Question on books of the bible dating

[TMSO]

When requesting a complete list of the antecedents, I meant the antecedent pronouns (he, it, etc.). Futurist dispensationalism makes an unwarranted shift in it, because of the momentum of its 2 programs myth.

No. The people of the one who is to come precedes the he will. Note it is future tense, and the one who is to come is also... future tense. The Messiah portion is already past. At 7 and 62 weeks, actual calculations made, puts it at Jesus triumphal entry. So, the moment the people, for a moment, recognized Him as the prince Messiah, coming King. He is, after the 62 weeks, not during the 70th, cut off. After that, still in the same context, Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. That is over 30 years after the end of the 69th week. That is way more than 7 years. Also, the covenant at the beginning of the week is struck for seven years. However, whoever made that covenant VIOLATES IT at the middle of the week. God never broke, and never breaks a covenant. It can't be Jesus.

 

[EarlyActs]

No. The people of the one who is to come precedes the he will. Note it is future tense, and the one who is to come is also... future tense. The Messiah portion is already past. At 7 and 62 weeks, actual calculations made, puts it at Jesus triumphal entry. So, the moment the people, for a moment, recognized Him as the prince Messiah, coming King. He is, after the 62 weeks, not during the 70th, cut off. After that, still in the same context, Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. That is over 30 years after the end of the 69th week. That is way more than 7 years. Also, the covenant at the beginning of the week is struck for seven years. However, whoever made that covenant VIOLATES IT at the middle of the week. God never broke, and never breaks a covenant. It can't be Jesus.

It’s not Jesus in my view either. It’s the horrid guy from 8:13+. But that’s also why it does not skip to our future but is about that same 1st century set of events.

The covenant that gets strengthened by Christ phrase must be related to v24, and is the actual redemptive one, the eternal Gospel, not what Judaism thought.

The ‘as if’ of Rom 9-10 about the righteousness of God will help enormously here. The vision is about the horrible choice of Israel in that generation. Even Caiaphas tried to circumvent the vision , thinking Jesus was the vile person of ch 8, and that he was doing Israel a favor by killing Jesus, Jn 12.

 

[EarlyActs]

It’s not Jesus in my view either. It’s the horrid guy from 8:13+. But that’s also why it does not skip to our future but is about that same 1st century set of events.

The covenant that gets strengthened by Christ phrase must be related to v24, and is the actual redemptive one, the eternal Gospel, not what Judaism thought.

The ‘as if’ of Rom 9-10 about the righteousness of God will help enormously here. The vision is about the horrible choice of Israel in that generation. Even Caiaphas tried to circumvent the vision , thinking Jesus was the vile person of ch 8, and that he was doing Israel a favor by killing Jesus, Jn 12.

Best if you will send a complete list of all pronouns' antecedents before going further.

 

[EarlyActs]

No. The people of the one who is to come precedes the he will. Note it is future tense, and the one who is to come is also... future tense. The Messiah portion is already past. At 7 and 62 weeks, actual calculations made, puts it at Jesus triumphal entry. So, the moment the people, for a moment, recognized Him as the prince Messiah, coming King. He is, after the 62 weeks, not during the 70th, cut off. After that, still in the same context, Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. That is over 30 years after the end of the 69th week. That is way more than 7 years. Also, the covenant at the beginning of the week is struck for seven years. However, whoever made that covenant VIOLATES IT at the middle of the week. God never broke, and never breaks a covenant. It can't be Jesus.

It is not necessarily violation. He ends it, which is clear about Christ from the NT, like Heb 10.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is not necessarily violation. He ends it, which is clear about Christ from the NT, like Heb 10.

The cessation of sacrifices is an intended outcome of Christ's work, as you know from the many quotes of the Hosea passage in the NT (Jesus, Heb 10). Working back from that, that means that the practice of the sacrifices was not considered a worthy thing, nor is it future. And even if it was future (our future) it would not be a worthy thing (I can see where it might happen today but would be totally misleading.)

Puzzled by this D'ism has tried to say there are 2 programs in the Bible that do not meet or sync (Ryrie in D'ism Today and others): Israel and the church. The NT does not have that view.

This, again, is why it is so important to have the correct antecedents for the Dan 9 vision to start with.

 

[TMSO]

It’s not Jesus in my view either. It’s the horrid guy from 8:13+. But that’s also why it does not skip to our future but is about that same 1st century set of events.

