The two-horned beast of Rev 13 is the two remaining entities missing from Daniel 7, the fierce beast/iron and the clay/horn/Babylon reborn. The clay is from the tower of Babel. Babylon is the death stroke that is healed. Therefore the beast with two horns is Babylon the Great and the fierce beast. Babylon is a spiritual woman, making her a religion with a nation. Most likely the Holy See. (Vatican) The reason God's people fall into apostasy is they enter an edict with Babylon and the fierce beast in worship to the image/edict. Therefore, when the WT adopts this edict, they will tell all JW's they must accept this image of worship. 2/3 will fall away into apostasy, while only a third of God's people will leave the WT to buy from Jesus alone. It will be a time of tribulation for them. The remaining ones who stay in the WT will take upon themselves apostasy as they accept the worship of the image. Joshua PS: While the whole world follows the beast, only those who claim faith can become apostates. These either receive the seal of God or the seal of apostasy/666. The rest of the world simply follows the beast and worships in admiration.
Post #2 A followup on Dan 12:11 ū·mê·‘êṯ - Time hū·sar - Taken away hat·tā·mîḏ, - Continual wə·lā·ṯêṯ - Set up šiq·qūṣ - Detested thing šō·mêm - Desolation yā·mîm - Days ’e·lep̄ - Thousand mā·ṯa·yim - Two hundred wə·ṯiš·‘îm - Ninty Interlinear: HERE 1a) time (of an event) 1b) time (usual) 1c) experiences, fortunes 1d) occurrence, occasion" style="color: rgb(0, 138, 230);">6256 [e] 11 ū·mê·‘êṯ 11 וּמֵעֵת֙ 11 And from the time 11 Conj‑w, Prep‑m | N‑cs 11 hū·sar הוּסַ֣ר [that] is taken away V‑Hofal‑Perf‑3ms 1a) continually, continuously (as adverb) 1b) continuity (subst)" style="color: rgb(0, 138, 230);">8548 [e] hat·tā·mîḏ, הַתָּמִ֔יד the daily [sacrifice] Art | Adv wə·lā·ṯêṯ וְלָתֵ֖ת and is set up Conj‑w, Prep‑l | V‑Qal‑Inf 8251 [e] šiq·qūṣ שִׁקּ֣וּץ the abomination N‑ms ciple) šō·mêm; שֹׁמֵ֑ם of desolation V‑Qal‑Prtcpl‑ms yā·mîm יָמִ֕ים [there shall be] days N‑mp 1a) as numeral 2) a thousand, company 2a) as a company of men under one leader, troops" style="color: rgb(0, 138, 230);">505 [e] ’e·lep̄ אֶ֖לֶף A thousand Number‑ms 1a) as simple number 1b) as part of larger number 1c) as a fraction-one one-hundredth (1/100)" style="color: rgb(0, 138, 230);">3967 [e] mā·ṯa·yim מָאתַ֥יִם two hundred Number‑fd wə·ṯiš·‘îm. וְתִשְׁעִֽים׃ and ninety Conj‑w | Number‑cp
Post #3 Greetings, brother. I thought I would add the next progression in Daniel's chronology. After understanding the time periods in Daniel 12 all begin on the same day, we can move to the 2300 days. “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” Dan 8:14 What does the sanctuary represent? The original was a shadow of the things to come. The three gates/curtains represent Jesus. The white linen represents the cleansed state of those in the courtyard. The sacrifices represent our Lord. The Laver represents internal contemplation in the forgiveness of sin. Then, there is the temple itself. The priests maintained the first room, with the 12 loaves representing the 144k's work on earth. The candlestick represents the Word, and the incents represent the prayers of the 144k that reach Heaven through the top of the curtain. Then, the Most Holy represents Heaven itself. The sanctuary in Dan 8:14 is the word "holy," meaning the first room, representing God's earthly arrangement. The angel asked: "For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” Dan 8:13 The angel is asking how long the things being spoken of will occur. How long will we see the daily sacrifice, along with the transgression, and then the giving over of the sanctuary and God's people trampled? Therefore, at the beginning of the 2300 days, we will see the daily sacrifice still in place, but along with apostasy. Then they end on the same day as the 1335th day of Daniel 12 and the first day of the new kingdom, when the holy place of the earth is restored to its rightful condition. Joshua
I think the chart at the bottom of your post is spot on; that is the easy bit; the hard bit is trying to reconcile all the details pertaining to this subject from not only Daniel, but also Revelation and Mathew 24 etc. The 'transgression causing desolation,' for instance, links up with the coming, and non-contiguous [truncated] 70th week of Da 9, in which heptad [7 years] the 'transgression' is to be 'terminated,' according to my understanding. Da 9:24 The 'city and the holy place' - not just the 'sanctuary and the host,' as per 8:13 - will be trampled - according to Da 9:26 and Re 11:2, for 42 month by the 'people of a leader that is coming,' the 'arms that will stand up proceeding from him [11:31],' who will 'cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease' half way through the final 7 years, being the 70th week that 'has been determined' by God upon his people. Just my short comment for the day, greetings, Harry
