Terrorist Attack Against Muslims in New Zealand attributed to White Supremacists - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14995836
Pants-of-dog wrote:You only examined the argument about Nazi Germany.
You ignored the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden.

Those attacks were wonderful because they helped end a World War and save many lives.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, Trump proposed a Muslim ban.
There was widespread acceptance of it.
This indicates widespread Islamophobia.

Another wonderful thing.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon.

Those are countries, except for Palestine.

Praise the Lord.
#15000075
Rich wrote:Our thought does not derive from the Nazis. Just because the Nazis believed in round earth doesn't make it flat. Cultural Marxism is not a plot by Jewish supremacists. I repeat Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy of some secret Jewish committee. If you want to debate with Nazi idiots fine go ahead, but in that case do not pretend you are arguing with us.

Actually Cultural Marxism can be seen as a confluence of three things.

1 It is a specific theory and world view originating in the Frankfurt school and developing through Critical theory and post modernism on to oppression theory and intersectionality.

2 It is a Marxist strategy prefigured by Lenin's orientation towards Imperialism rather than Capitalism from late 1914. It was heralded by the likes of Gramsci and Lukacs. Gramsci was not that influential at the time, being in prison, but his ideological war of position, well described the change of strategy of the international communist movement, in response to the defeat / exhaustion of the revolutionary wave in Europe in 1923. It became ever more explicit in the increasing focus on race and third world nationalisms by the international Communist movement post second world war. From the late sixties, with third wave Marxism, we start to see a focus of many Trotskyists, Maoists and Euro communists on questions of gender and sexuality. :lol: This was all the while the Soviet Union and Cuba continued to criminalise homosexuality. Marxists are prone to protest their working classness and their complete difference from what they call petit bourgeois ideologies, but in practice its often very difficult to tell them apart.

3 It is an application of Marx's dictum to mass higher education.

Vast numbers of students in the West go to university to study arts and social science courses, that have no practical use. Humans have a need to believe that they contribute to society. Students don't go to university to learn the truth about the world, they go to learn the best propaganda, whether truth or lies necessary for the Manichean struggle. The evil in that struggle can be Capitalism, Imperialism or some combination of Whiteness, Patriarchy, heteronormativity, transphobia and able-bodiedness.

In response , as a rebuttal , here are these videos .
,
"Cultural Marxism" really is a far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory . P.S. For an actual historically accurate account on the affect of Communism upon the arts and culture , here is this https://cogsandwheels.wordpress.com/200 ... -the-arts/ .
#15000079
Hindsite wrote:Yeah, I know they have a lot of responses because they do not believe God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Jewish Rabbi is obviously not going to admit the Christians are correct because they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. They will try to explain away the gospel of Christ for it is foolishness to them because they have been blinded in understanding until all the Gentiles have come in.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
(Romans 11:25 KJV)


Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
(John 12:39-40 KJV)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(Revelation 1:7-8 KJV)

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
(1 Corinthians 4:5 KJV)

Jesus is all over the Old Testament: A Study in Typology



Jesus in the Old Testament



Did Jesus Appear in the Old Testament? (Melchizedek Mystery REVEALED!)



Evidence Jesus is The Messiah (Jonah Prophecy Revealed)

.
,
,
Hopefully this suffices to challenge your preconceived notions . I don't necessarily believe that you are setting out to mislead other people , but you do not seem to understand , or maybe even care about the other side .
#15000129
Deutschmania wrote:.Hopefully this suffices to challenge your preconceived notions . I don't necessarily believe that you are setting out to mislead other people , but you do not seem to understand , or maybe even care about the other side .

No it does not suffice to turn my faith from Christianity. These so-called Rabbis are example of being blinded to the Anointed One (Messiah). I suppose they must believe Daniel is a false prophet or have a much different interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks of years prophecy in chapter 9.
70 Weeks Prophecy of Daniel Revealed



Evidence Jesus is The Messiah (Jonah Prophecy Revealed)

#15003617
Hindsite wrote:No it does not suffice to turn my faith from Christianity. These so-called Rabbis are example of being blinded to the Anointed One (Messiah). I suppose they must believe Daniel is a false prophet or have a much different interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks of years prophecy in chapter 9.
70 Weeks Prophecy of Daniel Revealed

. Addressing this point , in answer.
.
#15003760
Deutschmania wrote:. Addressing this point , in answer.
.

I agree with the Jewish teacher in that there can be various interpretations and it can be confusing, especially when we use different calendars.

Missing years (Jewish calendar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_y ... h_calendar)

Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(587_BC)

We Christians believe the conditions of Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled by Jesus the Christ (most holy anointed one) by His atoning sacrifice that not only covered but took away the sins of those that believe in Him. The believer's transgression of the law is forgiven and our faith is counted for everlasting righteousness (Romans 3:21-28; 4:1-8; 10:4; Galatians 3:11; Philippians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 1:30).

Nehemiah was given a letter that authorized him to receive recognition and assistance for the tasks that the king permitted him to perform. It had the net effect of a decree, but it was not quite the same thing. The relation between the two communications was that of initial authorization and supplementary authorization. What Ezra went and started was then taken up and carried on to partial completion by Nehemiah. As in the preceding case of Cyrus' initial decree in Ezra 1 and Darius' supplementary authorization in Ezra 6, Artaxerxes' two decrees in Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 can be seen as a pair. In both cases the initial decree led to the commencement of the project, but both reconstruction projects required supplementary authorization to complete them; with the temple in the first case and the city in the second.

Because it really was the first decree of the second set, the one given to Ezra in 457 B.C., which led to the commencement of the construction of the city, that we should look for fixing the point for the beginning of the prophetic and historical period outlined by Daniel.

Daniel 9:25 can be paraphrase to identify its starting point as, "From the going forth of the word (the decree of Artaxerxes I) to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem (by Ezra according to the decree of Ezra 7 and the actions of Ezra 4), in 457 B.C."

When the correct procedures described above are carried out, it can be seen that the prophecy of the 69 weeks, or the 483 full historical years of Daniel 9, culminates in A.D. 27. According to its verbal root, Messiah means an anointed one. Thus the Messiah is one who is anointed. His anointing at the Jordan River, by both John the Baptist and His heavenly Father, took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar according to Luke 3:1, 21, 22.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/m ... -924-begin

The first seven weeks (sevens) or 49 years is the time it is to take to completely restore Jerusalem (including inner city and defensive systems).

The next sixty-two weeks (sevens) or 434 years brings us to 27 A.D. when Jesus {the prince of Princes) was baptized by John the Baptist and anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah (anointed one).

Daniel 9:26 indicates that after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (Jesus) will be cut off and have nothing; then the people of a coming prince will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (temple). Jesus, who knew no sin, was made to bare sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus experienced the death penalty for our sins by being cut off (separated from God) at His crucifixion (Matthew 27:46). At that time he had nothing, for even his clothes were taken from Him by the Roman soldiers.

The final part of that verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans commanded by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, in 70 A.D. This is added detail that is not required to be within the time period of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.

I believe Daniel 9:26-27 are written in poetic form in which the first part of both verses are related and the last part of both verses are related. The word "flood" is probably a metaphor referring to the breaches made in the walls of the city. (Compare Daniel 11:22 where it is translated as an "overflowing" army. Also see Strong's Concordance numbers 7857 and 7858.) I believe this along with the final part of verse 27 is predicting that wars will continue until the desolation by the Gentiles is fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

Daniel 9:27 is more difficult to understand because of the variety of translations. For example, instead of "confirm the covenant" the NASB has "make a firm covenant" and the ESV has "make a strong covenant" with many. Strong's Concordance number 1396 listed word from the root to be strong; by implication to prevail. However, it also lists the word confirm.

If the covenant is a strong and firm covenant that will prevail, then the idea that it will be broken in the middle of the seven years doesn't make much sense. The word "firm" indicates the covenant is sure. A definition for "sure" given by Webster's Dictionary is "Firm or fast; not likely to be overthrown or displaced, or to yield; stable; as, a sure footing; also unfailing; enduring; as a sure faith."

Therefore this strong or firm covenant seems to fit better with the new covenant that Jesus made with the many believers (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:14-15). If this final week of years begins normally in 27 A.D., then His sacrificial crucifixion would have been about the middle of the week and Christians believe His supreme sacrifice abolished the need for the ritual sacrifices that could not take away sin. Jesus offered His body to sanctify the believers once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-10). The end of that seven years could be about the time of the end of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the new Gentile believers that sealed the new salvation covenant as an absolute certainty (Acts 10:45; Hebrews 8:6-13; Ephesians 3:6). Note also that this covenant is not a seven year covenant, but a covenant that is made within the final week (seven years) of the prophecy.

The term "the many" seems to originate in Isaiah 53:11-12 which to many Christians describes the Messiah's death to atone for and justify "the many" transgressors by bearing their sins in order to make reconciliation for iniquity, and therefore, to bring in everlasting righteousness to "the many" that accept Him as their intercessor. These are the some of the same ideas expressed in Daniel 9:24. From a Christian perspective, this new covenant seems necessary to fulfill the requirement of Daniel 24, so it must be completed within the 70 weeks or 490 years.


The remainder of Daniel 9:27 is extra stuff that is not needed to be fulfilled within the 490 years of the prophecy in Daniel 9:24, but appears to amplify the last part of verse 26.
Last edited by Hindsite on 10 May 2019 04:18, edited 2 times in total.
#15003772
When I think what we Infidels have suffered under and from the Muslims over the last 1400 years, the fact certain people are trying to divert our righteous anger by focusing on these rare individuals is disgusting. The small minority of attacks by Muslims in the West do tell us something about Muslims generally. The fact that even a few Muslims who we have invited in to share in our prosperous, free societies choose to engage in these attacks is an ominous warning of the tyrannous and bullying tendencies of a far larger number of Muslims. This can be seen by looking at societies where Muslims are the majority or a substantial minority.

Tolerance is a one way street with Muslims. Muslims follow the example of the Prophet. He too spoke the language of freedom, tolerance and diversity when Muslims were a small minority in Mecca. This attacher on the other hand tells us nothing about the majority of the White Infidel population. What is so remarkable about these attacks is that there are so few not so many. Every one of these incidents does however provide an opportunity for us to pat ourselves on the back, and realise just our tolerant, loving and forgiving we are.

I do not condone this attack by a single inch. I do condone this sort of demented, narcissistic, attention seeking behaviour at all, but the great failing in our responses to the Muslims over the last 1400 years, is that we have been far too forgiving, not that we have not been forgiving enough.
#15003775
:lol: Very rich, @Rich. :lol:

I don't suppose Crusades and other attacks on Muslims over the last 1300 years have counted?

I don't suppose the West's attack on the Middle East(Muslims) over the last 60 years counts, either?
#15003785
Godstud wrote::lol: Very rich,

I don't suppose Crusades and other attacks on Muslims over the last 1300 years have counted?

I am happy to criticise the crusades. They were too little, too late and they ended too soon! The Crusades were defensive wars both as Christians defending against Islam and western Pagan civilisation defending against Zoroastrian dualism. The Christians were the more Pagan than the Muslims, as the Twelver Shia are more Pagan in their conflict with the Sunnis.

I don't suppose the West's attack on the Middle East(Muslims) over the last 60 years counts, either?

I don't agree with our policy in Syria and I haven't condoned our subservience to the Zionist obsession with Iran. However the West has never attacked Islam or the Muslims in the Middle East in the last 60 years. It has attacked particular groups of Muslims The West has intervened in conflicts, but it has always had substantial support from Muslims in all of these conflicts. Look at any one of them French special forces in the occupation of the Grand Mosque, Lebanon 1983, end of Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm, Somalia, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003.

Take the last of these, when the US went into Iraq in 2003 it did so with the collaboration of the the tow main Shia opposition parties/ resistance movements, the 2 main Kurdish parties and a number of secular opposition parties. This widespread, if often grudging support for the invasion was confirmed by the election results. It was clear to me, who actually took five minutes to learn and think about Iraq, as opposed to ignorant lefties, that the only two forces in the world could bring pluralism to Iraq were America or the Iranian regime.

What was it Marxists liked to chant on demos? "The regime united will never be defeated." ;) maybe I got that slightly wrong, but that was the truth of Iraq. After the enormous scare of the 1991 uprising and honestly Godstud I've met narcissistic leftie virtue signallers, who weren't even aware of the 1991 uprising, there was no chance of the anti Saddam anti Sunni-Arab tyranny majority overthrowing the regime without outside help.

Lefties so often think themselves, oh so chic, radical and anti-American, but in fact they have thoroughly imbibed the simplistic Hollywood nonsense about freedom and dictatorship. anyway I've been plotting a "Game of Marxism" thread for a while, so I'll leave further augment on this avenue to that.
#15003786
Rich wrote:However the West has never attacked Islam or the Muslims in the Middle East in the last 60 years. It has attacked particular groups of Muslims The West has intervened in conflicts, but it has always had substantial support from Muslims in all of these conflicts. Look at any one of them French special forces in the occupation of the Grand Mosque, Lebanon 1983, end of Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm, Somalia, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003.
So, just because they are aimed at particular Muslims means that they aren't attacking Islam... Yah. That makes no sense.
Which Muslims were supporting the US in 2003? In 1979 in Iran? 2011 in Syria? 2011 in Libya?

American Foreign Policy and the Arab World
Remarks to the Summer Institute of the Washington World Affairs Council

Religion creates a sense of shared identity that can transcend ethnicity, especially in response to denigration of their faith or discrimination, humiliation, or assaults by outsiders on those who share it. Attacks on Arabs, whether Palestinian or Iraqi, are felt by other Muslims. The brutality that has attended the Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands, the many deaths in Iraq from a decade of American sanctions, followed by our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and last summer's US–approved Israeli savaging of Lebanon are all cases in point. Arab rage at perceived injustice easily translates into Muslim anger toward its perceived perpetrators. Increasingly hostile relations with the Arabs are estranging Muslims everywhere from Americans.

The effects of US policy toward West Asia and North Africa thus spill over to affect our relations with the rest of Asia and Africa, including non–Arab–but–Muslim Iran and Turkey, and Central, South, and Southeast Asia as well as key countries like Nigeria. The United States has many interests in cooperative relations with these countries, not least in preventing them from becoming supporters of terrorist actions against Americans. Consider, too, the energy dimension. These nations hold yet another 20 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves.

https://www.mepc.org/speeches/american- ... arab-world
#15003801
@Godstud that article is just an apology for Muslim hypocrisy and bigotry. When lying hypocritical British bigots try and portray all British as some kind of innocent victims of some kind of attack by the EU, do I collude with them? Do I seek their approval? Do I try and ingratiate myself with the likes of Nigel Farage, even though I am a proud Brit? No I stand up to them. Saudi Arabia, Hafez Assad other other Muslim and Arab peoples stood shoulder to shoulder with George H Bush in Desert Storm. Even Al Qaeda have been seeking to enlist us as allies since Libya. It was only Bin Laden and ISIS that took a principled stand against cooperation with western power. But then the lefties constantly tell us that Bin Laden and ISIS have nothing to do with Islam.

The Saudi media in Desert Storm portrayed the American soldiers as paid mercenaries. Jewish American soldiers that were willing to lay down their lives to free Kuwait from Saddam were not allowed to practice their religion inside Saudi lest it upset Muslim racist citizens. A very funny way for an Imperialist to behave. The truth is even the nineteenth century European Empires, though they might have been nationalist and even racist supremacist totally kowtowed to Islam, and totally failed to stand up to Islamic bigotry and human rights abuses.

