Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 170

Thread: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I can deal with that. It is very possible for a Discourse to be given in several different versions, with one version containing material extraneous to the other versions. I just don't accept it for the reasons I've already provided to you. All 3 versions follow the same basic pattern, with all of the elements basically lining up, saying the same things. There is no extraneous material in regard to what the AoD is. It is based on the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in Dan 9. It is about the destruction of the temple, which we know took place in 70 AD. And it is about the generation that crucified Christ and persecuted his disciples.
    Who says extraneous? By this do you mean irrelevant, or do you simply mean that one account states something another doesn't?
    Matthew certainly states things Luke doesn't. And Luke things Matthew doesn't.
    You have provided NO reason why this CANNOT be so. Instead you have provided reasons you think it is not so.
    Dan 9 v 26 speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary, but this is NOT the same thing as what is stated in verse 27.

    Funny, I find they match perfectly. The Roman Army is, in fact, what destroys the temple, stone by stone. The Roman Army is, in fact, what encircled Jerusalem, "standing in the Holy Place." If your only problem is the wording, that "standing in the Holy Place" must mean, for you, a desecration in the temple, maybe you should consider that this view could be wrong. What we do know for sure is that this is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and not necessarily a sacrilege committed inside the temple itself.
    You seem unable to break from the circle of saying what we agree about and deal with the disagreement.
    The Roman army did indeed destroy the temple.
    They did "stand in the Holy Place" BUT ONLY when they had taken the city and NOT beforehand when it was still possible to flee.
    I have of course consider whether my view is wrong. However I do NOT think standing in the Holy Place means a desecration. The abomination occurs in the Holy Place THEREFORE the REQUIREMENT is to be in the Holy Place. This is something you seem unwilling or unable to grasp. The statement of Jesus' is quite plain and simple.

    Luke connected Jesus' comments about the destruction of the temple *in his own time* to the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the book of Daniel, ch. 9. Luke *knew* that Jesus was therefore speaking of the Roman Army!
    Sorry, but WHERE in Luke do we read that Luke connected the two?
    Don't make up things.
    Further Luke makes ZERO mention of Daniel, never mind zero mention of Dan 9.
    Further HOW did Luke KNOW Jesus was speaking of Roman armies? Did Luke KNOW beforehand what was going to happen - that is beyond what Jesus stated?

    The connection is to the *Army* of Antiochus 4, because Dan 9 has to do with the *destruction* of Jerusalem and the temple, and not merely a desecration in the temple.
    Strange choice of words - merely desecration. The desecration is the greater thing. However Dan 9 has BOTH stated. verse 26 speaks of a destruction, and verse 287 speaks of an abomination. Are they the same event? It is possible, but your problem is that the abomination occurs DURING the 70th week, and the destruction occurs in 70 AD which is NOT part of the 70 weeks.

    The similarity is the fact they were both pagan armies--not a sacrilege committed *inside* the temple!
    As the Roman army didn't commit a sacrilege in the temple as such, then it shows that the link you are trying to make isn't there.

    "In the Holy Place" means to reside within the space of an attack on Jerusalem. It's like the proverbial placement of one's self within the "bubble" of someone's "comfort zone." You may not be standing exactly where someone else is standing. But you may indeed be standing *in* their space.

    That's what the Roman Army did. It was standing in the "holy space." It was inside the "bubble" of provocation, standing in the position of aggressor. The Roman Army did not have to be *inside the walls of Jerusalem* to be "standing in the Holy Place." Israel certainly knew what a military posture was, and being a threat to the Jewish religious system would be for a pagan Army to take up positions outside the city walls.
    So now it is the Holy Space and NOT the Holy Place?
    UNTIL you accept that the language is simple and plain - IN the Holy Place means IN the temple and does NOT mean OUTSIDE then you are wrong.
    To claim because someone is in a place to attack from this somehow means they have entered into the place they are attacking is further nonsense.

    Don't agree. A pagan Army threatening an exclusive Jewish religious system was, in fact, an "abomination." Gentiles were pagan, and were not normally given any authority over the temple, nor over Israel itself. This was a judgment from God against Israel. As such, God caused an abominable pagan Army to come in and destroy undeserving, faithless Israel.
    The Romans had authority over Israel from 63 BC, and were certainly in authority when Jesus was put to death. It was Pontius Pilate who had Jesus crucified. You don't seem to know this?

    No, you see it as if it is a desecration, like Antiochus 4, which it is not! Yes, this "abomination," this abominable Roman Army was against the temple. But it stood outside the walls of Jerusalem and at the same time could be said to be "standing in the Holy Place" in terms of assuming a military position. Rome actually already owned Israel. It's Army stood outside the walls of Jerusalem to assert its power there.
    Sorry, but you try to change the meaning of words. It CANNOT be said that an army OUTSIDE a city is ever INSIDE a city UNTIL it is INSIDE, and then you would not say it is OUTSIDE.


    My point is that referring to my position as "Preterist" is the same as calling the Early Church Fathers, who held my position, Preterists as well. And you know this isn't proper. Only Preterists would do this to make their view appear to be established from the beginning. But that wasn't Preterism. This is just an historically fulfilled prophecy, much as the 70 Weeks prophecy was, or the Babylonian Captivity. It has not a thing to do with biblical eschatology!
    Actually the ECFs didn't hold to your position.
    I accept that they had an aspect of Historicism, which I also hold. Luke 21 destruction of Jerusalem was in 70 AD.

    No, John and lots of people who were co-conspirators in the death of Jesus were alive in 70 AD.

    When I refer to a "generation" I'm speaking of the culprits who were alive at the time Jesus was crucified. I'm not referring to a specific length of time, but rather, to a living group, along with a living system, namely that of Rabbinic Judaism, which perished in their lifetimes. Of course, Rabbinic Judaism continued. But the people who initially held to it in opposition to Jesus died not just before 70 AD, but many also in 70 AD.
    Actually could you name a single co-conspirator in the death of Jesus who was alive in 70 AD?
    Remember the 40 years in the wilderness was to have those who were conspirators die DURING the 40 years. Joshua and Caleb lived afterwards. Note that John is as Joshua if you like.
    Ananias and Caiaphas were dead as was Herod. So please, scripturally speaking and historically speaking there was NO ONE who was alive in 70 AD who was a conspirator.
    Now IF you change the meaning from being people, to being a living system, THEN you are changing the meaning of what you understand generation to mean!
    Wow, suddenly you start to see that generation does NOT mean those people who were alive, and actually start to use it closer to how I, CadyandZoe and others have been understanding it.
    Rabbinic Judaism remains to this day, so IF Jesus was meaning that then they it would also be relevant to 70 AD.
    So change your usage of the word. Recognise also then that this means your ENTIRE basis of Matt 24 happening in 70 AD is GONE!
    For has Rabbinic Judaism gone? Nope, so IF "this generation" means Rabbinic Judaism, then it is as true today as it was 2k years ago.


