The Church, and Israel and the Last Days.

[OMC]

Sorry, That does not erase "he" from the text

The “he” is not erased; the point is that the text itself tells you who the “he” is, and it is the nearest explicit masculine singular subject in the passage—the prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9:26—so the threefold “he” in 9:27 continues that subject, and nothing in Daniel’s own wording ever calls that figure Antichrist, man of sin, or lawless one, which means those titles only enter the discussion if you import Paul’s man of lawlessness or John’s antichrist definition into Daniel rather than letting Daniel’s own subject‑chain stand as written.

 

[Psalm1]

John already tells us that the Antichrist is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah. Daniel doesn't mention anyone denying that Jesus is the Messiah. If you are going to believe the Bible, believe what it actually says. Daniel doesn't mention anyone opposing God or setting himself above all objects of worship. I'm looking at the passage right now.

Daniel mentions that someone will eventually be destroyed, but he doesn't describe this person. Therefore, you have no basis to believe that the one who is destroyed is the antichrist.

Again, nothing whatsoever is in your reply to refute the AC.
Nothing.
Conjecture is not scripture.

Scripture builds.
You have scripture tearing down via omission.

Whatis the next surprise?
"Daniel never said "Jesus" so Daniel was wrong"

Pure folly

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel gives one prince, Paul gives one man of lawlessness, and John gives one antichrist defined by denying Jesus is the Christ, and Scripture never merges those three into a single person, so the only way to make Daniel’s “he,” Paul’s man of sin, and John’s antichrist identical is by importing later terminology into earlier passages rather than letting each author define his own subject.

You skirted and danced around the question.
You Are not sure about your end game?

You now have what, 3 different persons?

It is such an easy question.

 

[Psalm1]

The “he” is not erased; the point is that the text itself tells you who the “he” is, and it is the nearest explicit masculine singular subject in the passage—the prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9:26—so the threefold “he” in 9:27 continues that subject, and nothing in Daniel’s own wording ever calls that figure Antichrist, man of sin, or lawless one, which means those titles only enter the discussion if you import Paul’s man of lawlessness or John’s antichrist definition into Daniel rather than letting Daniel’s own subject‑chain stand as written.

You are importing your conclusions.
You are importing that it can not be the same person.

Mat 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.

Jesus said the wrath part of the 7yr trib, follows that AOD event.
Daniel has the AOD, in temple, at the halfway point of the 7yr trib.

JESUS imported Daniel and the AC.

 

[OMC]

You skirted and danced around the question.
You Are not sure about your end game?

You now have what, 3 different persons?

It is such an easy question.

Skirted? really? "Daniel gives one prince, Paul gives one man of lawlessness, and John gives one antichrist defined by denying Jesus is the Christ, and Scripture never merges those three into a single person,"
That's pretty strait forward. I have to ask because it is completely plausible, is English your native language or?

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel gives one prince, Paul gives one man of lawlessness, and John gives one antichrist defined by denying Jesus is the Christ, and Scripture never merges those three into a single person, so the only way to make Daniel’s “he,” Paul’s man of sin, and John’s antichrist identical is by importing later terminology into earlier passages rather than letting each author define his own subject.

So all that is conducive to making a postrib rapture argument?

How does that advance your agenda.?

Are you just being obtuse, or is there a point to you making those claims?

 

[OMC]

You are importing your conclusions.
You are importing that it can not be the same person.

Mat 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.

Jesus said the wrath part of the 7yr trib, follows that AOD event.
Daniel has the AOD, in temple, at the halfway point of the 7yr trib.

JESUS imported Daniel and the AC.

You’re saying I’m importing a conclusion; I’m saying I’m refusing to import one.
Daniel 9 never mentions a standing abomination, never mentions a temple‑seated figure, never mentions a self‑exalting man, and never uses the terms Jesus uses in Matthew 24 or Paul uses in 2 Thessalonians 2, so the only way to make Daniel’s “he” the same person Jesus and Paul describe is by importing Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 into Daniel rather than letting Daniel’s own subject‑chain stand as written.

Now let me answer your claim directly, still in one tight paragraph.

