belongs only to God. The early church fathers and several good modern-day commentators accept the literal view.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

maybe what you have is "Wickedpedia"
1st temple destroyed by the Babylonian 2Ch36:19
2nd Temple destroyed by Romans 70AD

lol.. Think about our conversation. We were talking about a temple destroyed in 70 AD (the first temple in our discussion) and the one which would later be abominated by a desolation (the second temple in our discussion)

so make up your mind. We were not even speaking of the first temple destroyed by babylon in ANY of our discussion. So why would I assume that would be consider the first?

finally (now as I look back) I did give you an answer. But as usual, you just ignore it. Or mock it. Which is what started this chain of events.

(and see where it is on question in the middle of a long rant, so when you just responded wiht one aspect. I was not sure which queston you were speaking of. and assumed you meant the future temple, which is what WE WERE DISCUSSING.

 

[zone]

Even the early Church fathers understood it to be talking about a third Temple:

well, maybe...DTS would be promoting that view, certainly.

but along those lines:

Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity Paperback
by Mr. Charles E. Hill

Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Mr. Charles E. Hill: 9780802846341: Amazon.com: Books

 

[VCO]

well, maybe...DTS would be promoting that view, certainly.

but along those lines:

Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity Paperback
by Mr. Charles E. Hill

Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Mr. Charles E. Hill: 9780802846341: Amazon.com: Books

I wonder why they put Mr. there? When he is Professor with doctorate degree in divinity at: Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Or was that written before he went to seminary at Westminster Theological Seminary in California?

 

[zone]

I wonder why they put Mr. there? When he is Professor with doctorate degree in divinity at: Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Or was that written before he went to seminary at Westminster Theological Seminary in California?

uh.....i believe it is a revision of a doctoral dissertation...like just before the PhD part. so ya. before.
prolly a good reason to ignore it

you could try:

William Masselink

The Reverend Dr. William Masselink (1897-1973) was the founder of the Chicago Christian School for Handicapped Children and the pastor of the Second Christian Reformed Church in Englewood (known popularly as the "72nd Street Church"). He received a diploma from Grundy College (1918), earned a Th.M. degree at Princeton Seminary (1919), attended the Chicago Divinity School in 1920, and then completed two doctorates, the first a Ph.D. degree from Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky (1921), and the second, a Th.D. degree from the Free University of Amsterdam (1937). In 1942, after serving the Second Christian Reformed Church in Englewood for ten years, he joined the faculty of the Reformed Bible College in Grand Rapids and taught until he retired in 1963.

The Erroneous Interpretation of Prophecy
This article is taken from Chapter IV of Why Thousand Years? by William Masselink,
published by Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1930, pp. 31-39.

http://reformedperspectives.org/articles/wil_masselink/wil_masselink.Error.pdf


k.....i don't know why he had 2 doctorates...or anything else like that.
i just read the article. debunking the premillennial view that has Jesus (or The Antichrist) sitting in a new temple in this Jerusalem....so.....
because millennialism is a descent of ancient Judaism, the part that got the Kingdom coming with Jesus WRONG.
as in....they wanted an earthly kingdom - type-wrong.

 

[Mark51]

The covenant that was kept in force for seven years, or “one week,” from Jesus’ baptism and the beginning of the Messiah’s public ministry in 29　C.E. was the Abrahamic covenant. To be in that covenant relationship, a person simply had to be one of Abraham’s Hebrew offspring. The Law covenant was abolished in 33　C.E., but God’s period of special favor and attention to the Jews did not end at that time. That period was to continue until 36　C.E., when Peter preached to the devout Italian Cornelius and his household as well as to other Gentiles.-Acts 10:1-48.

That unilateral covenant did not give individuals a dedicated relationship with Jehovah. Hence, the Jewish believers undergoing baptism after Peter’s speech at Pentecost　33　C.E., though recipients of special attention as natural Jews, had no claim to a dedicated relationship with God once the Law covenant had been removed. They personally needed to dedicate themselves to God.
　
　
　
　

 

[konroh]

While I would agree to the Spirit and the truth of what you say about Jesus in reference to the Jews and Gentiles, I'd disagree that you can link this to Daniel's 70th week, since Messiah has to be cut off after the 69th week and before the 70th week begins, so it can't occur in the middle of the 70th week. After Messiah is cut off, then "he will make a covenant".