Greetings, brother... This is why I brought up the 70th week previously, as it is essential to our discussion. "Many" is used to represent Israel. "Then the wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever." Dan 12:3 "Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand." Dan 12:10 "And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Mrk 14:24 The 70th week was right after the 69th. The "many" in Dan 9 are the Israelites. The covenant held in place unto the Israelites was the Davidic covenant for the Messiah. The 70th began the moment Jesus was baptized. The "He" who held it in place for them was Jehovah. (Or Jesus, however you want to look at it) At half of that week, Jesus presented His blood to His Father, and the sacrifices at the temple ceased functioning in God's arrangement. Paul quotes Jeremiah when YHWH told him of a new covenant, making the old obsolete, at which point it was ready to vanish. "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13 Then Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 8:13, indicated that the way into the Most Holy wasn't known/manifest as long as the temple held its place/function/position in God's plans. "By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age)" Heb 9:8 Then Paul indicates he now knew the way into the Most Holy Place. "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)" Heb 9:11 Therefore, the moment Jesus entered Heaven to offer His blood on our behalf in fulfillment of the High Priest role, the sacrifices at the temple ceased. (In God's prophetic plan) Then at the end of that 70th week, the Davidic covenant was no longer just for the "many" Israel but was opened to all of mankind the moment Cornelious was baptized by Peter. Cornelious' baptism ended the 70th week. You see, brother, the 70th followed the 69th. However, there is another fulfillment of these 70 weeks as literal weeks in the time of the end. Joshua
Ok, back for more discussion: One would naturally think so, however . . . Da 9:29: "And after the [69] weeks Messiah will be cut off with nothing for Himself." Since He died at the end of the 69th week, He could not have been baptized at the start of the 70th. Verse 26 says that He was cut off ['presented His blood to His Father'] 'after the [69] weeks;' it does not say '69 and a half weeks.' Verse 27: "And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week," - who is the 'he' here? The context shows that Christ is spoken of only until verse 26a, and from thereon drops out of the narrative, so that the 'he' from then on is none other than the 'leader that is coming,' the anti-Christ of our end times, who will make a 7 year covenant with those 'leaving the holy covenant' whom 'he will lead into apostasy by means of smooth words,' and at half the 70th week he will terminate the daily sacrifice and replaced it with the disgusting thing causing desolation. Da 11:30-32 Verse 27b clearly refers to our time of the end with the disgusting thing causing desolation to Christianity. That is my take on the 70th week which still lies in the future for us and ties in with all the time spans mentioned elsewhere in Daniel leading up to the return of Christ. Greetings, Harry
Greetings, brother. The family and I are off to the zoo, but I have a few minutes this morning to reply. The text says the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks. It doesn't say exactly when. It just says after. He was baptized at the start of the 70th and cut off at the half of the 70th. Having been cut off at the half of the 70th qualifies as after the 69th. I mentioned who the "he" was above. Jehovah (or Jesus, however you want to look at it) held the covenant for a Messiah in place for the Israelites for one week until Cornelius was baptized. Trust me, brother, it's been a long time since I've heard a new understanding of Scripture. I read and watch pastors, preachers, Jewish leaders, and others—the Preterist, the Evangelical, the candlestick maker...lol. The only way to prove or disprove one's understanding is to understand each view. Confirmation bias is the enemy of truth. I truly appreciate our conversation here. It allows us to dig deeper into these things; our Lord is here with us. (when two are gathered) Agape to you and your family, Hary. Joshua
