Dan. 9

[J7]

The purpose of Daniel was to set the prophetic clock to the Wrath, the climax of the Old Covenant.

So God encodes it, for the simple reason that he doesn't want those who are going to be destroyed to know when their judgement is coming, or else they'll try and duck it. Similar principle to speaking in parables.

That is why Daniel is repeatedly told to seal up the book - i.e. keep its meaning covert.


Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

That is why we are told (by the Man in linen?) that the wicked will not understand.

If you do not realize that the book is encoded, you have not got to first base.

 

[miknik5]

The purpose of Daniel was to set the prophetic clock to the Wrath, the climax of the Old Covenant.

So God encodes it, for the simple reason that he doesn't want those who are going to be destroyed to know when their judgement is coming, or else they'll try and duck it. Similar principle to speaking in parables.

That is why Daniel is repeatedly told to seal up the book - i.e. keep its meaning covert.


Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

That is why we are told (by the Man in linen?) that the wicked will not understand.

If you do not realize that the book is encoded, you have not got to first base.

First some (of the wise) stumble so as to be made pure for the time of the end

GOD is a launderer

HE knows how to purify/refine/launder HIS CHILDREN

 

[miknik5]

There is nothing to worry about
all things are under HIS SOVEREIGN CARE

And those who know their GOD will make manifest that they know their GOD

But the "violent men of the covenant" will not understand

 

[Rainrider]

Does anyone believe that the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9 has to do with allowing the rebuilding of the temple?

I am not sure if that is going to come about due to the covenant, or other means. I do follow that it will be there.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I believe the 70 week prophecy was actually a continuation of God's Judgment. They never were in control of the land. They had frequent attacks with this time period. And Jesus' answer to the question of how many times should you forgive your brother, 7x70...God did say in Leviticus that if they did not repent that he would add to their punishment 7 times, They were in capitivity for 70 years, thus we have the 7x70.

Matthew 18:
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

I agree, that's why he sad he is going to give 70 weeks of years make an end of sin. When the 70 weka are completed, Daniels prayer will be fully answered and all will be restored

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Does anyone believe that the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9 has to do with allowing the rebuilding of the temple?

unless you believe it was fulfilled already it has to

There is no symbolic idol that will be placed in a symbolic temple..(abomination which makes desolate) These are literal things which must take place for the prophesy to be fulfilled.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Matthew and Daniel are different. Of this you need to be aware.

Daniel talks about replacing the sacrifice with an abomination after the Romans have taken the Temple.

Jesus talks about a desolating sacrilege prior to the Romans sacking Jerusalem.


Do you see the difference?

No, Because Jesus speaks of the abomination spoken of by Daniel the prophet. Meaning they are the same.

Daniel mentioned 2 abominations, One was fulfilled by the greeks, when Antiochus slaughtered a pig in the holy of holies, to defile it (make it unclean)

the second will be done in the same way, This did not happen in 70 AD

 

[eternally-gratefull]

ok, I'll explain Miknik.

Jesus tells the Church that the cue for them to escape from Jerusalem is 'the desolating sacrilege in the Holy Place'.

Now if you understand that to mean the Abomination Of Desolation, as described by Daniel, which was the stopping of the sacrifices and an object of worship replacing it in the temple, which occurred in AD 70 when Titus took the temple, then that is clearly not the thing which helped the Church to put their running shoes on.

So clearly 'the desolating sacrilege in the Holy Place' means something slightly different. It actually refers to the Roman troops under Gaius which came up to Jerusalem in AD66 just before passover and then dropped back. That was the cue to escape.

1. Daniel 9 was not written to the church, it was written to the children of Isreal. as a warning.
2. The thing Daniel spoke of was an unclean thing, or idol, which would make the inner sanctuary desolate (unclean) meaning it could not fulfill its purpose
3. Titus destroyed the temple, he did not place an idol in it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok, let's clarify this.

The Abomination.

Leviticus 13
13 These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey,

Antiochus put a statue of Zeus in the Temple and demanded the Jews worship him. That was the first Abomination of Desolation.

The Romans called Zeus Jupiter.

The Romans carried eagles on their ensigns, which were to honour Jupiter.

So the eagle on the Roman Standard was the Abomination, the sacrilege.

No idol was placed into the temple by any roman. let alone, any idol that the whole nation of Isreal could see..