    St. Augustine and Chrysostom are two ECFs who held to my position.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_desolation
    St. Aurelius Augustine (379) states, "For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)

    John Chrysostom understood this to refer to the armies that surrounded Jerusalem and the factions fighting within it which preceded the destruction of the city.
    As I stated NEITHER of these two ECFs speak of Matt 24 AoD, they SOLELY connect it to Luke 21 armies around the city. Further we note that Augustine connects with Dan 9 verse 26, not Dan 9 v 27.
    Something which you know I also believe.
    So when you find a single ECF who actually says the AoD

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,050
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    You need to remember one thing.

    2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
    10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

    Obviously the strong delusion is connected with satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. Why would satan need a literal temple in Jerusalem to accomplish things like this when he has plenty of churches worldwide he can do these things through? To make 2 Thess 2 be about the Jews and in literal temple in Jerusalem, that's plain wrong. The text says God will send strong delusion. How many folks who have read the NT would be deluded if an individual were to sit in a literal temple in Jerusalem proclaiming to be God? Someone has to get deluded, otherwise this prophecy is false. The lost are already deluded, the fact they reject salvation after having had it preached to them.
    The unbelieving will be victims of God's delusion alright, but to increase the deception to have Jews believe he is God, Satan will physically sit in the temple claiming to be God. Once those in the temple acknowledge him as God, this notion naturally will spread. So the context of 2 Thess 2 leans favourably to a literal temple.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,050
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by nzyr View Post
    My minister said that the abomination of desolation was when Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the altar in Jerusalem. Since that was in the past when Jesus was speaking maybe he meant that something similar like that would happen again. Maybe by the antichrist.
    You are right, A4E is notably the forerunner of the future antichrist. So the future AC will commit a similar abomination against Israel. The question is whether it will happen in a literal temple or not? The jury is still out on that. But get this - it did not happen in 70 AD!

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Who says extraneous? By this do you mean irrelevant, or do you simply mean that one account states something another doesn't?
    Matthew certainly states things Luke doesn't. And Luke things Matthew doesn't.
    You have provided NO reason why this CANNOT be so. Instead you have provided reasons you think it is not so.
    Dan 9 v 26 speaks of the destruction of the city and sanctuary, but this is NOT the same thing as what is stated in verse 27.
    Pretty disingenuous to say I haven't talked about the differences and similarities among the 3 versions when in post #177 in "Day of Christ's Revelation" I produced a large portion of these!

    Among the 21 elements I highlighted, Matthew had 21, Mark had about 18 of them, perhaps expressed slightly differently, and yet without changing their essential meaning. The vultures and Noah were left out, as was the "taken and left." Otherwise, it is left pretty much intact, just like Matthew's account.

    Some of these may be implied and so included in the other elements. For example, "managing a household" in Mark could be implied in being "taken" unaware in the field in Matthew. Being judged in "this generation" in Mark may be implied in the "Flood" judgment in Matthew. The "AoD" in Mark may include, by inference, the account of the encircling "vultures."

    Luke has about 20 of the 21 elements. And as I said before 4 of these elements are extracted from ch. 21 and emphasized in ch. 17. The only things left out is "false Messiahs and false Prophets," which would likely be included, in Luke's mind, with those saying "There he is." In other words, these 3 versions are exactly the same, with the minor variances in word usage being irrelevant in terms of determining a harmony of meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You seem unable to break from the circle of saying what we agree about and deal with the disagreement.
    The Roman army did indeed destroy the temple.
    They did "stand in the Holy Place" BUT ONLY when they had taken the city and NOT beforehand when it was still possible to flee.
    I have of course consider whether my view is wrong. However I do NOT think standing in the Holy Place means a desecration. The abomination occurs in the Holy Place THEREFORE the REQUIREMENT is to be in the Holy Place. This is something you seem unwilling or unable to grasp. The statement of Jesus' is quite plain and simple.
    I'm not failing to grasp it, Glory! I've long grasped what you're saying. But in case you didn't notice I changed my view on some of this since the time we had this discussion before? I previously accepted your premise that this "abomination" actually had to be *in* the Holy Place. I found that impossible to hold onto--even with the idea that the Roman Army were at the gates of the city, legally possessed the temple, and eventually destroyed the temple.

    I just couldn't hold to this because of your arguments, which I thought had some merit. But my way of dealing with this is not to accept your conclusions, as based on this premise. Rather, I had to adjust my sense of what being "in the Holy Place" means. I do feel I must accept the Roman Army as the "abomination," since this is what I see Luke as saying.

    And so, I now define the abomination being *in* the Holy Place as a kind of military stance. In coming against Jerusalem, and seeing Jerusalem itself as the "Holy Place," I see the encompassing of Jerusalem as being *in the Holy Place." That is, the Roman Army assumed the position of *possession* by virtue of their military standing around the city. It is like saying the Roman Army was *in* the region.

    You see the statement as sort of "prepositional," a standing *within* an enclosed space. But I see the statement as a *condition,* ie the condition of occupying holy territory. The same thing was suggested by Antiochus 4, whose sacrifice in the temple represented his occupation of the temple. But in the case of the Roman Army, their statement of occupation was simply their approach to the gates of Jerusalem, and to the gates of the temple courtyard itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but WHERE in Luke do we read that Luke connected the two?
    Don't make up things.
    Further Luke makes ZERO mention of Daniel, never mind zero mention of Dan 9.
    Further HOW did Luke KNOW Jesus was speaking of Roman armies? Did Luke KNOW beforehand what was going to happen - that is beyond what Jesus stated?
    Luke doesn't have to mention Dan 9. Matthew and Mark already did this. Luke's exclusion does not mean this wasn't said by Jesus! And if Jesus said it, according to Matthew and Mark, then Luke's version implies the same.

    When Luke says "you will know," it may be the equivalent of "let the reader understand from Daniel" in Matthew! Mark suggests the same.

    Compare:
    Mat 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

    Mar 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

    Luk 21.0 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..."


