Dan. 9

[eternally-gratefull]

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

lol

You said the abomination of dan 9 and matt 24 are not the same

I said, no, they are the same, and I gave reasons to back up what I said and show why I think they are the same

You called me childish because of it,

do I need to say anything else? or is that confusing too?

 

[miknik5]

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..

You have the Jews making the choice to rebuild the temple in a different location from what is considered (to them) to be the holy place?

 

[miknik5]

You have them breaking their laws to compensate by building for GOD ma HOUSE somewhere different than what (to them) had to be in a particular place considered as HOLY?

 

[miknik5]

Again, if they would do that, then why didn't they just rebuild the temple anywhere they chose already?

 

[J7]

You have the Jews making the choice to rebuild the temple in a different location from what is considered (to them) to be the holy place?

I do not know. I would expect it to be built on the Temple Mount.

The confusion we are having is regards the interpretation of Matthew 24, which stems from EG believing it is a future event.


"The Holy Place" means all of Jerusalem.

The Holy Of Holies is obviously the inner part of the Temple.

 

[miknik5]

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

What is your intentions here?

and how do you know they are already considering building elsewhere?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I do not know. I would expect it to be built on the Temple Mount.

The confusion we are having is regards the interpretation of Matthew 24, which stems from EG believing it is a future event.


"The Holy Place" means all of Jerusalem.

The Holy Of Holies is obviously the inner part of the Temple.

No, A holy place is the inner sanctum. It is also called the holy of holys, In the OT, a veil was placed between the inner court, and the most holy place.

Also, in the OT, in daniels day, In Antiochus epiphanies day, and in the day of jesus, an abomination which makes desolate means an idol which is placed in a holy place. which makes it ceremonially unclean.

I believe matt 24 is a future event and I have given many reasons to support it.. If you disagree,, show me where my reasoning is wrong, you just saying I am childish, or am confused is not helping in the discussion at all.

And can you speak without any accusation or attack?

 

[J7]

What is your intentions here?

and how do you know they are already considering building elsewhere?

I have no knowledge of anything to do with modern construction plans??? Why do you ask me this?

 

[J7]

No, A holy place is the inner sanctum. It is also called the holy of holys, In the OT, a veil was placed between the inner court, and the most holy place.

Also, in the OT, in daniels day, In Antiochus epiphanies day, and in the day of jesus, an abomination which makes desolate means an idol which is placed in a holy place. which makes it ceremonially unclean.

I believe matt 24 is a future event and I have given many reasons to support it.. If you disagree,, show me where my reasoning is wrong, you just saying I am childish, or am confused is not helping in the discussion at all.

And can you speak without any accusation or attack?

lol. Well you are making it up EG. Jerusalem is consistently called the Holy Place. I've already shown that.

No. Desolation means destruction. That is basic.

You've come here to learn or to be argumentative?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

lol. Well you are making it up EG. Jerusalem is consistently called the Holy Place. I've already shown that.

No. Desolation means destruction. That is basic.

You've come here to learn or to be argumentative?

Who is the one arguing.I am discussing, your the one acting like a child with your remarks.

You called me a child because I did not agree with you.

You have not studied much, Yes, Jerusalem is a holy place. But it is not the most holy place.

abomination in the Hebrew means to make unclean, not to be destroyed.an unclean thing, an idol, a detestable thing. Something which makes unclean.

Jesus said in matt 24, the people of Isreal will see this unclean things standing in the most holy place (not Jerusalem. sorry) and when they see it they are to run.

there are many unclean things all over Jerusalem, if it meant the city, the city would be inclean just by the many unclean things in the city.

One last warning about your childish behavior. I am about sick of it..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Matt 24: [SUP]15 [/SUP]“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’[SUP][c][/SUP] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place”

This is not talking about Jerusalem.. Daniel the prophet spoke of the abomination standing in the most holy place. or the wing of the temple.