The covenant that gets strengthened by Christ phrase must be related to v24, and is the actual redemptive one, the eternal Gospel, not what Judaism thought.

The ‘as if’ of Rom 9-10 about the righteousness of God will help enormously here. The vision is about the horrible choice of Israel in that generation. Even Caiaphas tried to circumvent the vision , thinking Jesus was the vile person of ch 8, and that he was doing Israel a favor by killing Jesus, Jn 12.

It can't be the actual redemptive one, because sacrifices continue until the middle of the week. However, it is possible that it isn't the covenant of works, or of grace, but a covenant of peace made between the many and the Antichrist. The guy on the white horse has no arrows. He conquers the world through peace.

 

[EarlyActs]

It can't be the actual redemptive one, because sacrifices continue until the middle of the week. However, it is possible that it isn't the covenant of works, or of grace, but a covenant of peace made between the many and the Antichrist. The guy on the white horse has no arrows. He conquers the world through peace.

When Christ sacrificed himself, did worship at the temple suddenly stop? The meaning of stop is not as literal as you think. Heb 10.

If you list the antecedents, you may see how you are jumping tracks.

 

[TMSO]

When Christ sacrificed himself, did worship at the temple suddenly stop? The meaning of stop is not as literal as you think. Heb 10.

If you list the antecedents, you may see how you are jumping tracks.

Look at some other translations and tell me if it sounds like Christ:
"Young's Literal: 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.'"

NLT: He will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. Then as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the end that has been decreed is poured out on this defiler." (NLT - Tyndale House)

KJV: 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.

NIV: He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. "

Amplified: And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

A small number of translations and such differences between them all. I mean other verses have differences, but they are usually small, sometimes related to language. I mean, if you translate the Bible today, it isn't going to read like the King James, with thee and thou. I picked some, and avoided tranlslations like "The Message" and such, for obvious reasons. I just wanted to get the translation variance between translations.

"The angel Gabriel (Daniel 9:21–23) predicted the arrival of the Messiah, using an anchor point in history. His message indicated sixty-nine "groups of seven," to begin with a decree about rebuilding Jerusalem, and ending with the arrival and sudden "cut[ting] off" of the promised Anointed One (Daniel 9:25–26). Using simplified prophetic "years," this adds up to 173,880 days. Artaxerxes Longimanus made an edict allowing Israelites to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1–8) on March 4, 444 BC. Jesus likely made His triumphal entry (Matthew 21:9–11) into Jerusalem on March 30, AD 33. The difference between those two dates is exactly 173,880 days.

After this comes a gap. The counting of "weeks" will begin again with the arrival of a destroying ruler. This person will make some contract with Israel. However, in the middle of this seven-year agreement, the leader will turn against them, forbidding worship and insisting they bow to him, instead (Revelation 13:11–15). Jesus predicted a partial fulfillment of this event as "the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place" (Matthew 24:15).

However, the desolator will not be allowed to continue his evil works indefinitely. The Lord will pour out His judgment on him (Revelation 19:11–21). Christ will return, destroy the armies of the desolator and the false prophet, and cast these two evil henchmen alive into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20)."

If they did the calculation for the decree properly, March 30, 33AD is two days before the commencement of Passover that year. 14 Nisan was April 1st of that year. (I had to look it up due to some past argument.) So God's prophecies are DIRECT. He says what He means. This is why we know Old Testament prophecies were about Jesus. There is no doubt. Someone other than Jesus, one who stands in direct opposition, makes a covenant for seven years, and then violates said covenant after 3 1/2 years. A stand-in for God to Israel, making a covenant with the many, who then, 3 1/2 years later, stands in the temple (in the wing or pinnacle of?) and declares that they are actually God, and puts an end to sacrifice and oblation.

 

[EarlyActs]

Look at some other translations and tell me if it sounds like Christ:
"Young's Literal: 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.'"

NLT: He will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. Then as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the end that has been decreed is poured out on this defiler." (NLT - Tyndale House)

KJV: 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.

NIV: He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. "

Amplified: And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

A small number of translations and such differences between them all. I mean other verses have differences, but they are usually small, sometimes related to language. I mean, if you translate the Bible today, it isn't going to read like the King James, with thee and thou. I picked some, and avoided tranlslations like "The Message" and such, for obvious reasons. I just wanted to get the translation variance between translations.