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Strange choice of words - merely desecration. The desecration is the greater thing. However Dan 9 has BOTH stated. verse 26 speaks of a destruction, and verse 287 speaks of an abomination. Are they the same event? It is possible, but your problem is that the abomination occurs DURING the 70th week, and the destruction occurs in 70 AD which is NOT part of the 70 weeks.
    I do not place, and have never placed, the "abomination" in the 70th Week! I see the destruction of the city and the sanctuary taking place in 70 AD, within the same generation as the cutting off of Christ, but afterwards, as a consequence. The abomination set upon the temple is for me the same as the desolation of the city and the sanctuary. (It is a reiteration.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As the Roman army didn't commit a sacrilege in the temple as such, then it shows that the link you are trying to make isn't there.
    My point isn't that the Roman Army was not a sacrilege--it most certainly was. It was an "abomination!" Rather, my point is that this was a *different kind of* sacrilege, unlike the sacrilege of Antiochus 4. Both acts of sacrilege were military maneuvers. Both acts were claims of ownership over the Holy Places. But one was an act of sacrilege *within the temple,* whereas the other was purely a standing in military position to destroy the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So now it is the Holy Space and NOT the Holy Place?
    Take your pick!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    UNTIL you accept that the language is simple and plain - IN the Holy Place means IN the temple and does NOT mean OUTSIDE then you are wrong.
    To claim because someone is in a place to attack from this somehow means they have entered into the place they are attacking is further nonsense.
    Yes, but you are using the *prepositional* definition of entering into the Holy Place. That would mean the Roman Army would have to, like Antiochus 4, commit a sacrilege *within the temple.*

    But this is an entirely different kind of sacrilege, and is not prepositional, with respect to the temple. This is a conditional arrangement by which the Roman Army established military control over the Holy Place, even while they were still standing at the gates of the temple compound. They were, in the military, legal sense, *in the Holy Place!* They were not *in the box,* but rather, *surrounded* the box. They were in the holy *region,* though not inside the temple itself. Their position as aggressors placed them *in the Holy Place* where they were transgressors. They were transgressors of the Holy territory, even before they entered into the temple itself.

    Can you really say, in all honesty, that the Roman Army had not already transgressed the Holy Place even before they entered into the city? It is truly a matter of perspective. From my pov, the Roman Army were at the gates of the city *as transgressors* of the holy territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The Romans had authority over Israel from 63 BC, and were certainly in authority when Jesus was put to death. It was Pontius Pilate who had Jesus crucified. You don't seem to know this?
    I've know this almost from birth! The thing Jesus exhorted his disciples to watch out for was not purely legal control over Jerusalem by the Romans. That had long been a fact. Rather, Jesus predicted the rebellion of the Jewish People against the authority God placed over them, leading to the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The disciples, in other words, were to watch until Roman authority came to be poised towards destroying the Jewish rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but you try to change the meaning of words. It CANNOT be said that an army OUTSIDE a city is ever INSIDE a city UNTIL it is INSIDE, and then you would not say it is OUTSIDE.
    Again, if you want to argue prepositional positioning, a circle drawn around a city would *include* the temple within it. The temple would be within Roman control. And thus, Rome would be *in* the Holy Place.

    But as I said, this is more a condition, under military circumstances, than a prepositional positioning. The military stood at the gates in declaration that they had authority *in* the Holy Place. They were there to dismantle it, under their military authority. They were literally *there,* ie in the region, to take possession of the entire Holy Place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually the ECFs didn't hold to your position.
    I accept that they had an aspect of Historicism, which I also hold. Luke 21 destruction of Jerusalem was in 70 AD.

    Actually could you name a single co-conspirator in the death of Jesus who was alive in 70 AD?
    I think you're being too literal, in a sense. This was a judgment upon a society, upon a culture. That culture included those who held to the time in which Jesus was crucified. That culture had to be destroyed in that time. To punish a future generation for what was done in that culture would be wrong.

    There may have been 3 year olds alive in the time Jesus died. They would still be middle aged in the time that Jerusalem was overcome by the Romans. Those 3 year olds were part of the culture that rejected Jesus. They were participants, over time, with the very people who crucified Jesus.

    No, I think "this generation" is a general statement about those who lived at that time. Those gulity of the murder of Christ, and those who would be guilty of persecuting Jesus' disciples, would be the very ones who would be punished, including those who agreed with them at that time and immediately thereafter. Jesus said in Matthew 23 that these people would be judged. And they were.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Remember the 40 years in the wilderness was to have those who were conspirators die DURING the 40 years. Joshua and Caleb lived afterwards. Note that John is as Joshua if you like.
    Ananias and Caiaphas were dead as was Herod. So please, scripturally speaking and historically speaking there was NO ONE who was alive in 70 AD who was a conspirator.
    Now IF you change the meaning from being people, to being a living system, THEN you are changing the meaning of what you understand generation to mean!
    No, "this generation" means the people who are committing this particular crime. It can only refer to the people of that general era. I'm not counting years to a generation. I'm not counting individuals. I'm just saying, justice was to have been done. And it was.

    This could never go beyond that particular time period. Otherwise, the wrong people would be punished for the wrong crimes!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Wow, suddenly you start to see that generation does NOT mean those people who were alive, and actually start to use it closer to how I, CadyandZoe and others have been understanding it.
    Rabbinic Judaism remains to this day, so IF Jesus was meaning that then they it would also be relevant to 70 AD.
    No, there is some sense in that. But it has to mean that particular *time period.* I'm not giving it a certain set of years! You are! I'm just saying that the people generally responsible for rejecting Christ would be judged in 70 AD! That would be the result of their deeds, if not in their own time period, even in the lifetime of their children. This would be a punishment upon them, and a direct consequence of their own evil deeds!

    I do believe that the Jewish People are suffering as a "punishment" in their age-long Diaspora. However, I don't believe the destruction of the temple came as a result of the sins of all Jews in all times! Nor do I think Jews today are being "punished" directly for the sins of those who rejected Jesus in the 1st generation. They are only suffering today as a *consequence* of choices made by their forbears. If they step outside of the position that their forbears took they would no longer be under "punishment."

    But the initial punishment, promised upon *that generation,* was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I can't get around that. Future generations don't suffer that as a consequence to their unbelief. That punishment has long ago been meted out upon that 1st generation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So change your usage of the word. Recognise also then that this means your ENTIRE basis of Matt 24 happening in 70 AD is GONE!
    For has Rabbinic Judaism gone? Nope, so IF "this generation" means Rabbinic Judaism, then it is as true today as it was 2k years ago.

