King David
Established
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 338
Shalom
In trying to think with My old Christian mindset, I discovered one of the hang ups that prevents Christians from understanding this rather enigmatic set of verses in the Book of Daniel, as well as the revelation of the True Messiah.
Christians have been taught that Daniel 9:25 is a fulfillment of prophecy regarding Jesus' first coming. They are told that Jews (Hebrews) were even kept from reading these verses so they would not discover the truth. But what is the truth? I will show what theologies are out there to help explain why confusion exists regarding these scriptures and will point to which one effectively communicates the revelation of Yahuwah.
Let's look at the verses together:
Daniel 9:25-27King James Version (KJV)
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.
Right away I see a difference in the text between the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible), the NKJV that I am used to using (modified mostly to a KJV), the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and the latest New Living Translation (NLT). It is the word "unto" in verse 25. The Tanakh and the others all say, "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem "until" or "till" Messiah," not "Unto."
This is a problem, because this whole set of verses has a temporal meaning. By that I mean time is a factor. So which version is correct? The KJVist's of course would argue their version is correct and that the Jews were engaged in some sort of conspiracy, but why would the NKJV and all the others (especially the YLT) change this to reflect the same word as the Tanakh? The writers of the NKJV and the rest want you to be fooled about the temple just as badly as the KJV writers did.
What has happened to this verse, because of the KJV translation, is that the building of the Temple has been confused with the second temple rather than the third temple that will be built in the future by the Prince. This is how the Christians can figure that they don't really need to understand Daniel 9:25-26, because in their minds that has already been fulfilled by Jesus' first coming.
This is how every Christian can then say that the Temple that is described in Ezekiel is either figurative or will be built in the Millennium. These two theories are absolutely incorrect.
The first theory of a figurative Temple is incorrect, because there is always a literal interpretation of scripture. Always. It is called the Peshat. That theory is so bogus that it is almost not worth mentioning, except it is widely believed, since many cannot explain why Yahwuah spent nine chapters (Ezekiel 40-48) detailing a temple being built and having sacrifices. Even more, these sacrifices are being conducted by the Messiah (who supposedly was the Final sacrifice 2,000 years before). So a figurative believer says that these ENTIRE chapters must be just filler chapters that we can just skip over.
Does that seem like something the Father would do? Waste nine chapters on fluff? No.
The second theory that the Temple and sacrifices will take place in the Millennium is equally absurd and here's why...
First off, to accept this theory the believer has to allow for a 2,000 year gap between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, even though the topic of these verse hasn't changed from Daniel 9:25-27.
Not only that, but in order to believe the theory that the Temple will exist as well as sacrifices in the Millennium, the believer would have to accept that mankind was given nine chapters that he really doesn't have to worry about (just like the figurative temple people say), until after Jesus comes. Right?
I mean really who would study it, because hey, Ezekiel 40-48 is all going to happen in the Millennium right? Unfortunately that's precisely what has happened to this set of chapters.
What gets worse for Christians who advocate that the temple will be built and the sacrifices will take place in the Millennium is that they are rejecting Hebrews 10:1-18, that points to Jesus being the final sacrifice. I had one person try and just talk around this yesterday, but it makes no sense. Was Jesus the sacrifice to end all sacrifices "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) or not?
Again, some try to suggest that Jesus will be doing the sacrifices in the rebuilt temple after the Millennium starts. He nor any other Christian who advocates this understands what Saul meant about Jesus "taking away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). If Jesus took away the first to establish the second, then there would be no need for any more sacrifices according to this theology.
Doing away the first and establishing the second effectively means that any sinner that exists in the Millennium would simply need to say a prayer (as they are supposedly able to do now) in order to excuse their sin. Correct? I mean why would Jesus tell his prophet Saul to tell us that he was "take away" sacrifices, effectively ending them for 2,000 years, only to restart the sacrifices again after his second coming?
It just doesn't make sense.
So why were Christians mislead about Daniel 9:25-27 in the first place?
Here's why...
Christians were taught that Daniel 9:25 was the second temple to remove these verses from serious study, just like Ezekiel 40-48. Even more they were taught that there is a 2,000 year magical gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 to effectively remove "the Prince" (Michael) from the equation. This is why so many have given the "deer and the heads look" when I proposed (correctly) that Michael (from Daniel 12:1) is the Messiah.