Matthew 24:15 cites Daniel’s abomination that stands in a holy place, which is Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, not Daniel 9:27;
Daniel 9:27 never says anything “stands,” never says anything is “set up,” never says anything happens “in the holy place,” and never places its plural abominations at the midpoint of a future 7‑year tribulation—those details come from Daniel 11–12, not Daniel 9. Jesus is not “importing the Antichrist into Daniel 9”; He is quoting Daniel’s standing abomination, which Daniel himself places in chapters 11 and 12.
Daniel 9’s “he” is tied to the destruction of the city and sanctuary (9:26), not a future figure sitting in a temple.
So when you say “Jesus imported Daniel and the AC,” you’re importing Paul’s man of lawlessness and John’s antichrist definition into Daniel 9, even though Daniel never uses those categories.

 

[OMC]

So all that is conducive to making a postrib rapture argument?

How does that advance your agenda.?

Are you just being obtuse, or is there a point to you making those claims?

I’m not running a post‑trib agenda—I’m separating texts so you don’t accidentally build your rapture view on a conflation Scripture never makes.

 

[Psalm1]

Skirted? really? "Daniel gives one prince, Paul gives one man of lawlessness, and John gives one antichrist defined by denying Jesus is the Christ, and Scripture never merges those three into a single person,"
That's pretty strait forward. I have to ask because it is completely plausible, is English your native language or?

When you dodge like that, it brings suspicion

You can not answer, huh?

"How many", is over your head?
Again how many are there?

 

[OMC]

When you dodge like that, it brings suspicion

You can not answer, huh?

"How many", is over your head?
Again how many are there?

3! Scripture never merges those three! into a single person, 3

 

[Psalm1]

You’re saying I’m importing a conclusion; I’m saying I’m refusing to import one.
Daniel 9 never mentions a standing abomination, never mentions a temple‑seated figure, never mentions a self‑exalting man, and never uses the terms Jesus uses in Matthew 24 or Paul uses in 2 Thessalonians 2, so the only way to make Daniel’s “he” the same person Jesus and Paul describe is by importing Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 into Daniel rather than letting Daniel’s own subject‑chain stand as written.

Now let me answer your claim directly, still in one tight paragraph.

Matthew 24:15 cites Daniel’s abomination that stands in a holy place, which is Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, not Daniel 9:27;
Daniel 9:27 never says anything “stands,” never says anything is “set up,” never says anything happens “in the holy place,” and never places its plural abominations at the midpoint of a future 7‑year tribulation—those details come from Daniel 11–12, not Daniel 9. Jesus is not “importing the Antichrist into Daniel 9”; He is quoting Daniel’s standing abomination, which Daniel himself places in chapters 11 and 12.
Daniel 9’s “he” is tied to the destruction of the city and sanctuary (9:26), not a future figure sitting in a temple.
So when you say “Jesus imported Daniel and the AC,” you’re importing Paul’s man of lawlessness and John’s antichrist definition into Daniel 9, even though Daniel never uses those categories.

So now we have a historic view.
That is what you wre hiding.

Now I see your end game.

Well, now you got a brand new problem.

Mat 24
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

That removes your view.
The view you imported erroneously.

Ahem, it can not possibly be historic, in Jesus timeframe.

Like you say ....read what is there.

 

[Psalm1]

3! Scripture never merges those three! into a single person, 3

Name them, and how they CAN NOT BE THE SAME.

You are just declaring and hoping to make it 3 different people.

 

[OMC]

So now we have a historic view.
That is what you wre hiding.

Now I see your end game.

Well, now you got a brand new problem.

Mat 24
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

That removes your view.
The view you imported erroneously.

Ahem, it can not possibly be historic, in Jesus timeframe.

Like you say ....read what is there.

You’re assuming I “went historic,” but nothing I said requires a historic‑only fulfillment;
I was doing one thing only—reading Daniel 9 on its own terms—and that does not erase Matthew 24, does not erase future tribulation, and does not erase the abomination that stands. Daniel 9 describes desolation tied to the destruction of the city and sanctuary (9:26–27);
Matthew 24 describes a standing abomination in a holy place followed by great tribulation unlike anything before or after (Matt 24:15–21).
Those are different events with different markers, and recognizing that difference is not “historic,” it’s just refusing to merge passages that God Himself kept distinct.
Jesus’ statement about unprecedented tribulation does not retroactively change Daniel 9’s content; it simply means the abomination that stands (Dan 11:31; 12:11) triggers a future tribulation of unparalleled severity.
So no, Matthew 24 does not “remove my view,” because my view was never “historic”—it was textual: Daniel 9 gives plural abominations tied to destruction; Daniel 11–12 give a singular abomination that stands; Matthew 24 cites the singular one; and none of that requires denying a future tribulation.