By the time titus even made it to the temple. people would have already been running for their lives, if not already killed on the spot.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Please remember that Rome does not remain as an unbelieving people

what? not sure what you mean..

 

[J7]

No, Because Jesus speaks of the abomination spoken of by Daniel the prophet. Meaning they are the same.

Daniel mentioned 2 abominations, One was fulfilled by the greeks, when Antiochus slaughtered a pig in the holy of holies, to defile it (make it unclean)

the second will be done in the same way, This did not happen in 70 AD

The first abomination was the consecration of the temple to Zeus:

2 Maccabees 6 Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian[a] senator[b] to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer to live by the laws of God; 2 also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and to call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place.3 Harsh and utterly grievous was the onslaught of evil. 4 For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit. 5 The altar was covered with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws. 6 People could neither keep the sabbath, nor observe the festivals of their ancestors, nor so much as confess themselves to be Jews.

Josephus also records that Antiochus put a bust of Zeus on the altar.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The Jews are actually in control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mound and could do with it what they want if they really decided to do it, they ALLOW the Muslims to seem to have control over the Temple Mound as a way of appeasement.

if Isreal did anything to that mount, their would be a war against the entire muslim world. they could not win.

Someone has to come in and make sure there is no reprisal before the temple can be rebuilt, or else they would have to build it in another place. (which they are actually looking into doing as we speak)

 

[J7]

No, Because Jesus speaks of the abomination spoken of by Daniel the prophet. Meaning they are the same.

Daniel mentioned 2 abominations, One was fulfilled by the greeks, when Antiochus slaughtered a pig in the holy of holies, to defile it (make it unclean)

the second will be done in the same way, This did not happen in 70 AD

This was not the point being contested, you need to go back.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The first abomination was the consecration of the temple to Zeus:

2 Maccabees 6 Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian[a] senator[b] to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their ancestors and no longer to live by the laws of God; 2 also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and to call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place.3 Harsh and utterly grievous was the onslaught of evil. 4 For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit. 5 The altar was covered with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws. 6 People could neither keep the sabbath, nor observe the festivals of their ancestors, nor so much as confess themselves to be Jews.

Josephus also records that Antiochus put a bust of Zeus on the altar.

I already said the first abomination was completed by the greeks. According to historical records I have seen, They slaughtered a pig in the holy of holies. The pig was an unclean thing, and would have been considered an abomination which makes desolate

The second abomination will have the same purpose. to make it unclean, A destroyed temple is not a desolate temple. It is no temple at all.

 

[J7]

1. Daniel 9 was not written to the church, it was written to the children of Isreal. as a warning.
2. The thing Daniel spoke of was an unclean thing, or idol, which would make the inner sanctuary desolate (unclean) meaning it could not fulfill its purpose
3. Titus destroyed the temple, he did not place an idol in it.

Again, you have not followed the discussion. You'll need to trackback

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This was not the point being contested, you need to go back.

You said they were both (matt and Daniel) not the same If you did not mean it please explain

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Again, you have not followed the discussion

Or maybe you just can not answer my response?

I followed the discussion quite well thank you, If I am mistaken, can you please show me how. instead of making a generalized comment.

 

[J7]

oh please. Say something grown-up if you want to join the conversation.

The original comment from Bladerunner was:

YES, J7....Jerusalem is the Holy City but the 'Abomination of Desolate' spoken of by Daniel is by the Bible defined to be a placing of an idol or other desecrations to the Holy of HOLIEs..... It is obvious you do not know what that is...I refer to you to the book of Leviticus where God tells the nation of Israel through Moses how to build and use the Temple and the Holy of Holies within.

He does not understand the difference between what Daniel describes, 9:27, which refers to the Holy Of Holies in AD70, and what Jesus refers to in Matthew 24, which is the Roman Armies arriving in Jerusalem in AD66..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

oh please. Say something grown-up if you want to join the conversation.

The original comment from Bladerunner was:




He does not understand the difference between what Daniel describes, 9:27, which refers to the Holy Of Holies in AD70, and what Jesus refers to in Matthew 24, which is the Roman Armies arriving in Jerusalem in AD66..

And I responded by telling you that you were wrong in this that that they are two different things,, And I backed my words by saying that Jesus spoke of the abomination which Daniel spoke of in matt 24 PROVING they were the same thing

So I did understand what you were saying, and your comment just backfired, and we see who really needs to grow up.

 

[J7]

I cannot understand what you are trying to say to be honest.