    As I stated NEITHER of these two ECFs speak of Matt 24 AoD, they SOLELY connect it to Luke 21 armies around the city. Further we note that Augustine connects with Dan 9 verse 26, not Dan 9 v 27.
    Something which you know I also believe.
    So when you find a single ECF who actually says the AoD
    I don't agree. For now, I'm worn out...

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Pretty disingenuous to say I haven't talked about the differences and similarities among the 3 versions when in post #177 in "Day of Christ's Revelation" I produced a large portion of these!
    Your response is totally unrelated to what you quoted.

    Among the 21 elements I highlighted, Matthew had 21, Mark had about 18 of them, perhaps expressed slightly differently, and yet without changing their essential meaning. The vultures and Noah were left out, as was the "taken and left." Otherwise, it is left pretty much intact, just like Matthew's account.

    Some of these may be implied and so included in the other elements. For example, "managing a household" in Mark could be implied in being "taken" unaware in the field in Matthew. Being judged in "this generation" in Mark may be implied in the "Flood" judgment in Matthew. The "AoD" in Mark may include, by inference, the account of the encircling "vultures."

    Luke has about 20 of the 21 elements. And as I said before 4 of these elements are extracted from ch. 21 and emphasized in ch. 17. The only things left out is "false Messiahs and false Prophets," which would likely be included, in Luke's mind, with those saying "There he is." In other words, these 3 versions are exactly the same, with the minor variances in word usage being irrelevant in terms of determining a harmony of meaning.
    As I haven't bothered to take apart your 21 "similarities" so I guess I won't argue about them here. However I expect, based on other posts of yours that your similarities are things which aren't similar at all. Such as claiming an AoD is similar to a Roman army.

    I'm not failing to grasp it, Glory! I've long grasped what you're saying. But in case you didn't notice I changed my view on some of this since the time we had this discussion before? I previously accepted your premise that this "abomination" actually had to be *in* the Holy Place. I found that impossible to hold onto--even with the idea that the Roman Army were at the gates of the city, legally possessed the temple, and eventually destroyed the temple.
    What is IMPOSSIBLE is that Jesus said IN, yet you say OUT. I stick with what Jesus said.

    You create an IMAGINARY Holy Space, in which you place the Roman army, and Jerusalem. You then say, that because the Army and Jerusalem are BOTH within the Holy Space, then this means the army is in Jerusalem. I expect 1st graders at school can see the fallacy in such an argument.
    By such an argument I can create a Holy Space which includes the whole earth - after all the earth is the Lord's and He died for it, so that makes it Holy. There are sinners in the whole earth, so that means that the sinners stand in the Holy Space.
    This is the essence of your argument, and it is an empty one, because the Holy Place is NOT the Holy Space. It is a place found IN the temple, IN Jerusalem. If you are NOT IN the temple, then you are NOT IN the Holy Place.
    You see the problem is ENTIRELY of your OWN making because you have decided that a roman army MUST mean an AoD.
    Yet when given simple language which shows this NOT to be the case, you reject it because it does NOT conform to your assumed foundation.

    Let me quote you:
    Again, if you want to argue prepositional positioning, a circle drawn around a city would *include* the temple within it. The temple would be within Roman control. And thus, Rome would be *in* the Holy Place.
    Rome would NOT be IN the Holy Place in your example. It would be in a circle which ALSO includes the Holy Place. It could be OUTSIDE the Holy Place, surrounding it, but it NEVER makes it IN the Holy Place. I think you need to learn what prepositions mean and how they are used.


    I'm just saying that the people generally responsible for rejecting Christ would be judged in 70 AD! That would be the result of their deeds, if not in their own time period, even in the lifetime of their children. This would be a punishment upon them, and a direct consequence of their own evil deeds!
    How is it a punishment on them if they are dead? Weird logic.
    Further IF you take "this generation" NOT to mean those who were alive to crucify Jesus, but people of the NEXT generation, then it again means you are taking liberties with actual words and their meanings, and the meaning you are requiring.
    70 AD was NOT "this generation" as YOU use the word, meaning the people of the generation that Jesus was speaking to and who had Him crucified.
    When you recognise that this interpretation of the phrase is WRONG, it then frees you to consider what IS meant by the phrase.
    CadyandZoe already gave you a fairly coherent explanation.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Your response is totally unrelated to what you quoted.
    As I haven't bothered to take apart your 21 "similarities" so I guess I won't argue about them here. However I expect, based on other posts of yours that your similarities are things which aren't similar at all. Such as claiming an AoD is similar to a Roman army.
    Chrysostom wrote: "For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

    Augustine wrote: (379) "Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)


    Taken from: https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat04.html

    So your argument that Augustine and Chrysostom do not mention the AoD is false! As to your negligence in reviewing the 3 synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse, I'm wondering how you can make the claims you've made without doing this?

    But I've posted them, not so much that you would read them, but so that you would know *I did,* and that there is reference here to *proof* that these 21 elements are identical in each account. Therefore you can indeed compare all of the elements and come out of it with the same meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What is IMPOSSIBLE is that Jesus said IN, yet you say OUT. I stick with what Jesus said.
    As I said, you define "Holy Place" as strictly the temple. I define the "Holy Place" as the entire region. And the Roman Army was plainly *in the holy region!* They were poised *in the region,* ie in the Holy Place, to desolate the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You create an IMAGINARY Holy Space, in which you place the Roman army, and Jerusalem. You then say, that because the Army and Jerusalem are BOTH within the Holy Space, then this means the army is in Jerusalem. I expect 1st graders at school can see the fallacy in such an argument.
    I'm not the only one who makes such an argument. But you are using kindergarten-style insults now...

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    By such an argument I can create a Holy Space which includes the whole earth - after all the earth is the Lord's and He died for it, so that makes it Holy. There are sinners in the whole earth, so that means that the sinners stand in the Holy Space.
    No you can't, because a military act of aggression in that time period required an actual assault upon a fortress. Just existing on the earth in Asia, or somewhere else, would not constitute an act of military aggression against the temple!

    Just crossing the border into Israel would, however, constitute an act of agression, a defiling of the holy land. Standing in the Holy Place would mean a positioning of an army to actually take the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is the essence of your argument, and it is an empty one, because the Holy Place is NOT the Holy Space. It is a place found IN the temple, IN Jerusalem. If you are NOT IN the temple, then you are NOT IN the Holy Place.
    You see the problem is ENTIRELY of your OWN making because you have decided that a roman army MUST mean an AoD.
    Yet when given simple language which shows this NOT to be the case, you reject it because it does NOT conform to your assumed foundation.