 

[OMC]

Name them, and how they CAN NOT BE THE SAME.

You are just declaring and hoping to make it 3 different people.

1. Daniel’s prince — Daniel 9:26–27 never describes him denying Christ, never describes him exalting himself as God, never describes him sitting in a temple, and never calls him “man of sin” or “antichrist,” so he cannot be identified as such without importing later passages into Daniel.
2. Paul’s man of lawlessness — 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 defines him by self‑exaltation above every god and sitting in the temple of God displaying himself as God, traits Daniel 9’s prince never exhibits, so they cannot be the same unless you force Paul’s description backward into Daniel.
3. John’s antichrist — 1 John 2:22 defines antichrist as the one who denies Jesus is the Christ and denies the Father and the Son, a theological category Daniel never mentions and Paul never uses, so they cannot be the same unless you impose John’s definition onto texts that never speak of Christological denial.

Scripture keeps these three figures textually distinct—Daniel’s prince is defined by covenant‑judgment actions, Paul’s man of lawlessness is defined by temple‑seated self‑exaltation, and John’s antichrist is defined by explicit denial of Christ—and the only way to merge them is by importing terminology from one author into another, which is exactly what I refuse to do.

 

[Psalm1]

I’m not running a post‑trib agenda—I’m separating texts so you don’t accidentally build your rapture view on a conflation Scripture never makes.

I am not the one that does not know the setting of all rapture verses is pretrib.
I am not the one claiming Lot is not removed pretrib.

I am not the one saying rev 14 :14 coming , is the same coming as rev 19's second coming on millions of horses blackening the sky.

It is massive what you omit and bypass.

 

[Psalm1]

You’re assuming I “went historic,” but nothing I said requires a historic‑only fulfillment;
I was doing one thing only—reading Daniel 9 on its own terms—and that does not erase Matthew 24, does not erase future tribulation, and does not erase the abomination that stands. Daniel 9 describes desolation tied to the destruction of the city and sanctuary (9:26–27);
Matthew 24 describes a standing abomination in a holy place followed by great tribulation unlike anything before or after (Matt 24:15–21).
Those are different events with different markers, and recognizing that difference is not “historic,” it’s just refusing to merge passages that God Himself kept distinct.
Jesus’ statement about unprecedented tribulation does not retroactively change Daniel 9’s content; it simply means the abomination that stands (Dan 11:31; 12:11) triggers a future tribulation of unparalleled severity.
So no, Matthew 24 does not “remove my view,” because my view was never “historic”—it was textual: Daniel 9 gives plural abominations tied to destruction; Daniel 11–12 give a singular abomination that stands; Matthew 24 cites the singular one; and none of that requires denying a future tribulation.

1. Daniel’s prince — Daniel 9:26–27 never describes him denying Christ, never describes him exalting himself as God, never describes him sitting in a temple, and never calls him “man of sin” or “antichrist,” so he cannot be identified as such without importing later passages into Daniel.
2. Paul’s man of lawlessness — 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 defines him by self‑exaltation above every god and sitting in the temple of God displaying himself as God, traits Daniel 9’s prince never exhibits, so they cannot be the same unless you force Paul’s description backward into Daniel.
3. John’s antichrist — 1 John 2:22 defines antichrist as the one who denies Jesus is the Christ and denies the Father and the Son, a theological category Daniel never mentions and Paul never uses, so they cannot be the same unless you impose John’s definition onto texts that never speak of Christological denial.

Scripture keeps these three figures textually distinct—Daniel’s prince is defined by covenant‑judgment actions, Paul’s man of lawlessness is defined by temple‑seated self‑exaltation, and John’s antichrist is defined by explicit denial of Christ—and the only way to merge them is by importing terminology from one author into another, which is exactly what I refuse to do.

That is like saying Jesus can not be a lion and a lamb at the same time, so rev 5 must be referring to 2 Jesus's

 

[OMC]

I am not the one that does not know the setting of all rapture verses is pretrib.
I am not the one claiming Lot is not removed pretrib.

I am not the one saying rev 14 :14 coming , is the same coming as rev 19's second coming on millions of horses blackening the sky.