Post #2 Greetings, brother. I thought I would offer a little more detail on Dan 9. Without punctuation or paragraphs, the original languages spoke in streams of consciousness without changing identities unless there was an obvious change in context. I will be using (Young's Literal Translation) unless otherwise marked. "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah," vs 26 As mentioned above (post 27), He is spoken of as being cut off after the 69 weeks. Our Lord (through Daniel) does not say precisely when in this statement because He clarifies when in the following statements. "and the city and the holy place are not his." vs 26 Jerusalem and the temple were no longer part of His prophetic plan after He was cut off, and that becomes more clear as we move on. Now, I will move to the original Hebrew of verse 26. yaš·ḥîṯ - Corrupt, Go to ruin. ‘am - The People nā·ḡîḏ - The prince hab·bā - To come Who is the prince? He was just mentioned in verse 25. "that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince." vs 25 (KJV) It says, "mā·šî·aḥ nā·ḡîḏ." That means "Messiah the Prince." Why would we assume the text changes the context to a different prince? Besides, nowhere else in Scripture does it describe the false prophet beast of Rev 13 as a prince. That ideology comes directly from this verse alone. No, the Prince to come at the time of Daniel's writing was the Messiah he had been talking about. And then sticking with the same verse, yaš·ḥîṯ - Corrupt, Go to ruin. ‘am - The People nā·ḡîḏ - The prince hab·bā - To come It says that the people of this Prince will be corrupt. Hence, they killed Him, and the city and temple were no longer His. God's people will also become corrupt at the time of the end. As I mentioned before, this prophecy has a fulfillment in that day as well. Now, the next part of verse 26. wə·qiṣ·ṣōw - End ḇaš·še·ṭep̄ - Flood What's this flood, you might ask? Here it is; "The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood." Rev 12:15 And why does the dragon cause a flood to go after the woman? It's because of their corruption/apostasy. And this is during the 1260 days, the last half of the 70th week. "where she is nourished a time, and times, and half a time," Rev 12:14 After our Lord's sacrifice, this was seen when the dragon hunted the apostles of Christ for the 1260 days or the last half of the 70th week. Then verse 26 ends with; "and until the end is war, and desolations are determined." vs 26 ------- As you move to verse 27, we find the 70th week I discussed in my post #25. In this verse, Daniel clarifies precisely when the Messiah is cut off at half of the week when the sacrifices at the temple are no longer valid, according to Paul. That 70th week ends when Cornelious is baptized in fulfillment of the sheet coming down from Heaven before Peter. There is no need to break up the 70th week from the 69. There is no need to break up the two mentions of the prince. There is no need to break up the people. The context is contiguous, dear brother... Joshua
Ok, there are several problems with this interpretation of verse 27a; for example: Which covenant was kept in force for only 7 years? The covenant for Jews to become part of Abraham's spiritual seed is kept in force right down to our day, so that could not have been it. Davidic covenant? Melchizedek covenant? New covenant - no, none of them were made to be kept in force for 7 years. Even the time window where just Jews where called to Heaven was only about 3 and a half years, not 7, and that was not due to any covenant of 42 month with them; at least I can't find such in Scripture in support anywhere, which to me means that the 'leader that is coming' to put in place the disgusting thing causing desolation is the one ['he'] that will be entering in and keeping in force a covenant for 7 years with the apostate elements of God's nominal people today, both Christians and Jews. Half way through verse 26, after Messiah is cut off, the prophecy abruptly switches subject matter and jumps 37 years into the future to 70 CE, the first iteration of the disgusting thing standing in a holy place, but even that is not the final fulfillment of it, because at the turn of the first century Jesus informs John that the trampling of the holy city for 42 month was still to come in the future, even for us today upon whom the ends of the systems of things have finally arrived. Re 11:2 Hence, both 26b and 27b must ultimately refer to the events that are to occur after the end of the first century, where the disgusting thing is bringing to ruin the 'city' and 'a holy place' just before the return of Christ, as per Mat 24 etc. I assume you agree that this prophecy of verse 26, 27 had at least a first century fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The question then is: Who brought 'war' and 'desolations' on 'the city and the holy place' as mentioned in verse 26b, if not the same 'one who upon the wing of disgusting things is causing desolation' to it of verse 27b? And who is that? Is Messiah the Prince the 'disgusting thing' causing 'desolation' to the 'city and the holy place?' I am sure Satan is laughing his head off at having convinced a lot of Christians of exactly that very blasphemous interpretation. I, for one, don't buy it. Have a think about it, Joshua, Greetings, Harry