The problem with Iraq was Jewish supremacism. Zionists wanted us to take down Saddam, but they were very careful never to express one ounce of gratitude. Iraq 2003 was a noble, righteous, heroic venture and I'm deeply proud to have been an advocate for regime change long before johnny come latelys like W Bush and Tony Blair. It brought majority Shia rule to Iraq. But in deference to our Jewish supremacist masters, this could never be pointed out, because once we had dealt with the Sunni Arab based Saddam regime, Israel's number one task for us was to contain or even bring down Iran. So it was necessary to demonise the Shia, and nothing could be allowed to portray the Shia as victims. Israel demanded that we cuddle up to the most extreme Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

This idea that Muslims hate the West above all else is a filthy Marxist lie. No most of the time Muslims are far more interested in killing each other than attacking the West.
#15004190
It has nothing to do with white supremacy.
The media sure would love it to be that simple . its anti Muslim.

Odd how when muslims attack and kill from a few to thousands the left tends to avoid race and relgion reasons for the most part.
Like obama did in the fort hood shooting calling it workplace violence.
Clearly it was a muslim relgious crime.
#15004203
The trigger wrote:Odd how when muslims attack and kill from a few to thousands the left tends to avoid race and relgion reasons for the most part.
:roll: No. That simply does not happen. Please provide a source to support your silly claim.
#15004309
@The trigger Please present a source to support your claim. You are only giving me your opinion, so far.

The Benghazi attack was not related to religion, but hatred of USA.

Who were the Benghazi attackers?
They were members of various anti-American jihadi groups based in and around Benghazi, according to the CIA, possibly including ringleader is Ahmed Abu Khattala.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996154 ... -attackers
#15004430
Godstud wrote:@The trigger Please present a source to support your claim. You are only giving me your opinion, so far.

The Benghazi attack was not related to religion, but hatred of USA.

Who were the Benghazi attackers?
They were members of various anti-American jihadi groups based in and around Benghazi, according to the CIA, possibly including ringleader is Ahmed Abu Khattala.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996154 ... -attackers

He is probably referring to the Obama administrations lies about what caused the Benghazi attack.

Hillary Clinton: Anti-Muslim video played role in Benghazi attack
Hillary Clinton pays tribute to US ambassador killed in Benghazi Libya


Obama Responds to Outrage Over Anti-Muslim Video


Blamed for Benghazi: Filmmaker jailed after attack now lives in poverty, fear

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian whose short video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially faulted for sparking the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya, is now living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He has served time in prison, been shamed publicly by the White House and threatened with death.

“I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” Nakoula told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.”

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seized on the anti-Islamist film as the cause of a spontaneous protest that turned violent. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed when armed terrorists laid siege to the compound and set it ablaze.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/blamed-for-b ... verty-fear
#15004930
Hindsite wrote:I agree with the Jewish teacher in that there can be various interpretations and it can be confusing, especially when we use different calendars.

Missing years (Jewish calendar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_y ... h_calendar)

Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... em_(587_BC)

We Christians believe the conditions of Daniel 9:24 is fulfilled by Jesus the Christ (most holy anointed one) by His atoning sacrifice that not only covered but took away the sins of those that believe in Him. The believer's transgression of the law is forgiven and our faith is counted for everlasting righteousness (Romans 3:21-28; 4:1-8; 10:4; Galatians 3:11; Philippians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 1:30).

Nehemiah was given a letter that authorized him to receive recognition and assistance for the tasks that the king permitted him to perform. It had the net effect of a decree, but it was not quite the same thing. The relation between the two communications was that of initial authorization and supplementary authorization. What Ezra went and started was then taken up and carried on to partial completion by Nehemiah. As in the preceding case of Cyrus' initial decree in Ezra 1 and Darius' supplementary authorization in Ezra 6, Artaxerxes' two decrees in Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 can be seen as a pair. In both cases the initial decree led to the commencement of the project, but both reconstruction projects required supplementary authorization to complete them; with the temple in the first case and the city in the second.

Because it really was the first decree of the second set, the one given to Ezra in 457 B.C., which led to the commencement of the construction of the city, that we should look for fixing the point for the beginning of the prophetic and historical period outlined by Daniel.

Daniel 9:25 can be paraphrase to identify its starting point as, "From the going forth of the word (the decree of Artaxerxes I) to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem (by Ezra according to the decree of Ezra 7 and the actions of Ezra 4), in 457 B.C."

