Posted on 09/14/2016 4:03:38 PM PDT by PghBaldy
.
>> “Watching for a 7 year protection covenant.” <<
You’re wasting your time!
Mis-reading Daniel. Yeshua is the one who “confirms the covenant,” and it is his renewed covenant with his remnant Israel. (the one we call the “New Testament”)
.
>> “Only good until January 2017 and then the it’s irrelevant” <<
And Netanyahu damn well knows that.
I love to see obingo get shmucked!
.
;)
“:^)
Daniel 9:26-27
And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.
Daniel further identifies the anti-Christ in chapter 11:
Daniel 11:21-24, 30-36
And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant. And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time...
For ships from Cyprus shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage. So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time. Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.
It is not Jesus who confirms this covenant for one week. It is another “prince” who was coming. That prince would bring an end to the daily sacrifices of the temple through the “abomination of desolation” which Christ said would be standing in the holy place.
Matthew 24:15-16
“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...”
Christ is not the prince behind this abomination of desolation. It is anti-Christ:
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Revelation 13:3-4, 14-18
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”...
And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.
The same person who causes the abomination of desolation is the same one who causes the daily sacrifice to be taken away. And the person who causes the daily sacrifice to be taken away, does so in the middle of a “week” (or a seven) during which the same person confirms a covenant for that week. This must be the coming “prince” and not the Messiah.
If you can show a flaw with this line of reasoning, I am open. Otherwise, I believe the one who confirms the covenant is the same one who breaks it three-and-a-half years later by defiling the temple, ending the daily sacrifice, setting up an image of himself in the temple, and proclaiming himself to be God.
.
>> “It is not Jesus who confirms this covenant for one week. It is another “prince” who was coming.” <<
No, you’re forcing a relationship to the text that doesn’t hold up. None of the rest of the text is that linked.
The one who makes abominations is definitely not the one who confirmed the covenant.
That argument does not offer any substance. “He” either refers to Messiah, as you assert, or the “prince” to come, as I assert. Neither of these is forced upon the passage. We arrive at the answer by comparing other passages.
Why would Messiah “confirm” the covenant of the New Testament for only seven years? That covenant is eternal:
Hebrews 13:20-21
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
In what way would He confirm it? That is, how will He confirm it then that is somehow different than now? As Paul says, God has never forsaken His people, Israel:
Romans 11:1
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
It is the context of all of the other passages that leads me to believe that the person who proclaims himself to be God (i.e. anti-Christ), is the same one who sets up the abomination of desolation. And that is the same person who causes the sacrifices to ceases. And that is the same person who breaks the covenant. And that is the same person who confirms the covenant for a seven-year period (before breaking it exactly three-and-a-half years later).
If that is not the case, I would love to be set straight. I do not want to err on this subject. And it is admittedly difficult to understand. But merely asserting that “he” refers to Messiah is not persuasive to me.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me. ..................
Not sure I see much downside here other that the requirement to spend all the funds in the US. It can be changed in the future, and the idea that this agreement locks Congress out of the equation is absurd. I suspect Bibi knows that, Obama doesn't care.
Related threads
Historic defense pact between USA and Israel
not a defense pact in the usually accepted meaning of the term, no one agrees to defend anyont here.
Probably because in March, about the time he promised neutrality between Israel and the PLO, he indicated that many countries we provide aid to, Israel named, should pay for their own defense. Maybe he didn’t mean it, but I can see why Israel might want a deal concluded, even if it meant giving up important provisions from the past. As others have noted, a future President as well as Congress can easily change this non binding agreement, but with an agreement in place it would probably be more difficult politically to decrease it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.