Greetings, brother. As I mentioned in post #25, the covenant held in place was the Davidic Covenant the moment Jesus was baptized. As I discussed in that post, the "many" were the Israelites, and the "he" who held that covenant in place for the "many" was God. The covenant was held in place only to the Israelites until Cornelious was baptized seven years later, at which point it was no longer held in place to only the "many," the Israelites. That's why it's only 7 years because it's only held to the physical Israelite alone for 7 years. Then it's opened to everyone, Israelite and Gentile alike at Cornelious' baptism. I do not... I do not believe anything in Dan 9 was fulfilled in 70ce. As I mentioned before, Paul tells us the moment Jesus entered heaven the earthly temple no longer functioned in God's prophetic plans. (prophecy) That is the sacrifices ceasing at the half of the 70th. I believe that is a mistranslation of the text. I do not believe the original Hebrew is saying someone brought destruction to a city. Firstly, look at how the Young's Literal Translation translates verse 26; "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his," Now look at how the ESV translates the city and holy place. "and after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Do you see how different the contexts are? The true reading is the YLT. That means the text is not saying that a people of a leader is going to destroy the city and temple; it is saying that the city and the temple are not the Messiah's. Hence, why Paul says the temple is no longer functioning in Heb 9. I'm not sure you've taken the time to thoroughly consider what I've presented. Verse 26 isn't saying someone brought destruction or desolation; it is saying the people of the Prince are corrupt. Here is the definition of the Hebrew word: HERE The context is the people are the ones in ruin, not the ones doing the ruin. It's the prince's people who are destroyed because of corruption, not a people of some future prince who will destroy the city and sanctuary. I know what you believe, why you believe it and how you get there. It's the same belief as a billion other Christians, Hary. I'm just saying, it's an incorrect understanding of the original Hebrew. No offense should be taken, because your understanding didn't originate with you. The word "he" does not occur in the final part of 27b. It simply says; "And on the wing of abominations shall come desolation until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” The context clearly changes here to discuss a different entity, the abomination. Of course our Lord is not the "disgusting thing." The disgusting thing that comes against the Lord's people is from the dragon. You'll have to understand my premise, brother before you can disregard it... Joshua
Yes, that is what I am trying to do. Ok. So then the desecration of the temple by the pagan Romans and the epic destruction of it that even Jesus prophesied for 70 CE either did not happen or was not foretold by Daniel? I can't believe that, because it is such a perfect match. If I remember correctly, God made a covenant with David - the 'Davidic covenant' - that a future descendant of his would one day occupy his throne, a covenant by one God with one man about one heir - not 'the many' Jews - and a covenant that was 'kept in place' over a thousand years, not seven, so I cannot detect any reference to it in Da 9:27. The 'desolator' is the 'he' I was referring to. Quote Da 9:26b, YLT: " . . . the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations." So, 'the city and the holy place are not his [Messiah],' but the leader who has come does destroy the people, and its ['the city and the holy place'] end [is] with a flood' [of Roman soldiers], directly refuting your claim that 'the original Hebrew is not saying someone brought destruction to a city.' Which leader destroyed 1.1 million Jews in 70 CE, Messiah or Satan's disgusting thing? YLT of Da 9:26,27 reads: 26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations. 27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.' Da 9:26, YLT: " . . . the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people;" - it is your word against the Word of God. Yes, 'the people are the ones in ruin' and are 'not the ones doing the ruin,' which is not the point in question, but who ruins them, Messiah or the leader behind placing the disgusting thing causing ruin? Which of the above two statements is it? In other words: When where 'the prince's people destroyed because of corruption' if not in 70CE? When? That is why I believe it was initially fulfilled in 70CE and yet to find its final application in our day, when the disgusting thing causing desolation to Christianity will "trample the holy city [encompassing] the courtyard, the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshiping in it underfoot for 42 month," according to Re 11 - or when do you believe this has been or will be fulfilled if, then, when? Not really the same, because they believe that the antiChrist, king of the north, etc, will make a covenant with Israel, whereas I see it as a covenant foremost with Christianity, bringing about the foretold apostasy in connection with the man of lawlessness that will bring about the promised kingdom of God on earth, the 'unrighteous deception' for those who 'did not accept the love of the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.' 