    Let me quote you:

    Rome would NOT be IN the Holy Place in your example. It would be in a circle which ALSO includes the Holy Place. It could be OUTSIDE the Holy Place, surrounding it, but it NEVER makes it IN the Holy Place. I think you need to learn what prepositions mean and how they are used.
    Prepositional standing is what *you're* referring to! As I've told you repeatedly, I'm *not* doing that! This is a relative standing, a preparation to take the temple. Standing in the Holy Place is therefore the assuming of a military posture. It is standing in the environs of Jerusalem, which *includes* the temple.

    Since you insult this position, you clearly don't understand it. And I'm certainly not the only one to hold to this view. In the above reference, I quote:

    Many commentators find an allusion to the standards of the Roman legions in the expression, "The abomination of desolation." The eagles were objects of worship to the soldiers. We know from Josephus that the attempt of a Roman general, Vitellius, in the reign of Tiberius, to march his troops through Judea was resisted by the Jewish authorities, on the ground that the idolatrous images on their ensigns would be a profanation of the law.

    B.H. Carroll (1947) says, "Pilate, at that time Roman Procurator, sent from Caesarea, the seaport of that country on the Mediterranean Sea, a legion of Roman soldiers and had them secretly introduced into the city and sheltered in the tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, and these soldiers brought with them their ensigns. The Roman sign was a straight staff, capped with a metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar. Caesar claimed to be divine. Caesar exacted divine worship, and every evening when those standards were placed, the Roman legion got down and worshipped the image of Caesar thereof, and every morning at the roll call a part of the parade was for the whole legion to prostrate themselves before that graven image and worship it. The Jews were so horrified when they saw that image and the consequent worship, they went to Pilate, who was at that time living in Caesarea, and prostrated themselves before him and said, 'Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple.'" (An Introduction of the English Bible, p. 263-264)

    Matthew says, they will see this "abomination of desolation...standing in the holy place" - this does not need to be understood as the temple only, but Jerusalem also, and any part of the land of Israel. to the Jews, all Jerusalem was considered holy (Matthew 4:5, Daniel 9:24, Revelation 11:2).

    Mark says, "standing where it ought not," meaning the same thing. But Luke really clears it up for us.

    Luke 21:20 (NKJV) "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near."
    By reading the surrounding verses, you cannot deny that this is a parallel account to Matthew's Olivet Discourse. Parallel accounts cannot have a different meaning. By combining Luke's statement with secular history, it is clear that Cestius Gallus and his Roman army were the abomination of desolation. It was fulfilled in A.D.66 when the Romans surrounded the city of Jerusalem.

    Chrysostom wrote: "For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

    Augustine wrote: (379) "Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)


    I suppose *anybody* who disagrees with you is a "1st grader?" Why don't you apply proper respect to a perfectly respectable disagreement? Perhaps you are being too narrow in the way you're looking at words here? If you're a linguist, and I believe you are, then you should know that word phrases can be very flexibly applied.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How is it a punishment on them if they are dead? Weird logic.
    Further IF you take "this generation" NOT to mean those who were alive to crucify Jesus, but people of the NEXT generation, then it again means you are taking liberties with actual words and their meanings, and the meaning you are requiring.
    70 AD was NOT "this generation" as YOU use the word, meaning the people of the generation that Jesus was speaking to and who had Him crucified.
    When you recognise that this interpretation of the phrase is WRONG, it then frees you to consider what IS meant by the phrase.
    CadyandZoe already gave you a fairly coherent explanation.
    You seem incapable of seeing things more flexibly! When I speak of a generation it is not either 40 years or an entire history of the Jews! I'm not talking about what exact number of individuals actually saw the 70 AD event. I'm not talking about how long a generation lasts!

    Please listen to what I'm saying. I'm saying the *very people* responsible for Jesus' death and for the persecution of his disciples would be the ones who are punished with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem! This includes people who were adults at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, who were quote old in 70 AD. This also includes the children who grew up in the families of those rebellious Jews at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. It also means that even if they were not still alive, this would be the fruit of their own evil-doing. It would *not* be future generations who pay for the 70 AD event *after the fact!*

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Chrysostom wrote: "For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

    Augustine wrote: (379) "Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)


    Taken from: https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat04.html

    So your argument that Augustine and Chrysostom do not mention the AoD is false! As to your negligence in reviewing the 3 synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse, I'm wondering how you can make the claims you've made without doing this?
    I note the claim made by the link you have given.
    However I cannot find such a quote within the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Perhaps the volume etc would be useful for verifying what John said.
    I would be surprised to find anything in the anit-nicene fathers as BOTH of these are Post Nicene.
    In my personal view Post Nicene isn't ECF.

    What I was able to find though is this from his homilies on Matthew:


    You can read the Homilie here:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...lation&f=false

    Now here John makes it clear that he believed the AoD was IN the temple, and connects it to an event which occurs AFTER the temple is destroyed.

    So you can claim an ECF speaks of an AoD, but your problem is that his AoD doesn't fit what is required. It doesn't match as you want it to.

    Now why does your link claim that Augustine wrote in Volume 6. P170 the above from Augustine?
    It isn't there. This is a quote which is found in Wikipedia as well.
    Now Augustine does write about a Harmony of the Gospels, and in that he does try to harmonise what is stated between the various versions of the OD. However he notes that they are different and gives a reason which implies he believes they are about the same event.
    What I could not find though is the actual quote given.
    What I did eventually find though is this:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nation&f=false

    Here Augustine writes a letter to someone who he disagrees with and where he is saying that the AoD was the destruction of Jerusalem.
    So though your references are wrong, you have two people, who did connect the AoD to 70 AD.
    I have highlighted why John Chrysostom was wrong in his connection, as though it was indeed an AoD, it was AFTER it was TOO late to flee.

    Also I clearly disagree with Augustine and find that he provides no better reasoning than your own, that of harmonising the Gospels and so claiming they are the same. he doesn't actually provide any reasoning beyond this as to why he thinks it is the same, nor does he quote anyone earlier or make any claim to earlier knowledge or teaching.

    But I've posted them, not so much that you would read them, but so that you would know *I did,* and that there is reference here to *proof* that these 21 elements are identical in each account. Therefore you can indeed compare all of the elements and come out of it with the same meaning.
    I know you have, and skimmed through them briefly.
    I saw no value in an in-depth rebuttal, but it seems you require it. So I have done so on the other thread.