When the correct procedures described above are carried out, it can be seen that the prophecy of the 69 weeks, or the 483 full historical years of Daniel 9, culminates in A.D. 27. According to its verbal root, Messiah means an anointed one. Thus the Messiah is one who is anointed. His anointing at the Jordan River, by both John the Baptist and His heavenly Father, took place in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar according to Luke 3:1, 21, 22.

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/m ... -924-begin

The first seven weeks (sevens) or 49 years is the time it is to take to completely restore Jerusalem (including inner city and defensive systems).

The next sixty-two weeks (sevens) or 434 years brings us to 27 A.D. when Jesus {the prince of Princes) was baptized by John the Baptist and anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah (anointed one).

Daniel 9:26 indicates that after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (Jesus) will be cut off and have nothing; then the people of a coming prince will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (temple). Jesus, who knew no sin, was made to bare sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus experienced the death penalty for our sins by being cut off (separated from God) at His crucifixion (Matthew 27:46). At that time he had nothing, for even his clothes were taken from Him by the Roman soldiers.

The final part of that verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans commanded by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, in 70 A.D. This is added detail that is not required to be within the time period of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.

I believe Daniel 9:26-27 are written in poetic form in which the first part of both verses are related and the last part of both verses are related. The word "flood" is probably a metaphor referring to the breaches made in the walls of the city. (Compare Daniel 11:22 where it is translated as an "overflowing" army. Also see Strong's Concordance numbers 7857 and 7858.) I believe this along with the final part of verse 27 is predicting that wars will continue until the desolation by the Gentiles is fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

Daniel 9:27 is more difficult to understand because of the variety of translations. For example, instead of "confirm the covenant" the NASB has "make a firm covenant" and the ESV has "make a strong covenant" with many. Strong's Concordance number 1396 listed word from the root to be strong; by implication to prevail. However, it also lists the word confirm.

If the covenant is a strong and firm covenant that will prevail, then the idea that it will be broken in the middle of the seven years doesn't make much sense. The word "firm" indicates the covenant is sure. A definition for "sure" given by Webster's Dictionary is "Firm or fast; not likely to be overthrown or displaced, or to yield; stable; as, a sure footing; also unfailing; enduring; as a sure faith."

Therefore this strong or firm covenant seems to fit better with the new covenant that Jesus made with the many believers (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:14-15). If this final week of years begins normally in 27 A.D., then His sacrificial crucifixion would have been about the middle of the week and Christians believe His supreme sacrifice abolished the need for the ritual sacrifices that could not take away sin. Jesus offered His body to sanctify the believers once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-10). The end of that seven years could be about the time of the end of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the new Gentile believers that sealed the new salvation covenant as an absolute certainty (Acts 10:45; Hebrews 8:6-13; Ephesians 3:6). Note also that this covenant is not a seven year covenant, but a covenant that is made within the final week (seven years) of the prophecy.

The term "the many" seems to originate in Isaiah 53:11-12 which to many Christians describes the Messiah's death to atone for and justify "the many" transgressors by bearing their sins in order to make reconciliation for iniquity, and therefore, to bring in everlasting righteousness to "the many" that accept Him as their intercessor. These are the some of the same ideas expressed in Daniel 9:24. From a Christian perspective, this new covenant seems necessary to fulfill the requirement of Daniel 24, so it must be completed within the 70 weeks or 490 years.


The remainder of Daniel 9:27 is extra stuff that is not needed to be fulfilled within the 490 years of the prophecy in Daniel 9:24, but appears to amplify the last part of verse 26.
Oh , so you are an Adventist . This explains so much , as to where you are coming from , in terms of biblical prophecy . Daniel 9 , from an Adventist interpretation , has been used as the basis of the "Great Disappointment " , both of William Miller , as well as that of Harold Camping https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/harold-campings-kingdom-hall/ . Lastly , in regards to Isaiah 53
.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

Developing countries are moving in the right direc[…]

Lamar Smith also referenced a common denier argum[…]

Thinking about your retirement, when you are young[…]

Trump's Visit to London

It's cute how Londoners think anyone gives a shit[…]