 

[miknik5]

I do not know. I would expect it to be built on the Temple Mount.

The confusion we are having is regards the interpretation of Matthew 24, which stems from EG believing it is a future event.


"The Holy Place" means all of Jerusalem.

The Holy Of Holies is obviously the inner part of the Temple.

He told you that JESUS said when you see standing in the HOLY PLACE the abomination spoken of by Daniel.

Meaning the two prophecies speak of a future time
especially since in the book of daniel, Daniel is told to go his way that the vision was for the time of the end
that after these things he will stand and receive his lot


has daniel stood yet to receive his lot?

has anyone?

 

[Rainrider]

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)

I know that some will try to say the Temple should be down in the valley, Some 500yards I think they say, from where the dom of the rock is. Yet if you take a look at the Temple Institute, you will not find that they are looking to put any place other then where it should be. I grant, they may try to place it right next to the D.O.R. Yet by all accounts, it would still be placed where it should be. Don't get me wrong, I haven't studied this out like Rabbi Richman, and Joe Good, have. Though it is clear from what they say, they do believe it was on the east of the Temple Mont. Leaving room for both to stand.

That said, we all know that Islam will not go for that idea.

 

[Bladerunner]

It wasn't Gabriel either

it was the "man in linen"


Nope...you are free to jump in any time

regardless of the Angel's name, He had to have help from a angel of High ranking in order to get around, get free of the king of Persia...What does that mean...It means that the King of Persia was demon possessed. What is the next statement about who is he going to have to fight when he leaves.... Another possessed KING.

This is the reason why is told to us. To realize that the great kings of History were demon possessed. Persia, Babylon, Assyrian, Greek and Roman??????

 

[Bladerunner]

I don't think anyone implied that it was 21 years but three weeks or three years representing that "21 days"

your ignorance of the subject matter is showing again.... 21 Days DAYS DAYS

 

[Bladerunner]

lol. tangent alert.




Daniel is a coded book, so when someone suggests a flat reading of it, they show zero understanding.

It is just a ridiculous statement by someone who simply has no knowledge of what they are talking about.

Brave man indeed....very foolish as well....... you do realize you are calling GOD out on this ...... I believe I would take a different stock of the subject.......

 

[Bladerunner]

it would be like someone looking for a big red dragon after reading revelation

It is very evident you do not believe that God wrote or inspired the WHole Bible OT and NT, do You.
Big red Dragon is SATAN.........why can there not be a RED dragon since Lucifer has the ability to change into what he wants....Besides in those days there were many dragons around for people to see. Probably not RED but dragons nether-the-less

You are on a role but I do not belieev I would be calling God a LIAR like you are. It is like standing out in the middle of the field and daring him to bring you down. OH MY

 

[Bladerunner]

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

Daniels prayer was interrupted not to be fulfilled but give the Angel Gabriel time to give Daniel the Prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27. Daniel already knew that the people of Babylon would be set free because he could read Jeremiah's prophecy and know that the 70 weeks of captivity under Babylon hands was up. Many of the Jewish Babylonians stated in Babylon instead of returning to Jerusalem to help rebuild it and the temple.

By the way, the 70 years of captivity stopped when Daniel met Cyrus (leader of the Persian Army) and gave him a 150 year old prophecy naming him the one to set God's people free. Under the Cyrus Decree he did just that.....

The idea being is the Bible is the History of not only man but the Jewish nation of Israel and its dealings with Gentiles throughout the last 5000 years.

God is and has always been in control.

 

[followjesus]

This seems to be a chapter of the Bible that everyone has their own ideas about. When it comes down to 24-27, we must all admit that when we first read it, and looked to understand it, we were a bit at odds with our selves. Well ok may not everyone.
Yet as many people know there are many ways this is seen, and understood, why is it that some can't see anything other what they have been told. I know some are willing to openly look at something new, even if it holds no real relevants to their understanding.
Being kind of new to the study of prophecy, I am always seeking the facts, and not the kind of teachings make my eyes glaze over. As we know the Bible gives us everything we need to understand it. Yet I have heard some teachings on this chapter, that seem to be more fantastic than anything.
If I may, I will pace what I have found here. Then if any one see's where I may be going wrong, can you explain where and why? Keep in mind, I am a man with a thousand questions. It may seem as though I am trying to make a mountin out of a mole hill, yet is through my questions, that I seek the truth.
Here we go.
Dan 9:24 “A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to finish their rebellion, to put an end to their sin, to atone for their guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

Now the Most Holy Place here, is the Holy of Holies am I right? If so then this may end up talking of Dan. 8 as well.

Dan 9:25 Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler—the Anointed One comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times.

I have heard many teachings on this one passage. Some say it was Cyrus, others say Darius, and some, Artaxerxes. My reason for thinking it has to Cyrus, is that Is.44:28 tel us that Is.44:28 tells us that HaShem chose Cyrus for this job. The math doesn't fit most teaching if we use Cyrus, yet in my mind that is due to us not really know how add. LOL Sounds stupid once I look at it. Yet even Daniel was having trouble with the math. Or at lest it seems that way from the opening of this chapter. So just how are we to know something that Daniel was having a problem with?

Dan 9:26 ¶“After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end.

Now here is where Things ca take a turn one way or the other. I am going to ask that we look at this ruler that will destroy the temple. I know that a lot of people teach this was Titus. I kind of understand why, being how we look at things from mans point of view. So I ask, can it be that we are seeing this wrong? In, "The Complete Works of Josephus" Book 6 chapter 4, page 896. Josephus tells us that Titus gave orders NOT to harm the Temple. When he went to sleep, the 10th, or 11th legion burned the Temple, and when told Titus gave orders to put out the fire and save the Temple. By our way of thinking, they were under his command, that makes him the one that did the deed.
Yet are we looking at this in the proper manner? After all we know that in the Eyes of HaShem, every man is responsible for their own actions. There is no record of the an that started the fire, or even what legion he was really in. Yet we do know, that the 10th, 11th, and 12th, were made of mostly Muslim nations. So would it not make more sense to say that it will be from that people, this prince will arise?

Dan 9:27 The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”

Now I have heard that this is talking of Artaxerxes. Yet that doesn't add up in my little brain. If t it was him, then why after his defilement does Yeshua tell us,

Mat 24:15 ¶“The day is coming when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about—the sacrilegious object that causes desecration standing in the Holy Place.” (Reader, pay attention!)

Seems to me that this is talking of something still to come. When I pointed this out, I was told that it was talking of Titus. Yet that still doesn't add up. As Titus never placed anything in side the Temple.
Any help here would be great. I may ask some questions as I said. After all, I have never just taken anyone's word for fact, unless they can explain it in a logical manner. If I start to become to demanding with what I may ask, sorry. It is after all, just me. So please over look that.

take a look at the 1 and 2 books of the maccabees during the years between malachi, and matthew. it will help understanding alot concerning antiochus "epiphanes" ( which means god manifest) putting an end to the daily sacrifice, and also setting up an altar for sacrifice to zeus in Gods temple.

these books arent considered "inspired" but they are accepted as Jewish History by anyone really. theres alot of information on the time period between new and old testament concerning the jews of whom daniel was one.

 

[miknik5]

what? not sure what you mean..

I believe the poster was suggesting that Rome would be the one who would make a covenant with Israel

they know JESUS and they know there is no need to rebuild a temple

I don't see how they would be encouraging the Jews to rebuild the temple
I see them, as I see any true believer in CHRIST, warning their ignorant Jewish brothers not to
and dying for it because some of the violent men of the covenant end the will assume that they are interfering with GOD's work not understanding that we aren't waiting for an earthly temple and we certainly arent waiting for what will happen in the temple when the work is complete