    As I said, you define "Holy Place" as strictly the temple. I define the "Holy Place" as the entire region. And the Roman Army was plainly *in the holy region!* They were poised *in the region,* ie in the Holy Place, to desolate the temple.
    It is NOT how I define it that matters, but how scripture defines it.
    Sorry, but your Roman army was NOT in the Holy Place UNTIL as John Chrysostom notes AFTER they took the city.

    I'm not the only one who makes such an argument. But you are using kindergarten-style insults now...
    You may not be, but you are presenting it as a truth. Anyone presenting such kindergarten rubbish should have this highlighted.

    No you can't, because a military act of aggression in that time period required an actual assault upon a fortress. Just existing on the earth in Asia, or somewhere else, would not constitute an act of military aggression against the temple!
    Just crossing the border into Israel would, however, constitute an act of agression, a defiling of the holy land. Standing in the Holy Place would mean a positioning of an army to actually take the temple.
    According to your argument you can. Which I agree is nonsense.
    As the Romans had forts all over Israel and including IN Jerusalem so your claim that by entering somehow constitutes a defiling is nonsense.

    Prepositional standing is what *you're* referring to! As I've told you repeatedly, I'm *not* doing that! This is a relative standing, a preparation to take the temple. Standing in the Holy Place is therefore the assuming of a military posture. It is standing in the environs of Jerusalem, which *includes* the temple.
    Wow! The assuming of a military posture somehow puts you IN a place. A place is NOT a relative standing, it is an ACTUAL standing.
    You aren't even correct though about your relative standing. Still the wrong preposition.

    Since you insult this position, you clearly don't understand it. And I'm certainly not the only one to hold to this view. In the above reference, I quote:
    Many commentators find an allusion to the standards of the Roman legions in the expression, "The abomination of desolation." The eagles were objects of worship to the soldiers. We know from Josephus that the attempt of a Roman general, Vitellius, in the reign of Tiberius, to march his troops through Judea was resisted by the Jewish authorities, on the ground that the idolatrous images on their ensigns would be a profanation of the law.
    B.H. Carroll (1947) says, "Pilate, at that time Roman Procurator, sent from Caesarea, the seaport of that country on the Mediterranean Sea, a legion of Roman soldiers and had them secretly introduced into the city and sheltered in the tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, and these soldiers brought with them their ensigns. The Roman sign was a straight staff, capped with a metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar. Caesar claimed to be divine. Caesar exacted divine worship, and every evening when those standards were placed, the Roman legion got down and worshipped the image of Caesar thereof, and every morning at the roll call a part of the parade was for the whole legion to prostrate themselves before that graven image and worship it. The Jews were so horrified when they saw that image and the consequent worship, they went to Pilate, who was at that time living in Caesarea, and prostrated themselves before him and said, 'Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple.'" (An Introduction of the English Bible, p. 263-264)
    Matthew says, they will see this "abomination of desolation...standing in the holy place" - this does not need to be understood as the temple only, but Jerusalem also, and any part of the land of Israel. to the Jews, all Jerusalem was considered holy (Matthew 4:5, Daniel 9:24, Revelation 11:2).
    Mark says, "standing where it ought not," meaning the same thing. But Luke really clears it up for us.
    Luke 21:20 (NKJV) "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near."
    By reading the surrounding verses, you cannot deny that this is a parallel account to Matthew's Olivet Discourse. Parallel accounts cannot have a different meaning. By combining Luke's statement with secular history, it is clear that Cestius Gallus and his Roman army were the abomination of desolation. It was fulfilled in A.D.66 when the Romans surrounded the city of Jerusalem.
    Chrysostom wrote: "For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
    Augustine wrote: (379) "Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)

    I suppose *anybody* who disagrees with you is a "1st grader?" Why don't you apply proper respect to a perfectly respectable disagreement? Perhaps you are being too narrow in the way you're looking at words here? If you're a linguist, and I believe you are, then you should know that word phrases can be very flexibly applied.
    I would apply that epithet to anyone who uses it as you do.
    BH Carroll has the Romans in the Fort which is next to the temple. This is certainly IN the city, and next to the temple, and could be cause for them to be against it.
    Yet the fact is the Romans did this and it was NOT the AoD.
    You see my point is about the usage of IN which is wrong.

    As I find your link hasn't made correct references it is hard to find myself able to agree with them.

    You seem incapable of seeing things more flexibly! When I speak of a generation it is not either 40 years or an entire history of the Jews! I'm not talking about what exact number of individuals actually saw the 70 AD event. I'm not talking about how long a generation lasts!
    I see things very flexibly. That doesn't mean that words don't have meaning and durations don't have lengths.
    EITHER "this generation" means those who crucified our Lord OR it means something else.
    I am highlighting that "this generation" does NOT mean those who crucified our Lord THEREFORE it means something else. You are the one who is NOT being flexible, for you are NOT getting this simple fact.

    Please listen to what I'm saying. I'm saying the *very people* responsible for Jesus' death and for the persecution of his disciples would be the ones who are punished with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem! This includes people who were adults at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, who were quote old in 70 AD. This also includes the children who grew upon the families of those rebellious Jews at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. It also means that even if they were not still alive, this would be the fruit of their own evil-doing. It would *not* be future generations who pay for the 70 AD event *after the fact!*
    So now it is the children and NOT the fathers. So Jesus is visiting the sins of the Fathers on the children. I don't think so, or are you still saying this is OT Law being applied in the NT era? This clearly is NOT the "very people" being punished. The children ARE a future generation.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I note the claim made by the link you have given.
    However I cannot find such a quote within the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Perhaps the volume etc would be useful for verifying what John said.
    I would be surprised to find anything in the anit-nicene fathers as BOTH of these are Post Nicene.
    In my personal view Post Nicene isn't ECF.
    When I refer to the ECF I usually mean any of the Early Fathers, pre or post Nicene. But technically yes, the Early Church Fathers may refer to those in the 1st two centuries of Church history. My intention, obviously, was to refer to the Church Fathers as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What I was able to find though is this from his homilies on Matthew:


    You can read the Homilie here:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...lation&f=false

    Now here John makes it clear that he believed the AoD was IN the temple, and connects it to an event which occurs AFTER the temple is destroyed.

    So you can claim an ECF speaks of an AoD, but your problem is that his AoD doesn't fit what is required. It doesn't match as you want it to.

    Now why does your link claim that Augustine wrote in Volume 6. P170 the above from Augustine?
    It isn't there. This is a quote which is found in Wikipedia as well.
    Now Augustine does write about a Harmony of the Gospels, and in that he does try to harmonise what is stated between the various versions of the OD. However he notes that they are different and gives a reason which implies he believes they are about the same event.
    What I could not find though is the actual quote given.
    What I did eventually find though is this:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nation&f=false

    Here Augustine writes a letter to someone who he disagrees with and where he is saying that the AoD was the destruction of Jerusalem.
    So though your references are wrong, you have two people, who did connect the AoD to 70 AD.
    I have highlighted why John Chrysostom was wrong in his connection, as though it was indeed an AoD, it was AFTER it was TOO late to flee.
    I don't know that I got references wrong. I just copied out of the link provided. They may be wrong. I probably had the same problem you did. I also looked them up, and had the kind of trouble you seemed to have. I have relatives here from overseas right now, so I can't spend a lot of time researching.

    Let me just say this. My point was only to show that *some* of the Church Fathers in the early years of the Church held to what I also believe. In this particular case I'm referring to the belief that the AoD was the Roman Army. I'm *not* saying here that everything they say about the AoD I agree with. I'm just saying they believed as I do, that the AoD was the Roman Army.

    When you insult me by referring to this as "1st Grade," I just want you to know that I'm not the only one who has made this assumption. It is not "1st Grade." But calling names *is* a "1st Grade" tactic, and I wish not to color our discussion with insults like this. It makes having an honest, Christian discussion much more difficult...and more lengthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Also I clearly disagree with Augustine and find that he provides no better reasoning than your own, that of harmonising the Gospels and so claiming they are the same. he doesn't actually provide any reasoning beyond this as to why he thinks it is the same, nor does he quote anyone earlier or make any claim to earlier knowledge or teaching.

    I know you have, and skimmed through them briefly.
    I saw no value in an in-depth rebuttal, but it seems you require it. So I have done so on the other thread.
    I didn't actually expect you to rebut it, because it is transparent to me that all 21 elements are consistent in each of the 3 synoptic versions. The differences in words used are easily explained. In fact they make understanding the point easier. It makes for a 3D identification of what is being described.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is NOT how I define it that matters, but how scripture defines it.
    Sorry, but your Roman army was NOT in the Holy Place UNTIL as John Chrysostom notes AFTER they took the city.
    I think this is the main issue with you. You see the Abomination standing in the temple literally, as in "within the confines of the temple." And I see the Abomination standing in the holy place as a military posture. Encircling Jerusalem is, for me, a standing in the area encompassing the holy place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You may not be, but you are presenting it as a truth. Anyone presenting such kindergarten rubbish should have this highlighted.
    Anybody who behaves unChristian should also have their behavior exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    According to your argument you can. Which I agree is nonsense.
    As the Romans had forts all over Israel and including IN Jerusalem so your claim that by entering somehow constitutes a defiling is nonsense.
    I've explained my view on this before. It is not merely being an "abomination" that fits the sign. It is being the "abomination that desolates" that meets the description of the sign. Until the abominable Roman Army actually positioned itself to destroy the temple it was merely an "abomination." But once it stood "in the holy place," ie in the area encompassing Jerusalem, it became the "abomination that causes desolation."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Wow! The assuming of a military posture somehow puts you IN a place. A place is NOT a relative standing, it is an ACTUAL standing.
    You aren't even correct though about your relative standing. Still the wrong preposition.
    Yes, standing in the area surrounding the city and the temple is in fact "standing in the holy place." It is simply a different application of the same words you apply to what Antiochus 4 did *within the temple.* But this is not defined, prophetically, as something to happen *within the temple.* If this is to *destroy the temple,* and it was, then it can hardly be expected that a statue would be set up in the temple!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I would apply that epithet to anyone who uses it as you do.
    BH Carroll has the Romans in the Fort which is next to the temple. This is certainly IN the city, and next to the temple, and could be cause for them to be against it.
    Yet the fact is the Romans did this and it was NOT the AoD.
    You see my point is about the usage of IN which is wrong.
    I understand what you argue. But you argue against the possibility that this is to be applied differently, due to the fact this was not about a pagan sacrilege being committed in the temple, but rather, about the destruction of the temple itself!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As I find your link hasn't made correct references it is hard to find myself able to agree with them.

    I see things very flexibly. That doesn't mean that words don't have meaning and durations don't have lengths.
    EITHER "this generation" means those who crucified our Lord OR it means something else.
    I am highlighting that "this generation" does NOT mean those who crucified our Lord THEREFORE it means something else. You are the one who is NOT being flexible, for you are NOT getting this simple fact.

    So now it is the children and NOT the fathers. So Jesus is visiting the sins of the Fathers on the children. I don't think so, or are you still saying this is OT Law being applied in the NT era? This clearly is NOT the "very people" being punished. The children ARE a future generation.
    No, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent. This is a specific generation--the group as a whole that preexisted the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. It is the group that preexisted this judgment that actually received the judgment.

    As I said, I'm not counting adults over 20 at the time Jesus said this. I'm not excluding children, or even people born after Jesus died. I'm referring to the *entire generation* preexisting the 70 AD event. These are they who *deserved* the punishment that took place in 70 AD. Frankly, I don't know how it can be this hard to understand something?

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    When I refer to the ECF I usually mean any of the Early Fathers, pre or post Nicene. But technically yes, the Early Church Fathers may refer to those in the 1st two centuries of Church history. My intention, obviously, was to refer to the Church Fathers as a whole.
    I get that, however it is also important to note that with Augustine we have a shift away from the idea of Jews being part of future prophecy or returning to Israel in large numbers.
    Therefore there is a clear aspect of needing to resolve things in new ways not previously considered. This is why Augustine and Chrysostom look to say this is all done and dusted. Prior to them no one held this view.

    I don't know that I got references wrong. I just copied out of the link provided. They may be wrong. I probably had the same problem you did. I also looked them up, and had the kind of trouble you seemed to have. I have relatives here from overseas right now, so I can't spend a lot of time researching.

    Let me just say this. My point was only to show that *some* of the Church Fathers in the early years of the Church held to what I also believe. In this particular case I'm referring to the belief that the AoD was the Roman Army. I'm *not* saying here that everything they say about the AoD I agree with. I'm just saying they believed as I do, that the AoD was the Roman Army.
    Yet no one for more than 300 years held your view. This should give you serious pause for thought.
    The one ECF has the Roman army setting up the AoD, so they do NOT think the AoD WAS the Roman Army. The other doesn't explain how they see it being fulfilled.
    IOW you don't even have these two supporting your idea. They are simply the closest in that they think Matt 24 happened. Possibly BOTH thought that the AoD refers to the temple built on the site of the destroyed temple. So to simplify NOBODY held the view that you do, that the Roman army was the AoD.

