Jesus spoke of the Spirit as He, not It. This speaks to the personhood of the Spirit.
Daniel’s “Final Week” (70th Week) Has ALREADY Been Fulfilled
- Thread starter JacobGilbert
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And Jesus said it’s not what goes into the mouth that the files you but what comes out of it. The whole Bible is about words. So the spirit of Jesus would be the words that he spoke.
His death was proof of His humanity, as well as proof that sins were laid upon Him. His resurrection was proof of His deity.
Jesus didn't say that every time He spoke. And one being cannot be 2 witnesses.
You just contradicted yourself. You say God is three separate entities the father son in spirit. So how come Jesus can’t talk about both the father and son?
So how did Jesus resurrect from the dead? Because he spoke it before he died. Therefore he spoke it and therefore it happened. Just like at the rock and Maribeth.. What was the whole point of Moses sinning. Because he didn’t do what God told him to do. He told him to speak to the rock. To use his words. Thus transferring the power from the rod to the word.
Also, why don’t animals have souls and humans do? What is the one difference between human and animals that we can speak. It’s OK I’m just trying to show people the truth but not everybody’s gonna see it. Everybody’s on their own journey. I’m just supposed to plant the seed. It’s Jesus who makes it grow.
I was saying what you said. There is only one and only true God. God’s name is Jesus.
I would say the second half of the week was the deciples teaching the Jews. Filled with the Holy Spirit, they were lead by the Spirit. The time was important for the people to choose Jesus and accept the truth. Most Jews still reject the gospel of Jesus today.
The Hebrew text has two anointed ones.
“...to the coming of an anointed one, a prince/leader/forerunner…” This IMO is John the Baptist, the fore-runner of Christ.
"And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off (The Crucifixion).” This IMO is Christ. He is not the same anointed one as the one mentioned before, because then He would have been referred to grammatically as the anointed one.
And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... Desolations are decreed.” This prince IMO is John the Baptist, since he is introduced with the definite article, - the ruler, leader, forerunner. The Hebrew word for shall destroy is an imperfective/incomplete Hiphil form of the verb, which has a causative meaning. The people of the forerunner do not destroy the city and sanctuary. They cause the city and sanctuary to be destroyed (by somene else). The people/tribe of Jhn the Baptist were the Levites. They brought destruction on Jerusalem and the temple by continuing to sacrifice lambs, sheep, bulls and goats when the perfect sacrifice had been offered by Jesus. And by persecuting the saints Jesus d=sent to them with the Gospel.
Isa 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offerethan oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, theyhave chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
Isa 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
Isa 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out formy name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.
Isa 66:6
A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.
I appreciate the effort to connect this to John the Baptist, but a few issues stand out. The text distinguishes two anointed ones, but calling John the first "anointed prince" and the later "prince whose people destroy the city" feels forced—John wasn't a "nagid" ruler, and "who is to come" points future.
The Hiphil verb for "destroy" primarily means direct destruction (as the Romans under Titus did in AD 70), not just indirect causation by Levites continuing sacrifices. Isaiah 66 fits the judgment theme, but Daniel 9:26 attributes the physical razing of city and sanctuary to the people of the coming prince, not priestly rejection.
It’s creative, but the straightforward reading (Messiah arrives, is cut off, then Romans fulfill the desolation) aligns better with the grammar and history.
Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon -
NaGiYD m. a prince, a leader, ruler, so called
from preceding (see the root, also Syr. to go
before, Ephr.i. 114;
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/bdb.cfm#group3
STRONGS H5057:
† נָגִיד noun masculine leader (literally probably one in front), ruler, prince; ...
NaGiYD comes from the verb NaaGaD -
נָגַד nâgad, naw-gad'; a primitive root; properly, to front, i.e. stand boldly out opposite; by implication (causatively), to manifest; figuratively, to announce (always by word of mouth to one present); specifically, to expose, predict, explain, praise:
STRONGS H5046:
From [נָגַד] 363 verb be conspicuous (Late Hebrew in derivatives; Phoenician proper name, masculine נגד; Arabic
John the Baptist was most certainly a leader (NaGiYD). Great numbers of Israel came out to him in the desert to be instructed by him. And he was future of Daniel’s prophecy. And he still seems to me to be the most likely candidate for “the coming leader” mentioned in the previous verse.
The hiphil does not indicate how the stated effect is caused, whether directly or indirectly, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Context determines those aspects of the action. For instance, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God caused Pharaoh’s heart to harden in the sense that something God did stirred up Pharaoh’s reaction. God did not want Pharaoh to harden his heart, but to submit as Cyrus did when he was instructed to let the Jews go home. God knew Pharaoh's heart and expected that Pharaoh’s reaction to being ordered by Moses to let the people go would be to resent the command and resist it. But he gave Pharaoh the order anyway. So Pharaoh hardened his heart as expected, and God had caused him to do so by issuing the command. But God did not directly act on Pharaoh’s heart to harden it. The hardening was caused by Pharaoh deciding how he would react to God’s command.