"The angel Gabriel (Daniel 9:21–23) predicted the arrival of the Messiah, using an anchor point in history. His message indicated sixty-nine "groups of seven," to begin with a decree about rebuilding Jerusalem, and ending with the arrival and sudden "cut[ting] off" of the promised Anointed One (Daniel 9:25–26). Using simplified prophetic "years," this adds up to 173,880 days. Artaxerxes Longimanus made an edict allowing Israelites to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1–8) on March 4, 444 BC. Jesus likely made His triumphal entry (Matthew 21:9–11) into Jerusalem on March 30, AD 33. The difference between those two dates is exactly 173,880 days.

After this comes a gap. The counting of "weeks" will begin again with the arrival of a destroying ruler. This person will make some contract with Israel. However, in the middle of this seven-year agreement, the leader will turn against them, forbidding worship and insisting they bow to him, instead (Revelation 13:11–15). Jesus predicted a partial fulfillment of this event as "the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place" (Matthew 24:15).

However, the desolator will not be allowed to continue his evil works indefinitely. The Lord will pour out His judgment on him (Revelation 19:11–21). Christ will return, destroy the armies of the desolator and the false prophet, and cast these two evil henchmen alive into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20)."

If they did the calculation for the decree properly, March 30, 33AD is two days before the commencement of Passover that year. 14 Nisan was April 1st of that year. (I had to look it up due to some past argument.) So God's prophecies are DIRECT. He says what He means. This is why we know Old Testament prophecies were about Jesus. There is no doubt. Someone other than Jesus, one who stands in direct opposition, makes a covenant for seven years, and then violates said covenant after 3 1/2 years. A stand-in for God to Israel, making a covenant with the many, who then, 3 1/2 years later, stands in the temple (in the wing or pinnacle of?) and declares that they are actually God, and puts an end to sacrifice and oblation.

I think the correct sense of the antecedent change has been captured by the CSB. I think at that point Daniel had switched back to the evil person, not the Roman and not Christ.

For ex, the NET:

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.[bs]
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing[bt] of abominations will come[bu] one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”


Considering that Christ taught 3 years before the Gospel event, and then 'founded' the church for a few years, it is easy to see why this would be the week that strengthens the new covenant.

The shift to the evil person is made in 27b.

If you go back to v26, you will find the same kind of disconnection, meaning, it is common for Daniel to write this way. The anointed one is cut off, and that comes suddenly like a flood. But (in contrast) destruction of the city and sanctuary will go on for a while (a generation) until destruction is total.

This makes Dan 9:24-27 a perfect miniature of 1st century history. It was so clear that Caiaphas tried to circumvent it, Jn 12, by stopping Christ. Caiaphas could see destruction coming! He sent the wrong signal.

I read a commentary on Acts 13's teaching by Paul, and the remark by the synagogue ruler who welcomed him was meant to be taken as 'Things are so awful in Israel; is there any good news at all?'

Given the utter difficulty of 'sourcing' from Revelation, I never adopt a view that is sourced there. It must be in ordinary language elsewhere first, for ex., 2 Peter 3. This has been a Reformation practice since Melancthon and updated by Ramm. The symbolic must conform to the ordinary.

Another important interp rule: Mt24A (v29) is about 1st cent Judea and neighbors. It is direct and near-urgent. The NT expectation was that the world would end right after the destruction of Jerusalem, and this belief drove the original believers to span the globe with the message (they did, as they knew it). But as one of three allowances, they also knew that only the Father would call 'game over.' 24B.

 

[TMSO]

I think the correct sense of the antecedent change has been captured by the CSB. I think at that point Daniel had switched back to the evil person, not the Roman and not Christ.

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

For ex, the NET:

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.[bs]
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing[bt] of abominations will come[bu] one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”

Considering that Christ taught 3 years before the Gospel event, and then 'founded' the church for a few years, it is easy to see why this would be the week that strengthens the new covenant.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

The shift to the evil person is made in 27b.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

If you go back to v26, you will find the same kind of disconnection, meaning, it is common for Daniel to write this way. The anointed one is cut off, and that comes suddenly like a flood.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

But (in contrast) destruction of the city and sanctuary will go on for a while (a generation) until destruction is total.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

This makes Dan 9:24-27 a perfect miniature of 1st century history. It was so clear that Caiaphas tried to circumvent it, Jn 12, by stopping Christ. Caiaphas could see destruction coming! He sent the wrong signal.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

I read a commentary on Acts 13's teaching by Paul, and the remark by the synagogue ruler who welcomed him was meant to be taken as 'Things are so awful in Israel; is there any good news at all?'