2 Thes 2 This is just my thinking up to date, but I invite any and all evidence based objections to it; as always, what matters is not who is right, but what is right, greetings, Harry
Jesus said, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” Mth 24:2 He prophesied the fall of the temple's stones, but when you put the entire picture together after Jesus entered the Most Holy, the physical temple ceased functioning, according to Paul. (Heb 9) Our bodies became the temple of God's Spirit (1Cor 6:19). The daily sacrifices became our preaching work (Heb 13:15). The Holy Place and temple became the 144k. According to our Lord and Paul, there was no Jew, no Israelite, and no temple in Jerusalem in 70ce. (As it pertains to prophecy.) If the temple ceased functioning when Jesus entered heaven but stood until 70ce, then how did it cease? Obviously, it ceased in God's prophetic plans. No Israelites or Jews were killed in Jerusalem in 70ce, according to Paul. Now, just so you don't misunderstand me, Rome entered that city, killed a million physical Jews, and destroyed the physical temple. But what I am talking about is prophecy. According to Paul, a Jew and descendant of Abraham is one of the heart, not of genetics. (After Christ.) "But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Rom 2:29 "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring." Rom 9:6 Therefore, Dan 9:27 could not have been fulfilled in 70ce because they were not God's people; they were no longer Israel, Jews, and children of Abraham. Do you see brother? Our Lord and Paul clearly defined who an Israelite was once Cornelious was baptized. And there were none in Jerusalem 70ce if they listened and got out. It doesn't matter if God made the covenant with David alone; He held it in place for the "many" during the seven years, which means all of physical Israel. And then Christians became the "many" after Jesus entered Heaven. "Then the wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever." Dan 12:3 "Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand." Dan 12:10 "And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Mrk 14:24 But the text does not include the word "he." I never said the next section of the YLT was correctly translated; I only said the YLT correctly translated the first half of verse 26. "And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his," 26a The next part of the verse in the YLT is not translated correctly. "the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood." 26b It should read, "The people of the Prince to come will be corrupt." (My Translation) How can we implement our own understanding of this prince when Daniel just told us who the prince was in the sentence just before this? (The Messiah the Prince.) My translation makes the most common sense. What makes more sense: Daniel speaks of a prince in back-to-back sentences, or one is Jesus and the other an earthly beast some 2500 years after Daniel wrote about the prince? What makes more sense, the 70th followed the 69th, or it comes 2000 years later? Evangelical ideologies influenced these English translations. According to what I read, the Bible doesn't tell us. All we know is it was Rome. Technically, satan is the god of this world and owns the nations, so it would have been his nations to destroy it. But it didn't fulfill prophecy. There were no Jews, no temple, no holy place, no daily sacrifices in Jerusalem in 70ce. Jesus replaced them, fulfilled them. He brought the realities of the first temple shadow. A Jew, an Israelite, and the children of Abraham, and the daily sacrifices were in the seven churches of Asia Minor in 70ce. Hary, the Word of God is actually, "yaš·ḥîṯ ‘am nā·ḡîḏ hab·bā." It translates as "Corrupt the people of the prince to come." It is the YLT's word against mine, certainly not the Word of God against mine. I'm quoting the original Hebrew. The text doesn't say who corrupts/ruins the people. That is separate from the disgusting thing being placed. Remember, these are two different events separated by 1290 days. The people are corrupted/ruined when they fall into apostasy, and then the disgusting thing is placed 1290 days later when God's people are attacked physically when the disgusting thing is placed. The remaining 144k is the Holy Place; their