In 2 Sam 24:15 David caused the death of 70,000 by three days of pestilence by numbering the people of Israel. But he did not do the killing himself. ni=r did he want the deaths to happen. Nevertheless they were the unintended result of his actions.
The language of Daniel does not require the people of the leader to directly or intentionally carry out the destruction themselves.
I respectfully disagree with you that your attribution of "the people of the leader who is to come" as the Romans under Titus is “the straightforward reading that better aligns with the grammar and history. “the leader "grammatically needs a referent within the text, or needs to be someone the readers already know about . Otherwise, grammatically, Daniel should say “the people of a leader” who is to come. The leader who is to come contextually should be the “a messiah, a leader” mentioned previously in the prophecy who could not be Titus.
I see where you're coming from on the word studies, but I still think Jacob is right on the bigger picture.Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon -
NaGiYD m. a prince, a leader, ruler, so called
from preceding (see the root, also Syr. to go
before, Ephr.i. 114;
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/bdb.cfm#group3
STRONGS H5057:
† נָגִיד noun masculine leader (literally probably one in front), ruler, prince; ...
NaGiYD comes from the verb NaaGaD -
נָגַד nâgad, naw-gad'; a primitive root; properly, to front, i.e. stand boldly out opposite; by implication (causatively), to manifest; figuratively, to announce (always by word of mouth to one present); specifically, to expose, predict, explain, praise:
STRONGS H5046:
From [נָגַד] 363 verb be conspicuous (Late Hebrew in derivatives; Phoenician proper name, masculine נגד; Arabicconquer, overcome, also be apparent, conspicuous;high land or country;be courageous, vigorous, effective,courageous, efficient; Aramaic, נְגַד drag, draw, lead;נָגוֺדָא leader; Ethiopicis travel); —
John the Baptist was most certainly a leader (NaGiYD). Great numbers of Israel came out to him in the desert to be instructed by him. And he was future of Daniel’s prophecy. And he still seems to me to be the most likely candidate for “the coming leader” mentioned in the previous verse.
The hiphil does not indicate how the stated effect is caused, whether directly or indirectly, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Context determines those aspects of the action. For instance, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God caused Pharaoh’s heart to harden in the sense that something God did stirred up Pharaoh’s reaction. God did not want Pharaoh to harden his heart, but to submit as Cyrus did when he was instructed to let the Jews go home. God knew Pharaoh's heart and expected that Pharaoh’s reaction to being ordered by Moses to let the people go would be to resent the command and resist it. But he gave Pharaoh the order anyway. So Pharaoh hardened his heart as expected, and God had caused him to do so by issuing the command. But God did not directly act on Pharaoh’s heart to harden it. The hardening was caused by Pharaoh deciding how he would react to God’s command.
In 2 Sam 24:15 David caused the death of 70,000 by three days of pestilence by numbering the people of Israel. But he did not do the killing himself. ni=r did he want the deaths to happen. Nevertheless they were the unintended result of his actions.
The language of Daniel does not require the people of the leader to directly or intentionally carry out the destruction themselves.
I respectfully disagree with you that your attribution of "the people of the leader who is to come" as the Romans under Titus is “the straightforward reading that better aligns with the grammar and history. “the leader "grammatically needs a referent within the text, or needs to be someone the readers already know about . Otherwise, grammatically, Daniel should say “the people of a leader” who is to come. The leader who is to come contextually should be the “a messiah, a leader” mentioned previously in the prophecy who could not be Titus.
John was definitely a leader and forerunner, no doubt. But squeezing him into both the first "anointed prince" and the "prince who is to come" whose people destroy the city feels like it's overloading one person. The text presents them as connected to different actions and timing. "Who is to come" (habba) sounds like a future figure from Daniel’s perspective, not someone already active like John.
On the Hiphil verb for "destroy" — yeah, causation examples like Pharaoh or David exist, but in context, Daniel 9:26 is describing a very specific, visible historical event: the actual razing of the city and sanctuary. The Romans under Titus did that literally. Saying the Levites "caused" it by rejecting Jesus and keeping sacrifices is more indirect theology than what the prophecy seems to state. The verse attributes the destruction to the people of the prince, not the priestly tribe’s ongoing rituals.
Grammatically linking the "prince who is to come" back to the previous anointed one is possible, but then you’d expect clearer continuity in the Hebrew. Most readings see a shift here — Messiah cut off, followed by judgment coming through foreign powers (which happened in AD 70). That fits the flow better without having to make John the central figure for the destruction part.
Solid word study though — appreciate the dive into the roots. But overall, the straightforward Messiah-then-desolation reading still seems cleaner to me.