It is massive what you omit and bypass.

clearly I’ve been secretly running a covert “historic‑preterist‑posttrib‑anti‑Lot‑anti‑Rev‑14‑pro‑Rev‑19‑three‑different‑guys‑in‑Daniel‑Paul‑and‑John” agenda this whole time, masterfully hiding it behind the diabolical tactic of… reading the actual words on the page; obviously the moment I said Daniel 9 doesn’t mention a standing abomination, doesn’t mention a temple‑seated figure, doesn’t mention a self‑exalting man, and doesn’t use Paul’s or John’s vocabulary, the entire universe should have realized I was plotting to overthrow your pretrib framework by the sheer villainy of pointing out what the text literally says; and of course Matthew 24:20‑21—where Jesus warns about unprecedented tribulation—instantly vaporizes any possibility that Daniel 9 might be describing the destruction of the city and sanctuary in 9:26–27, because as everyone knows, if Jesus says “great tribulation,” then Daniel must be talking about the exact same event even when Daniel uses different nouns, different verbs, different settings, and different time markers; so yes, clearly I’m being “obtuse,” because nothing says “agenda” like refusing to glue Daniel’s prince, Paul’s man of lawlessness, and John’s antichrist into one mega‑villain when Scripture itself never merges them—how dare I read what is actually there instead of what your system needs to be there.

 

[OMC]

That is like saying Jesus can not be a lion and a lamb at the same time, so rev 5 must be referring to 2 Jesus's

That analogy collapses the moment you actually look at how Scripture uses titles versus descriptions. Revelation calling Jesus both the Lamb (Rev 5:6) and the Lion of Judah (Rev 5:5) is not two different persons—it is two metaphors applied to one person, and the text itself explicitly identifies them as the same Jesus.

 

[Roger316]

...and you have brought nothing of a counter argument.

Daniel 9 27 is easily understood.
What you are doing is trying to offer a counter interpretation that is LEADING somewhere in you doctrine.
Your mistake was in not knowing the bible and leaving all the companion verses off the table.
Research is your friend.

I gave my interpretation earlier in the thread. Sorry you missed it.

 

[Roger316]

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

" HE", 3 TIMES.

No telling what end game you are shooting for.

It is not a game. It's called Bible Study. We come to the text to learn from it and we come with two major assumptions: 1) The Bible is without error and 2) The Bible means what the author intended.

Let's look at the passage

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (1) will be cut off and have nothing,
Sometime after the 62 weeks, an anointed one, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing. What does it mean to be "cut off and have nothing"? Scholars speculate, but I think Daniel is speaking into a covenantal context. To be "cut off" is to be removed from the covenant God made with Israel. God promised Israel that if they obey his commandments, they would prosper on the land for many generations. The Messiah will be removed from that covenant through capital punishment.

27 And he (1) will strengthen the covenant with the many for one week ...
The pronoun "he" points back to the previous person mentioned in verse 26: the Messiah. He will strengthen God's covenant with Israel for seven years.

in the middle of the week he(1) will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering
In the middle of the final seven year period, the messiah will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.

on the wing of abominations will come one(2) who makes desolate,
When Israel's abominations can't be surpassed, one will come to make desolate.

even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate(2).”
There are two predictions of destruction: first, there comes the one who makes desolate, second, comes a decreed end to the one who makes desolate.

As we can see from the text above, the messiah(1) is distinct from the one(2) who makes desolate. The messiah strengthens the covenant for seven years; He puts a stop to grain offerings and sacrifices. And in the middle of the week he is cut off from his people. The one who comes later will carry out the ordained destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and then he will also be destroyed just as it is ordained.

This prophecy came true in the first century when Jesus, the Messiah, strengthened God's covenant with Israel. During that week of years, he was arrested and executed by his own people with the permission of the Roman government. He was cut off from his people and left with no land inheritance or offspring.

His death on the cross marked the epitome of abominations; It was the greatest abomination of all time. When he was crucified, God himself stopped the sacrifices and offerings by tearing the veil down the middle.

After that, the Romans came with their armies to put down the rebellion, and during the siege, they destroyed the temple.

Matthew 24:15
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

This verse requires our full attention, as Matthew suggests. And I dare say, given how many threads I have read on this subject, that most people miss the obvious. I have highlighted the significant wording in bold lettering. When Jesus says, "when you see" he is suggesting there will come a time when a person will be able to see the Holy Place. Normally, no one can see the Holy Place since it is located inside the temple.

No ordinary worshiper could see into the Holy Place, and even most priests never saw inside it during their entire lives. Only priests on active duty entered, and the Temple's architecture ensured that those outside had no line of sight into the sacred interior. When would anyone EVER see someone standing in the Holy Place?