Given the utter difficulty of 'sourcing' from Revelation, I never adopt a view that is sourced there. It must be in ordinary language elsewhere first, for ex., 2 Peter 3. This has been a Reformation practice since Melancthon and updated by Ramm. The symbolic must conform to the ordinary.

Another important interp rule: Mt24A (v29) is about 1st cent Judea and neighbors. It is direct and near-urgent. The NT expectation was that the world would end right after the destruction of Jerusalem, and this belief drove the original believers to span the globe with the message (they did, as they knew it). But as one of three allowances, they also knew that only the Father would call 'game over.' 24B.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

Re to confirm for a week
We must not be fastened to how we think the text is speaking. It took a Danielic week for Jesus to firm up the covenant. He did not just put the new (not) covenant out there for a week and withdraw it. It is from the early church years all clarified and solidified, going forward.

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

re antecedents
As I gave in a previous example, key antecedents can shift on us, and we may think one thing is being said when it is not. There is a Roman ruler with an army. There is a horrid guy from 8:13 who leads a rebellion. And there is the Anointed Messiah.

The reason I say I think is so that I don't make the permanent mistake about an antecedent. But the fact is, his death did come quickly like a (flash) flood. And there was a decree that the person fighting against the ruler who came (Rome) would perish with his movement and the city and sanctuary, because the new covenant is a mission to the world, as was known for generations, Gen 3 and 15.

It would be great if you listed the identity of each pronoun in the vision

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

re why does it say but?
Again, you dont' seem to have tested out anything but your own view. The reason for clarifying is to make clear that the old system of Judaism would be done away with. That would be surprising, and the rebel leader would NOT have done it, because it was a strong messianic impulse to have all the worship system running perfectly to entice Messiah's help (Acts 26: they worship day and night hoping to see the hope of Israel fulfilled).

Again, there are many passages where pronoun's antecedents have to be tested back and forth before deciding.

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

(I'm doing one question per post, because I find that conversations become unraveled).

re the Olivet speech differs
No the Olivet speed is the confirmation that that generation was the most consequential for Israel. Acts 3 confirmed the same thing with its 'humiliating disinheriting' for those Jews who did not follow the new Moses.

Mt 24A is about 1st century Judea; direct, crisp remarks about vital, urgent things they needed to do. 24B is universal and was thought to be right after, but allowed for a delay, which is what 2P3 is about.

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

re a gap
There is no such thing in the text. It is imagine from other possible sources and the Rev is a really poor source for these things. The text itself is about the horrible ending of the race-nation Israel, while those who became missionaries as God wished thrive. It is a pretty good miniature of that generation of 1st century Judea.

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

re the contingency of 24B.
They originally believed the end of the world was upon them, right after the destruction of Israel. See Rom 2. It would be the judgement of the whole world. But they also knew that there was an allowance that the Father might delay. Mk 13 has a parable that gives 4 options! 2P3 was written to explain this delay very directly. We now know that God deliberately delayed. Lattourrette in his history of the church, p44, explains that the apostles realized this had to be the case and that mission work should resume once they knew that the world was not going to be inflamed, after Jerusalem.

That generation was to see all the things of Mt24A.

Besides a 2nd round for Israel as a race-nation breaking much of NT theology, it is driven by a mistake made by D'ism. Ryrie wrote: there are two distinct programs in the Bible and they cannot meet because of having two distinct locations and ways of salvation. This psychosis has led good pastors to think that the atonement in Dan 9 is not Christ but another atonement for Israel later. Isn't there a fundamental violation here of the one Gospel, of Eph 4A, etc?

 

[EarlyActs]

Lets' consider the CSB in light of God's nature, and the nature of Christ, and make it Jesus. first the verse so we don't lose context:
CSB: He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator."

So Jesus comes to the table and says I am making a firm covenant with you for one week. On His word as God, the covenant will be for one week. So... does Jesus keep the covenant for a week, given the verse? No. He breaks the covenant in the middle of the week, if this is Jesus in the verse above. The fact that no other subject is visible in the verse, who is the desolator, and what does this have to do with a wing (East, West, North, South) of the temple? There is no subject change in the verse. Perhaps why you say "I think..." If God breaks the covenant, then that fundamentally changes the nature of God, as it is a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

Not 3 1/2? Notice how the He who made/confirmed/strengthened a covenant, violates that. Why else does it say BUT... It is saying, well, you know, He made that covenant for a week, but it didn't even make it past 3 1/2 years. I don't believe that there is a change in subject at all in the verse, even given the above. I believe it speaks to a change in the first person, a change brought about by him comitting/being the abomination. The true person is unveiled/revealed by the abomination.

I don't think it is another person, but a change to the first person, who is not Jesus, but the Antichrist. He is veiled as peacemaker (man on white horse), but after 3 1/2 years, his true identity as anti-christ is revealed by the abomination which occurs in the temple, or on a wing of the temple, or at the pinnacle of the temple. He will declare himself to be the one true God, and will put an end to all religions other then the worship of himself.

Daniel made a clear statement that the anointed one will be cut off for nothing. What you put there is not for nothing.

The Olivet discourse seems to differ greatly.

There is a gap from the time Jesus is crucified, until the one comes who makes peace with Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. Peace lasts but 3 1/2 years, after which the Time of Jacobs trouble begins in earnest, to end with Jesus second coming to wipe out the enemies of Israel.

"29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

So, if we interpret this the way you are saying, then the fact that we are still here means we can't be part of the elect. Jesus had already gathered together his elect from the four winds back in the first century. Game over.

Jesus point with the fig tree is to tell the disciples that, like in the case of Simeon, the one's who see the signs Jesus has given, as it was Simeone who received the prophecy, will be the generation that will not pass away before all comes to pass. (Which includes Matthew 24:29-31.) In other words, Jesus bodily second coming to Earth was in the first century, if we go by your interpretation. And not only that, everyone on Earth at the time sees Him, to include Josephus, who made it his life's work to ensure no one knows about it. Or perhaps God did a huge memory wipe?

Again, if you run prophecy through the Leviticus protocol, Israel would not be gathered back to their land until... 1948.

re everyone will see him
There is a 2nd coming when the Father decides and it does not have a pile of Judaic events associated with it. See 2P3. There is nothing. There is no significance to modern Israel except that the same Judaism seems to be there again and is very harsh on what few evangelical believers are there. It has been this way for decades.

A renegade evangelical girl, Jane Evans, who changed her name to George Eliot to get published, read the OT with no input from the NT and depicted the Jewish Zionist movement as specifically unversed in the NT and 'fulfilling' the OT without any reference to the NT. See her novel DANIEL DERONDA. She also translated the German theologian D Strauss' LIFE OF JESUS specifically to shred the historicity of the NT and say it was entirely contrived later. Her novel catapulted interest and money toward modern Israel, but it has nothing to do with the NT, and she's too smart not to have known of Pastor Holford's study of the destruction of Israel a generation earlier; she just helped scholarship bury it. She was personally quite an immoral person. Not very promising 'soil' for modern Israel to grow out of.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But The creation of the new heavens and new earth brings the promise that God “will wipe every tear from their eyes”... Rev 21:4. From what I have read and studied This event comes after the tribulation, after the Lord’s second coming, after the millennial kingdom, after the final rebellion, after the final judgment of Satan, and after the GREAT WHITE THROWN JUDGEMEWNT AND

AND if you are correct that Jesus came the 2nd time in 70 AD... the other stuff has not happened.

But according to Christ's own statement in Luke 21:36, "ALL these things" listed in Luke 21:8-35 were "ABOUT TO come to pass".

As for when God would "wipe every tear from their eyes", this is a direct reference to "the beginning of sorrows" which Matthew 24:8 wrote about. The ending of those particular sorrows during the Great Tribulation years were for those in Judea and Jerusalem, just as the passage talks about in all the gospel accounts. This does not mean that humanity would never have anything that caused people to weep after that Great Tribulation period back in AD 66-70 had ended. It only means that the sorrows of the Great Tribulation came to an end, which had caused people to weep.

Human history continued to flow for mankind, even after Christ's second-coming return back in AD 70. That is why Christ spoke about the fact that there would never be another time of tribulation in times to come after His second coming that would ever duplicate the former "Great Tribulation" period - "no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24:21).

There is more than one Great White Throne Judgment - once back in AD 70, and once more in our future. And the millennium of Rev. 20 is ancient history, according to John. And God told us in scripture when He would get rid of Satan and the entire Satanic realm, which was back in AD 70 when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. And the "final rebellion" - the "apostasia" - was the AD 66 Zealot rebellion against Rome.

You and I have the privilege of living in the New Heavens and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem with its New Covenant conditions, whether you realize it or not. The NHNE conditions were never intended to be the ultimate fulfillment of everything God would do in regard to this planet and humanity. God is progressively working towards a final culmination point when He will rid this planet of all human wickedness for all time in the final judgment. Isaiah's description of the NHNE and John's New Jerusalem still included the presence of the wicked and with death still occurring. That means the NHNE was not describing the final eternal state.

 

[Rella]

But according to Christ's own statement in Luke 21:36, "ALL these things" listed in Luke 21:8-35 were "ABOUT TO come to pass".

As for when God would "wipe every tear from their eyes", this is a direct reference to "the beginning of sorrows" which Matthew 24:8 wrote about. The ending of those particular sorrows during the Great Tribulation years were for those in Judea and Jerusalem, just as the passage talks about in all the gospel accounts. This does not mean that humanity would never have anything that caused people to weep after that Great Tribulation period back in AD 66-70 had ended. It only means that the sorrows of the Great Tribulation came to an end, which had caused people to weep.

Human history continued to flow for mankind, even after Christ's second-coming return back in AD 70. That is why Christ spoke about the fact that there would never be another time of tribulation in times to come after His second coming that would ever duplicate the former "Great Tribulation" period - "no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24:21).

There is more than one Great White Throne Judgment - once back in AD 70, and once more in our future. And the millennium of Rev. 20 is ancient history, according to John. And God told us in scripture when He would get rid of Satan and the entire Satanic realm, which was back in AD 70 when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. And the "final rebellion" - the "apostasia" - was the AD 66 Zealot rebellion against Rome.

You and I have the privilege of living in the New Heavens and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem with its New Covenant conditions, whether you realize it or not.

Funny then that the New Jerusalem may be wiped off the face of the earth , and soon .

I absolutely do not believe that

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Yet we have seas....

The NHNE conditions were never intended to be the ultimate fulfillment of everything God would do in regard to this planet and humanity. God is progressively working towards a final culmination point when He will rid this planet of all human wickedness for all time in the final judgment. Isaiah's description of the NHNE and John's New Jerusalem still included the presence of the wicked and with death still occurring.

10 And he carried me away [g]in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her [h]brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. 12 [i]It had a great and high wall, [j]with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 The one who spoke with me had a [k]gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the [l]rod, [m]fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal. 17 And he measured its wall, [n]seventy-two yards, according to human [o]measurements, which are also angelic measurements. 18 The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like [p]clear glass. 19 The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; 20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.

22 I saw no [q]temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its [r]temple. 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth [s]will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; 27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those [t]whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Footnotes​

That means the NHNE was not describing the final eternal state.

YES IT DOES>>>>>> VS 27 ABOVE

 

[3 Resurrections]

Funny then that the New Jerusalem may be wiped off the face of the earth , and soon .

I absolutely do not believe that

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Yet we have seas....

You are thinking of a physical, stone-and-timber New Jerusalem, but that is not the nature of the New Jerusalem reality as John presented it in Revelation. The walls of the New Jerusalem, with the believers as "living stones" will never be wiped off the face of the earth or torn down.

And you are thinking of physical oceans, which John did not intend to portray with his statement about "no more sea". The "sea" in scripture was usually representative of the pagan Gentile classification of nations, considered to be separated from anything to do with the "land" of Canaan - the "promised land". God no longer puts any segregation between these under the New Covenant reality. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ."

27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those [t]whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

This reality of the present New Jerusalem with "nothing unclean" in it is describing our status as being vicariously covered in Christ's righteousness under the New Covenant. Because of Christ's purity imputed to us, God can now look upon us who are "in Christ" as being vicariously pure in His sight, even though we as children of God still receive chastisement for the sins which we commit.

Under the Old Covenant, there was a yearly "remembrance" of sin on the day of Atonement, which those continual animal sacrifices brought to the remembrance of the people of Israel. Uncleanness under the Old Covenant and the Old Jerusalem priesthood system continued to be a problem which those "weak and beggarly elements" kept emphasizing from year to year. Even those who were not righteous children of God were able to physically enter the grounds of the Old Jerusalem temple - including the members of the priesthood which had become corrupt.

This is not the case under the New Covenant realities of the New Jerusalem which believers inhabit today. Only those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life reside in this New Jerusalem. But the gates of this city are never shut, so God is continually bringing other children of faith through those open gates to fellowship with other believers.