bodies that house God's Spirit. This is why I brought up Dan 12:11 at the very beginning. It is the hinge pin of this entire discussion. It says the Messiah, the prince, would be cut off. At which point the temple wasn't His. The people of that Prince would be corrupt. At the half of that week, the sacrifices cease (The physical temples place in God's plans). And according to Jesus and Paul the temple after that point became God's people, it was not in Jerusalem. There were no Jews, no sons of Abraham etc.... Therefore the disgusting thing standing in a holy place of verse 27b could not have been fulfilled in 70ce because the Holy Place was not there, it was the Christians in Asia Minor. Therefore, that prophecy has not been fulfilled. Exactly, they haven't been corrupted through apostasy nor destroyed yet by the disgusting thing. Again, these two events are separated by 1290 days. We are in complete agreement regarding this. We are on the same page here. We are also in complete agreement on that. Here is something I keep in mind every day: Cognitive dissonance is a gift. Most people feel anxiety when faced with contradictory information, so they use confirmation bias to deal with it. They confirm their current belief structures in any way they can because if they find out they're wrong, their world crumbles. I learned long ago to enjoy finding out I was wrong. That meant I was one step closer to the truth. Cognitive dissonance is a lightbulb to me, telling me there is a paradox. At which point, I get excited. I get to prove or disprove either what I currently understand or the new information. As a judge, I cannot have a preconceived idea. Confirmation bias is an enemy. One cannot look for confirming information to their own understanding; they will always be wrong. All that matters is truth. I don't care anything about being right; I have my parents as a child to thank for that. They were narcissists, and I told myself I would never be like that. All I care about is facts (including emotional facts), and I do not care what others think of me. My family knows I am the quickest to admit when I'm wrong because it trains my mind to appreciate those moments when our Lord allowed me to be corrected. Another issue is that the Bible is complex. One needs the big picture to understand where each piece fits. The problem is you have to assemble the puzzle without knowing the final image. I sometimes sit in front of a dozen whiteboards, constantly writing and erasing for hours, studying Scripture chronology. It's like something out of a science movie...lol I've been out of the WT for nearly twenty-five years, and it has been quite the journey, brother. The details of the prophecies don't matter between us, we are brothers. I can feel that. And it's easy to determine if I'm right or not. If we see the decree from the beast on Dec. 28, 2028 then I'm right. If not, no big deal, our Lord allowed me to find out I was wrong, and I don't have to be wrong before Him any longer. Agape... Joshua
Correct; well observed and well put. Correct. True, but this is where the concept of He 8:13b, written a while after 'Jesus entered into Heaven' but before 70 CE, comes in: "Now that which is made obsolete and growing old [by being superseded] is near to vanishing away." And this also explains the difference between God's nominal people - those born of water, and in the flesh - and the body of Christ - those born again, of water and of the Spirit. You got that right in that 'the Holy Place' is the operative designation and distinction here between God's 'nominal' and 'spirit begotten' people, which is why Jesus wants us to discern the standing of the disgusting thing in 'a holy place,' not, 'the holy place,' to signal the start of the great tribulation on Christianity, which encompasses both peoples, although God's wrath is directed entirely against the nominal part, since those of the body of Christ are said to be 'without blemish,' and that 'no falsehood was found in their mouth.' No disgusting thing is ever going to stand up in the body of Christ, the Christian congregation, as Robert King falsely claims, and upon which assumption his whole stick is founded. It is getting late here; more to follow, greetings, Harry
Greetings, brother. Paul was quoting Jeremiah when he recorded Heb 8:13. When God told Jeremiah He was bringing in a new covenant, He made the old obsolete at that moment, in 600 BCE. From that point on, it was ready to vanish. The vanishing away happened when our Lord entered heaven. That was the moment the old covenant vanished, and the temple ceased functioning. When Paul says, "the Spirit was indicating," in Heb 9:8, he's talking about when, through God's Spirit, God spoke to Jeremiah, which Paul quotes in Heb 8:13. What Paul is saying is that the Spirit is saying the temple and old covenant are linked. They both vanish at the same time. "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." Jer 31:31-33 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13 "By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing." Heb 9:8 The moment our Lord fulfilled the old covenant High Priest role when entering Heaven/Most Holy Place, the old covenant vanished, and the temple no longer functioned. Joshua
. . . continued from yesterday . . . had internet connection problems all day . . . They were God's nominal people, 'born in the manner of flesh,' but not 'heirs of the promise,' and therefore were in for judgment, just like in our day 'Jerusalem' stands code for the nominal Church and will be judged during the great tribulation, which is while 'those born in the manner of Spirit' are to flee 'Judea' and 'head for the mountains' as they discern God's judgment in form of the 'disgusting thing causing desolation standing in a holy place,' in order to 'succeed in escaping all the things that are destined to occur' when God judges the nominal Church. Ga 5:28; Lu 21:36 Jews can still become part of Abraham's seed even today if called by God; hence the 7 years are unrelated to any of God's covenants, it seems to me. Acts 2:39 I note that 'the wise' do not bring their brothers to righteousness, since it is written: 'And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen [of heaven, Phi 3:20] saying, Know Jehovah,' as 'the many' are priding themselves on doing, again showing the distinction between the two people of God. Hence, the term 'the many' seems to mean whatever the context indicates. Jews and Ishmaelites were never one people of God - although sharing the same human father - nor are their modern counterparts - spiritual Israel and spiritual Ishmael - 'one flock' of 'God's organization,' as claimed by WT, which is why the Divine pronouncement says: 'Drive out the servant girl and her son, for by no means shall the son of the servant girl be an heir with the son of the free woman,' meaning, all those of God's nominal people are in slavery to their respective denominations and are therefore not free sons of God. Ga 4:30 Right, that's the thing; this anomaly stumped even the closest followers of Christ who 'expected the kingdom of God to display itself instantly,' and surely not 2000 years later? Lu 19:11 But they were badly mistaken and didn't pay attention to Daniel's prophecy being divided into three sections for a purpose, namely, 7 sevens, 62 sevens and 1 seven to come after Christ's first coming to precede His second and final coming, at the end of which 7 years all things written would be fulfilled, including 'termination of the transgression causing desolation' to the nominal Church, God's nominal people. Da 9:24; 8:13 To make sense of the by now almost 2000 years since Christ's kingdom's seeming coming to earth, many people stumble into various degrees of preterism as an explanation, to the point that even Russell saw evidence of Christ's 'ruling in kingdom power and glory' in manifestations of 'millennium blessings' such as steam engines and cream separators - makes you wonder how much more his preterist stance would be strengthened if he were here today what with current 'kingdom blessings' such as CRISPR gene editing, AI and so on; except, that he would be even more mistaken, if such a thing were possible - just because something 'would make sense' does not necessarily mean it is also true. You could ask rolf.furuli 'at' sf-nett.no , the old Norwegian brother who wrote 'My Beloved Religion' about the Hebrew meaning of this verse, since he as a scholar of these languages. That is precisely why it says 'a holy place' in Mat 24:15 in Greek, generic holy place, what is generally considered to be such, not 'the' holy place; this can be seen in Jesus' telling the chosen ones to get out of Jerusalem because it was the headquarters of God's nominal people, who are 'a holy place,' not 'the holy place.' Well said; he who honestly searches for truth has nothing to lose but error. Same here; had the privilege of being made to 'notice' things by Holy Spirit at the time the secret deal with the UN DPI was done, ten years before it became public in 2001. I see you got another reply up; will read it now and try to comment, internet connectivity permitting, greetings, Harry
I think that the law had to still be in operation when Jesus 'came to be under law.' Ga 4:4 It was designed to show that if fulfillment of God's promises were dependent on man's performance, they would all fail to materialize. Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple to occur within the lifetime of His generation, which happened in 70 CE, and wiped out a large part of God's nominal people, but He is yet to come for the final judgment against their modern counterpart and the world of unbelievers at large.