The interesting thing is that Daniel 10:13 and 10:20 talk about guess who right after Daniel 9 mentions Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25? You guessed it.. Daniel 10 talks about Michael. So it seems as though Michael will play a role in the end times and it seems that all of the Christians (me included when I was one) were led astray in these chapters.
Digging even deeper one has to ask themselves, "Why would Michael be mentioned in Daniel 12 if he is insignificant to the end times?" I mean if Michael is not supposed to play a key role, then why is he even mentioned? You have to account for that. And if He's simply just an angel, then why would Yahuwah mention an angel for no reason? Just to comfort us that an angel is out there somewhere ready to stand up?
Even more Michael is mentioned "stand[ing] for the sons of [His] people." Daniel 12:1 Does it make Any sense that Michael will not play a significant role in the end times since He is mentioned so prominently here?
Jesus believers will say, "Yes." Because if they say, "No," then they wasted a whole lot of time and money at cemetery school studying the hymns of Zeus and the "Rapture theory." So no, they're going to come up with what ever they can to disprove that Michael means anything in scripture and they are going to do their best to convince you of the same. Heck, they'll even try to throw the Book of Daniel out completely (like some have tried to do), but not until after they tell everyone that Daniel was already fulfilled in the time of Alexander the Great.
The Truth about Daniel 9:25-27 is exactly as I have been saying...
Daniel 9:25 has yet to happen. That temple is Not the second temple, but the Third Temple. The sacrifices that are mentioned were not the ones performed in the second temple, but are the sacrifices that will be performed in the future by Messiah the Prince, of Daniel 9:25.
The Prince in Ezekiel 40-48 who builds the Temple and performs the sacrifices is Michael, not Jesus, because Michael was not and does not claim to be the Final Sacrifice for anything. Having Michael appropriately as the "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25 also takes away the mythical gap that Christians say exists between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, because the Temple will be built in the end times (as the other prophets all point to). Therefore this third temple that is built will have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation set up consecutively with no gap.
If you believe that Jesus is the Prince who does the sacrifices in Ezekiel, then you believe that he died for nothing, because the sacrifices are coming back and he wasn't the final sacrifice, nor did he take away anything that the Father has done.
I sincerely hope that these truths reach someone someday...
Who will believe Our report? To whom has the Arm of Yahwuah been revealed?
Shalom
In trying to think with My old Christian mindset, I discovered one of the hang ups that prevents Christians from understanding this rather enigmatic set of verses in the Book of Daniel, as well as the revelation of the True Messiah.
Christians have been taught that Daniel 9:25 is a fulfillment of prophecy regarding Jesus' first coming. They are told that Jews (Hebrews) were even kept from reading these verses so they would not discover the truth. But what is the truth? I will show what theologies are out there to help explain why confusion exists regarding these scriptures and will point to which one effectively communicates the revelation of Yahuwah.
Let's look at the verses together:
Daniel 9:25-27King James Version (KJV)
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
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.
Right away I see a difference in the text between the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible), the NKJV that I am used to using (modified mostly to a KJV), the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and the latest New Living Translation (NLT). It is the word "unto" in verse 25. The Tanakh and the others all say, "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem "until" or "till" Messiah," not "Unto."
This is a problem, because this whole set of verses has a temporal meaning. By that I mean time is a factor. So which version is correct? The KJVist's of course would argue their version is correct and that the Jews were engaged in some sort of conspiracy, but why would the NKJV and all the others (especially the YLT) change this to reflect the same word as the Tanakh? The writers of the NKJV and the rest want you to be fooled about the temple just as badly as the KJV writers did.
What has happened to this verse, because of the KJV translation, is that the building of the Temple has been confused with the second temple rather than the third temple that will be built in the future by the Prince. This is how the Christians can figure that they don't really need to understand Daniel 9:25-26, because in their minds that has already been fulfilled by Jesus' first coming.
This is how every Christian can then say that the Temple that is described in Ezekiel is either figurative or will be built in the Millennium. These two theories are absolutely incorrect.
The first theory of a figurative Temple is incorrect, because there is always a literal interpretation of scripture. Always. It is called the Peshat. That theory is so bogus that it is almost not worth mentioning, except it is widely believed, since many cannot explain why Yahwuah spent nine chapters (Ezekiel 40-48) detailing a temple being built and having sacrifices. Even more, these sacrifices are being conducted by the Messiah (who supposedly was the Final sacrifice 2,000 years before). So a figurative believer says that these ENTIRE chapters must be just filler chapters that we can just skip over.
