“YOUR mangling of the Daniel 9 verses to insist that verse 26 b is still talking about the Messiah; the Anointed one when it is clearly talking about the END TIMES and the Anti-Christ.
Insisting that the Anti-Christ spoken of in the last part of v26 is Jesus the Messiah, is one of the most blasphemous things I’ve ever read on here.”
Answer:
I do not believe that Jesus is the person of 26b or 27b. I do not know what you are talking about (???).
In fact this is my whole point for Scriptural consistency.
26a = Jesus (A)
26b = people of the prince (B)
27a = Jesus (A again)
27b = people of the prince (B again)
Notice the consistency, an A-B, A-B Scriptural verse pattern.
Now, let’s look at the Dispensational scheme.
26a = Messiah (A)
26b = people of the prince; ie. Antichrist’s people (B)
27a = Antichrist (B)
27b = Antichrist (B)
Notice the inconsistenty, an A-B, B-B pattern.
Dispensationalism clearly imputs the person of the Devil into the Person of Jesus Christ in Daniel’s 70th Week.
In fact, I will attach the original reply to you, which clearly showed this. Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?
Dear Dispensationalist,
Unfortunately, you only reference other Modernists.
Your basic argument says that the ‘he’ for verse 27 is the same throughout the entire verse, and since the second half of this verse deals with the ‘overspreading of abominations’, then this must be the ‘antichrist’.
However, such an argument excludes context. If one were to apply that same logic to the previous passage, verse 26, then one would have a conflict, because the first half of the verse is clearly the Messiah, and the second half of the verse is the ‘people of the prince’.
Let’s look at this:
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (A) be cut off, but not for himself: ... and .... the people of the prince (B) 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.
NOTICE THAT THE SUBJECT CHANGES AFTER THE CONJUNCTIVE!!!
27: And he (A) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (A) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ... and ... for the overspreading of abominations he (B) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
LIKEWISE, THE SAME PATTERN IN THIS VERSE!!!
Note that both of these verses, 26 and 27, are CONJUNCTIVE (e.g. two complete sentences, with two different subjects, joined together by the conjunctive ‘and’) in their construct.
So, the first half of the conjunctive deals with the Messiah (A), and the second half of the conjunctive deals with a completely different subject, e.g. the ‘people of the prince’ (B).
Therefore to be consistent, one would expect each verse to resemble an A-B, A-B construct.
Dispensationalism violates this Scriptural pattern by using an A-B, B-B construct!
This is one Scriptural reason why Jesus, not Antichrist, fulfills the 70th Week.
However, even on a more basic Scriptural level, we can look at the Purposes of the Great 70 Weeks (Daniel 9:24):
a) to finish the transgression,
b) to make an end of sins,
c) to make reconciliation for iniquity,
d) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
e) to seal up the vision and prophecy,
f) and to anoint the most Holy.
Are you actually going to stand there with a straight face and say that the Devil fulfills these Great 70 Week Purposes?
Again, who is the REAL Replacement Theologian here?
Jesus fulfilled the first 69 Weeks (we both agree with that). Why would God be so flippant so as to change the 70th Week to the Devil ... to finish transgressions and to end sin?
That makes no sense at all, even on the face of it.
You have REPLACED Jesus for the Devil. Shame on you!
Dear Dispensationalist, repent of your dipensational sin.