Greetings, brother. I'm unsure if you thoroughly read my post, or maybe you misunderstood me. The Law was in place when Jesus came. Here, I'll copy and paste it again. I said, "Paul was quoting Jeremiah when he recorded Heb 8:13. When God told Jeremiah He was bringing in a new covenant, He made the old obsolete at that moment, in 600 BCE. From that point on, it was ready to vanish. The vanishing away happened when our Lord entered heaven. That was the moment the old covenant vanished, and the temple ceased functioning." Again, I'm not sure you're grasping what I'm writing. I had said the Davidic Covenant was opened to the genetic Jew and Gentile alike after Cornelious. The 7 years were only unto the genetic Jew. The Bible tells us this is a fact. Cornelious is the first Gentile baptized. I said, "That's why it's only 7 years because it's only held to the physical Israelite alone for 7 years. Then it's opened to everyone, Israelite and Gentile alike at Cornelious' baptism." You assume Jesus was talking about His generation. He could have just as well been talking about the generation that would witness everything He was speaking of. I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here, brother. If Christ replaced the entities of the temple, daily sacrifice, an Israelite, His people, etc., then all prophecies yet to be fulfilled speak of those realities established by Christ, not the shadow of the old covenant that vanished at His ascension. You are saying 70ce fulfilled prophecies pertaining to the temple, God's people, and the like, such as Dan:12:11. Are you not contradicting Christ? He told us a Jew was one of faith, a son of Abraham one of heart, the daily sacrifices were our praise and the temple was our bodies. Forget "nominal;" let's concern ourselves with prophecy. What existed in "name" to Jesus and Paul was in Asia Minor. According to Christ and Paul, there were no "nominal" Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE. That means the one million people in Jerusalem who the Romans killed were not His people, not Jews, not the daily sacrifice, not the temple in any way whatsoever, because they did not believe in Christ. All prophecy pertaining to the genetic Jew, the old covenant, and the physical temple ceased when Christ entered the Most Holy. Joshua
Cambridge dictionary definition of obsolete: "not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better." That which is made obsolete in 600 BCE cannot be in place in 33CE.
In English, obsolete denotes something that is old but still exists, such as technology. It doesn't mean the old technology vanishes. "b. of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED an obsolete technology" (Webster Dictionary) The Greek word used is pepalaiōken. It means; "become old (1), becoming obsolete (1), made...obsolete (1), wear (1)." (INT) We know the text means the old covenant was just "old," but it is still in play because it goes on to say what was declared "obsolete" was "growing old," and then it discusses when it would "vanish." saying, "near to vanish." When you have obsolete used, then say the definition of obsolete is growing old, then tell us it's ready to vanish from that point; the text explains itself. Besides, Paul told us what the Spirit was saying in Heb 9:8. Joshua PS: In other words, God burned all the flip phones a few months after smartphones came out, so the flip phones were obsolete for those few months but ceased to exist after.
Obsolete means being replaced in its function or position by something new - no longer in use - which in our case is the law covenant being replaced with the new covenant, having God's law written in one's heart by means of being born of God through Christ, something that could not happen in 600 BCE, because Christ only died in 33CE to inaugurate the new covenant, meaning the old covenant could only become obsolete after 33CE. If it were obsolete before that time, how would Christ have been 'under law,' a law that was no longer in effect?