Does that seem like something the Father would do? Waste nine chapters on fluff? No.
The second theory that the Temple and sacrifices will take place in the Millennium is equally absurd and here's why...
First off, to accept this theory the believer has to allow for a 2,000 year gap between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, even though the topic of these verse hasn't changed from Daniel 9:25-27.
Not only that, but in order to believe the theory that the Temple will exist as well as sacrifices in the Millennium, the believer would have to accept that mankind was given nine chapters that he really doesn't have to worry about (just like the figurative temple people say), until after Jesus comes. Right?
I mean really who would study it, because hey, Ezekiel 40-48 is all going to happen in the Millennium right? Unfortunately that's precisely what has happened to this set of chapters.
What gets worse for Christians who advocate that the temple will be built and the sacrifices will take place in the Millennium is that they are rejecting Hebrews 10:1-18, that points to Jesus being the final sacrifice. I had one person try and just talk around this yesterday, but it makes no sense. Was Jesus the sacrifice to end all sacrifices "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) or not?
Again, some try to suggest that Jesus will be doing the sacrifices in the rebuilt temple after the Millennium starts. He nor any other Christian who advocates this understands what Saul meant about Jesus "taking away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). If Jesus took away the first to establish the second, then there would be no need for any more sacrifices according to this theology.
Doing away the first and establishing the second effectively means that any sinner that exists in the Millennium would simply need to say a prayer (as they are supposedly able to do now) in order to excuse their sin. Correct? I mean why would Jesus tell his prophet Saul to tell us that he was "take away" sacrifices, effectively ending them for 2,000 years, only to restart the sacrifices again after his second coming?
It just doesn't make sense.
So why were Christians mislead about Daniel 9:25-27 in the first place?
Here's why...
Christians were taught that Daniel 9:25 was the second temple to remove these verses from serious study, just like Ezekiel 40-48. Even more they were taught that there is a 2,000 year magical gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 to effectively remove "the Prince" (Michael) from the equation. This is why so many have given the "deer and the heads look" when I proposed (correctly) that Michael (from Daniel 12:1) is the Messiah.
The interesting thing is that Daniel 10:13 and 10:20 talk about guess who right after Daniel 9 mentions Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25? You guessed it.. Daniel 10 talks about Michael. So it seems as though Michael will play a role in the end times and it seems that all of the Christians (me included when I was one) were led astray in these chapters.
Digging even deeper one has to ask themselves, "Why would Michael be mentioned in Daniel 12 if he is insignificant to the end times?" I mean if Michael is not supposed to play a key role, then why is he even mentioned? You have to account for that. And if He's simply just an angel, then why would Yahuwah mention an angel for no reason? Just to comfort us that an angel is out there somewhere ready to stand up?
Even more Michael is mentioned "stand[ing] for the sons of [His] people." Daniel 12:1 Does it make Any sense that Michael will not play a significant role in the end times since He is mentioned so prominently here?
Jesus believers will say, "Yes." Because if they say, "No," then they wasted a whole lot of time and money at cemetery school studying the hymns of Zeus and the "Rapture theory." So no, they're going to come up with what ever they can to disprove that Michael means anything in scripture and they are going to do their best to convince you of the same. Heck, they'll even try to throw the Book of Daniel out completely (like some have tried to do), but not until after they tell everyone that Daniel was already fulfilled in the time of Alexander the Great.
The Truth about Daniel 9:25-27 is exactly as I have been saying...
Daniel 9:25 has yet to happen. That temple is Not the second temple, but the Third Temple. The sacrifices that are mentioned were not the ones performed in the second temple, but are the sacrifices that will be performed in the future by Messiah the Prince, of Daniel 9:25.
The Prince in Ezekiel 40-48 who builds the Temple and performs the sacrifices is Michael, not Jesus, because Michael was not and does not claim to be the Final Sacrifice for anything. Having Michael appropriately as the "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25 also takes away the mythical gap that Christians say exists between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27, because the Temple will be built in the end times (as the other prophets all point to). Therefore this third temple that is built will have the sacrifices taken away and the abomination of desolation set up consecutively with no gap.
If you believe that Jesus is the Prince who does the sacrifices in Ezekiel, then you believe that he died for nothing, because the sacrifices are coming back and he wasn't the final sacrifice, nor did he take away anything that the Father has done.
I sincerely hope that these truths reach someone someday...
Who will believe Our report? To whom has the Arm of Yahwuah been revealed?
Shalom
Last edited: