The Church, and Israel and the Last Days.

[Roger316]

You are way too centered on "tribulation".

Pardon me? it is your claim that Daniel 9 addresses the Great Tribulation.

Re read daniel9:27
We have:
1) 7 year period of time
2 ) the antichrist.
3 An event halfway into the 7 years.
4) the AC inaugurates the AOD at that halfway point.
When combined with Revelation, we get the 3.5 years understood as half of the 7.
You are welcome.
Now proceded.

Again, we are talking about facts. These include statements that Daniel actually made.

1) 7 year period of time
I agree, Daniel 9:27 talks about a week of years.

2 ) the antichrist.
Daniel 9:17 does not mention the Antichrist. In fact, there is no mention of the Antichrist anywhere in the chapter. The term "Antichrist" comes from John's first letter. In that context, John describes the Antichrist as a person who denies that Jesus, having come in the flesh, is the Messiah. Daniel 9 contains no hint or description of a person who will deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

3) An event halfway into the 7 years.
I agree. Daniel places an event in the middle of the week.

4) the AC inaugurates the AOD at that halfway point.
Since Daniel doesn't address the subject of the Antichrist, a man who will deny that Jesus is the messiah, then you can not say that the Antichrist inaugurates the AOD. In fact, Daniel 9 doesn't even talk about the AOD. It says that on the wing of abominations {plural} one will come, and he will cause a complete destruction.

 

[Psalm1]

Pardon me? it is your claim that Daniel 9 addresses the Great Tribulation.

Again, we are talking about facts. These include statements that Daniel actually made.

1) 7 year period of time
I agree, Daniel 9:27 talks about a week of years.

2 ) the antichrist.
Daniel 9:17 does not mention the Antichrist. In fact, there is no mention of the Antichrist anywhere in the chapter. The term "Antichrist" comes from John's first letter. In that context, John describes the Antichrist as a person who denies that Jesus, having come in the flesh, is the Messiah. Daniel 9 contains no hint or description of a person who will deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

3) An event halfway into the 7 years.
I agree. Daniel places an event in the middle of the week.

4) the AC inaugurates the AOD at that halfway point.
Since Daniel doesn't address the subject of the Antichrist, a man who will deny that Jesus is the messiah, then you can not say that the Antichrist inaugurates the AOD. In fact, Daniel 9 doesn't even talk about the AOD. It says that on the wing of abominations {plural} one will come, and he will cause a complete destruction.

If I am wrong then prove it.
Anyone can prove a point by centering in on what they THINK is not there..

Otherwise you are saying someone is jumping to conclusions, while jumping to their own conclusions.

 

[Roger316]

If I am wrong then prove it.
Anyone can prove a point by centering in on what they THINK is not there..

Otherwise you are saying someone is jumping to conclusions, while jumping to their own conclusions.

I just did. Let's be clear about what I set out to prove. You maintain that the list you provided are facts about Daniel 9. As I clearly demonstrated, they aren't statements that Daniel made. I didn't set out to disprove your conclusions; I set out to show that Daniel 9 doesn't support your conclusions. In other words, you didn't find the AC or the AOD in Daniel 9. You brought them to the text.

 

[Psalm1]

I just did. Let's be clear about what I set out to prove. You maintain that the list you provided are facts about Daniel 9. As I clearly demonstrated, they aren't statements that Daniel made. I didn't set out to disprove your conclusions; I set out to show that Daniel 9 doesn't support your conclusions. In other words, you didn't find the AC or the AOD in Daniel 9. You brought them to the text.

That is not even beginning to prove me wrong.
You are DECLARING me wrong with zero counter argument.

Trying to prove a point via your centering on what is not there, while ignoring any attempt on your part to point out your special interpretation.

 

[Psalm1]

Pardon me? it is your claim that Daniel 9 addresses the Great Tribulation.

Again, we are talking about facts. These include statements that Daniel actually made.

1) 7 year period of time
I agree, Daniel 9:27 talks about a week of years.

2 ) the antichrist.
Daniel 9:17 does not mention the Antichrist. In fact, there is no mention of the Antichrist anywhere in the chapter. The term "Antichrist" comes from John's first letter. In that context, John describes the Antichrist as a person who denies that Jesus, having come in the flesh, is the Messiah. Daniel 9 contains no hint or description of a person who will deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

3) An event halfway into the 7 years.
I agree. Daniel places an event in the middle of the week.

4) the AC inaugurates the AOD at that halfway point.
Since Daniel doesn't address the subject of the Antichrist, a man who will deny that Jesus is the messiah, then you can not say that the Antichrist inaugurates the AOD. In fact, Daniel 9 doesn't even talk about the AOD. It says that on the wing of abominations {plural} one will come, and he will cause a complete destruction.

The Antichrist in Daniel 9 is;

• His Actions: He opposes God, exalts himself above all objects of worship, and sits in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
• His End: Jesus will destroy this lawless figure with the breath of His mouth at His second coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8). [1]

Rev 13
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Look familiar?

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel 9
The one desecrating the temple.
( HE)
All the references to the Antichrist or man of sin is (HE)

• Daniel 9:27: States that the ruler (Antichrist) makes a covenant for seven years and puts a stop to sacrifices "in the middle of the week" (the 3.5-year mark).

• Daniel 11:31 & 12:11: Mention the setting up of the "abomination of desolation," which launches a subsequent count of 1,290 days. [1]

• Matthew 24:15-16: Jesus points back to Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, signaling the start of the Great Tribulation and the command for people in Judea to flee

 

[Roger316]

That is not even beginning to prove me wrong.
You are DECLARING me wrong with zero counter argument.

Trying to prove a point via your centering on what is not there, while ignoring any attempt on your part to point out your special interpretation.

I am not required to provide another interpretation. That would not be loving or helpful to you. If I point out the flaws in your exegesis, then you can use that to correct your technique and improve yourself.

When we study the Bible, we are seeking to hear and know what the author, in this case Daniel, wants to teach us. Your mistake was to bring an interpretation to the text.

 

[Roger316]

The Antichrist in Daniel 9 is;

• His Actions: He opposes God, exalts himself above all objects of worship, and sits in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
• His End: Jesus will destroy this lawless figure with the breath of His mouth at His second coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8). [1]

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.

 

[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.

In your most excellent interpretation tell us who HE is.
Just in general.
Who is HE?
Remember, he can not be the man of sin, the best or the AC.
(Since You eliminated the logical candidates.)

 

[Roger316]

In your most excellent interpretation tell us who HE is.
Just in general.
Who is HE?
Remember, he can not be the man of sin, the best or the AC.
(Since You eliminated the logical candidates.)

What did I do? I held you to the same standard I hold. I didn't ask you to do something different than my Bible study group expects of each other. Stick to what the author ACTUALLY says. John defines the Antichrist as the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ, and Daniel doesn't address that issue; therefore, Daniel isn't talking about the Antichrist.

This is how we wade through all the speculative nonsense out in the world. We don't automatically use the jargon they use or adopt an interpretation of a passage that the author didn't intend.

Daniel isn't talking about the man of sin, the beast, the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, or the Antichrist in chapter 9.

Daniel speaks about the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11 and again in Danei 12.

Daniel 11:31-32

31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. 32 smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.​

We can see significant differences between the passage above and the Daniel 9 passage.

1. Daniel 9: abominations (plural) Daniel 11: abomination (singular) Daniel 12: abomination (singular)
2. Daniel 9: destroy temple Daniel 11: desecrate sanctuary Daniel 12: no mention of the temple
3. Daniel 9: Put a stop to sacrifices Daniel 11: do away with sacrifices Daniel 12: abolished sacrifices

These differences are significant and definitive.

2Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Here Paul describes a man he calls "the man of lawlessness" who will take his seat in the Temple, declaring himself to be God. Nothing is said about destroying the temple or stopping the sacrifices.

 

[Psalm1]

I am not required to provide another interpretation. That would not be loving or helpful to you. If I point out the flaws in your exegesis, then you can use that to correct your technique and improve yourself.

When we study the Bible, we are seeking to hear and know what the author, in this case Daniel, wants to teach us. Your mistake was to bring an interpretation to the text.

...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.

 

[OMC]

...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.

Roger is right: Daniel is not talking about John’s Antichrist or Paul’s man of lawlessness, because Daniel never introduces the category of a man who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) nor a man who exalts himself above every god (2 Thess 2:4).
Daniel’s concern is covenant desecration, not Christological denial.
The textual differences he listed are not cosmetic—they prove Daniel 9, 11, and 12 are describing different abomination events, not a single eschatological figure.
Daniel 9 speaks of abominations (plural), destruction of the city and sanctuary, and the cessation of sacrifice as part of covenant judgment;
Daniel 11 speaks of a singular abomination set up by forces that pollute the sanctuary;
Daniel 12 gives a time marker tied to the removal of sacrifice but never mentions a temple.
None of these match Paul’s description of a man who sits in the temple of God and declares himself God—Paul describes self‑exaltation, not desecration by foreign forces.
Likewise, John defines the Antichrist as one who denies the Father and the Son, a theological category Daniel never addresses.
So his hermeneutic is correct: we do not import later jargon into earlier texts.
Daniel gives covenant‑judgment abominations; Paul gives a self‑exalting intruder; John gives a Christ‑denying deceiver.
They are not interchangeable.

 

[Psalm1]

What did I do? I held you to the same standard I hold. I didn't ask you to do something different than my Bible study group expects of each other. Stick to what the author ACTUALLY says. John defines the Antichrist as the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ, and Daniel doesn't address that issue; therefore, Daniel isn't talking about the Antichrist.

This is how we wade through all the speculative nonsense out in the world. We don't automatically use the jargon they use or adopt an interpretation of a passage that the author didn't intend.

Daniel isn't talking about the man of sin, the beast, the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, or the Antichrist in chapter 9.

Daniel speaks about the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11 and again in Danei 12.

Daniel 11:31-32

31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. 32 smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.​

We can see significant differences between the passage above and the Daniel 9 passage.

1. Daniel 9: abominations (plural) Daniel 11: abomination (singular) Daniel 12: abomination (singular)
2. Daniel 9: destroy temple Daniel 11: desecrate sanctuary Daniel 12: no mention of the temple
3. Daniel 9: Put a stop to sacrifices Daniel 11: do away with sacrifices Daniel 12: abolished sacrifices

These differences are significant and definitive.

2Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Here Paul describes a man he calls "the man of lawlessness" who will take his seat in the Temple, declaring himself to be God. Nothing is said about destroying the temple or stopping the sacrifices.

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.

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

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

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.

 

[OMC]

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.

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

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

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.

Daniel 9:27’s threefold “he” is not a problem once you keep the text inside its own grammar and refuse to import Matthew 24 or 2 Thessalonians 2 back into it.

 

[Psalm1]

Roger is right: Daniel is not talking about John’s Antichrist or Paul’s man of lawlessness, because Daniel never introduces the category of a man who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) nor a man who exalts himself above every god (2 Thess 2:4).
Daniel’s concern is covenant desecration, not Christological denial.
The textual differences he listed are not cosmetic—they prove Daniel 9, 11, and 12 are describing different abomination events, not a single eschatological figure.
Daniel 9 speaks of abominations (plural), destruction of the city and sanctuary, and the cessation of sacrifice as part of covenant judgment;
Daniel 11 speaks of a singular abomination set up by forces that pollute the sanctuary;
Daniel 12 gives a time marker tied to the removal of sacrifice but never mentions a temple.
None of these match Paul’s description of a man who sits in the temple of God and declares himself God—Paul describes self‑exaltation, not desecration by foreign forces.
Likewise, John defines the Antichrist as one who denies the Father and the Son, a theological category Daniel never addresses.
So his hermeneutic is correct: we do not import later jargon into earlier texts.
Daniel gives covenant‑judgment abominations; Paul gives a self‑exalting intruder; John gives a Christ‑denying deceiver.
They are not interchangeable.

Are you trying to twist all that into amil, or some postrib necessity ?

What is your end game of Daniel 9?

You make a glaring omission of "HE".

The AC is a person.
The man of sin from Daniel 9 :27 is a person.

Ahem. The same person.
How many "persons" do you need Paul, Daniel, and Jesus to be referring to?

You made the claim.

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel 9:27’s threefold “he” is not a problem once you keep the text inside its own grammar and refuse to import Matthew 24 or 2 Thessalonians 2 back into it.

How many Persons are you injecting into your total tally of antichrists/ sytems/ man of sin/ lawless ones/ lawless one?

How many?

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel 9:27’s threefold “he” is not a problem once you keep the text inside its own grammar and refuse to import Matthew 24 or 2 Thessalonians 2 back into it.

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

 

[Psalm1]

Roger is right: Daniel is not talking about John’s Antichrist or Paul’s man of lawlessness, because Daniel never introduces the category of a man who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) nor a man who exalts himself above every god (2 Thess 2:4).
Daniel’s concern is covenant desecration, not Christological denial.
The textual differences he listed are not cosmetic—they prove Daniel 9, 11, and 12 are describing different abomination events, not a single eschatological figure.
Daniel 9 speaks of abominations (plural), destruction of the city and sanctuary, and the cessation of sacrifice as part of covenant judgment;
Daniel 11 speaks of a singular abomination set up by forces that pollute the sanctuary;
Daniel 12 gives a time marker tied to the removal of sacrifice but never mentions a temple.
None of these match Paul’s description of a man who sits in the temple of God and declares himself God—Paul describes self‑exaltation, not desecration by foreign forces.
Likewise, John defines the Antichrist as one who denies the Father and the Son, a theological category Daniel never addresses.
So his hermeneutic is correct: we do not import later jargon into earlier texts.
Daniel gives covenant‑judgment abominations; Paul gives a self‑exalting intruder; John gives a Christ‑denying deceiver.
They are not interchangeable.

Who is the white horse rider in the first seal opened by Jesus?
Who is the one inaugurating the AOD, Standing in the temple?

 

[OMC]

Are you trying to twist all that into amil, or some postrib necessity ?

What is your end game of Daniel 9?

You make a glaring omission of "HE".

The AC is a person.
The man of sin from Daniel 9 :27 is a person.

Ahem. The same person.
How many "persons" do you need Paul, Daniel, and Jesus to be referring to?

You made the claim.

Daniel 9’s “he” is simply the subject already established in v. 26—the coming prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary—and every clause in v. 27 continues that same subject, so the text itself never calls him Antichrist, never calls him man of sin, and never gives him any of Paul’s traits from 2 Thessalonians 2 or John’s traits from 1 John 2; Daniel 9 is about Jerusalem’s covenant‑judgment timeline, not about a self‑exalting figure who sits in the temple of God, and Jesus in Matthew 24 cites Daniel’s singular abomination that stands (Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11), not Daniel 9’s plural abominations tied to the destruction of the city and sanctuary, so the end game of Daniel 9 is Messiah’s arrival and Jerusalem’s desolation, not the introduction of a universal eschatological villain, and the only way to make Daniel 9’s “he” into the same person as Paul’s man of lawlessness or John’s Antichrist is by importing later terminology into Daniel rather than letting Daniel define his own subject.
And don’t forget, I’m not a preacher. I’m not trying to defend or promote any system—it’s just the scripture.

 

[OMC]

How many Persons are you injecting into your total tally of antichrists/ sytems/ man of sin/ lawless ones/ lawless one?

How many?

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.