    Further those promoting such a view, whom you have followed their website, don't even have correct references, and are claiming something unsupported by actual evidence.
    This then should also give you serious pause for thought.
    No ECF holding the same view as your own.
    Those who seem to promote the idea of Matt and Luke being the same event in the past don't actually claim the AoD was the Roman army

    When you insult me by referring to this as "1st Grade," I just want you to know that I'm not the only one who has made this assumption. It is not "1st Grade." But calling names *is* a "1st Grade" tactic, and I wish not to color our discussion with insults like this. It makes having an honest, Christian discussion much more difficult...and more lengthy.
    Actually you ARE the ONLY person who claims IN the Holy Place means OUTSIDE the city.
    I am highlighting that this claim is one that a 1st grader might make. However when it is highlighted to you that IN does NOT mean OUTSIDE, instead of recognising this truth you simply try to reason it away, completely unsuccessfully.
    There are other ways of thinking they are the same event without claiming IN and OUT are the same. However every one of those that I have ever seen all have fatal flaws.
    Yours is simply a very sad one.

    I didn't actually expect you to rebut it, because it is transparent to me that all 21 elements are consistent in each of the 3 synoptic versions. The differences in words used are easily explained. In fact they make understanding the point easier. It makes for a 3D identification of what is being described.
    Well, I didn't think there would be much substance, and there wasn't. They are NOT consistent. The differences in words might be possible to explain, IF... The problem is the IF doesn't actually work.

    I think this is the main issue with you. You see the Abomination standing in the temple literally, as in "within the confines of the temple." And I see the Abomination standing in the holy place as a military posture. Encircling Jerusalem is, for me, a standing in the area encompassing the holy place.


    A military posture STILL requires the claim to make sense.
    I highlighted the fallacy in the view, but still you hold to it as if it is rational.



    The military is OUTSIDE the clear area stated, which is IN the holy place. IOW you can ONLY extend the phrase "holy place" to mean places which are determined as fitting the phrase.
    If we have an army in Egypt and in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon, then they encircle Israel, which contains within it Jerusalem, within which is the temple area. So do you claim that this is an AoD?!?!?

    Of course no one would claim that simply because you surround a place you are somehow IN that place.
    So YES this is something which I will disagree with you about and for very clear and simple reasons.
    What is bizarre is your continuing defence of this idea. I really don't get how anyone could claim this and expect anyone to agree.

    No, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent. This is a specific generation--the group as a whole that preexisted the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. It is the group that preexisted this judgment that actually received the judgment.
    As I said, I'm not counting adults over 20 at the time Jesus said this. I'm not excluding children, or even people born after Jesus died. I'm referring to the *entire generation* preexisting the 70 AD event. These are they who *deserved* the punishment that took place in 70 AD. Frankly, I don't know how it can be this hard to understand something?
    So now you make "this generation" mean those who suffered the judgement and NOT those who were involved in crucifying Jesus, and to whom He spoke?
    IOW you CHANGE the meaning of "this generation" from your previously held view, that it is those who He spoke to, to the generation who came after, as that was the generation who died in the judgement.

    This generation, means as Cadyand Zoe also explained to you - this people of Israel. It is not limited to speaking of 70 AD, but of the entire period of time UNTIL ALL these things are fulfilled, just as Jesus said.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I get that, however it is also important to note that with Augustine we have a shift away from the idea of Jews being part of future prophecy or returning to Israel in large numbers.
    Therefore there is a clear aspect of needing to resolve things in new ways not previously considered. This is why Augustine and Chrysostom look to say this is all done and dusted. Prior to them no one held this view.
    You certainly don't know that! You're only referring to those we know about. And I certainly don't claim to be well-read on the Church Fathers. So I just don't know how many references there are to the AoD in the Church Fathers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yet no one for more than 300 years held your view. This should give you serious pause for thought.
    The one ECF has the Roman army setting up the AoD, so they do NOT think the AoD WAS the Roman Army. The other doesn't explain how they see it being fulfilled.
    IOW you don't even have these two supporting your idea. They are simply the closest in that they think Matt 24 happened. Possibly BOTH thought that the AoD refers to the temple built on the site of the destroyed temple. So to simplify NOBODY held the view that you do, that the Roman army was the AoD.
    My point was not that these held *exactly* to my view, but that they came to similar conclusions as I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further those promoting such a view, whom you have followed their website, don't even have correct references, and are claiming something unsupported by actual evidence.
    This then should also give you serious pause for thought.
    No ECF holding the same view as your own.
    Those who seem to promote the idea of Matt and Luke being the same event in the past don't actually claim the AoD was the Roman army
    It was similar enough. I was *not* following this particular website. It was just a website I picked up to make my point, that a couple of the Church Fathers IDed the AoB as the Roman invasion. And quite frankly, I can't say how many of the Church Fathers explained Luke 21, with armies encircling Jerusalem? I think that *has to be* 70 AD. If so, I would think more of them equated this with the AoD, whether I can find references or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually you ARE the ONLY person who claims IN the Holy Place means OUTSIDE the city.
    I am highlighting that this claim is one that a 1st grader might make. However when it is highlighted to you that IN does NOT mean OUTSIDE, instead of recognising this truth you simply try to reason it away, completely unsuccessfully.
    There are other ways of thinking they are the same event without claiming IN and OUT are the same. However every one of those that I have ever seen all have fatal flaws.
    Yours is simply a very sad one.
    Don't be sad. Just try to understand a little harder. I identify the entire region encircling Jerusalem as the "Holy Place." You can't fathom it because you insist on seeing the "Holy Place" as the temple itself.

    But I don't. I believe Jerusalem was also the "Holy Place" because it contained the temple. And I believe the entire region surrounding Jerusalem was also considered the "Holy Place" because it contained Jerusalem. So to be "in the Holy Place" would be to stand *inside* this region, in particular at the walls of the city.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Well, I didn't think there would be much substance, and there wasn't. They are NOT consistent. The differences in words might be possible to explain, IF... The problem is the IF doesn't actually work.
    It clearly works if you don't insist on seeing the "Holy Place" as the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory


    A military posture STILL requires the claim to make sense.
    I highlighted the fallacy in the view, but still you hold to it as if it is rational.



    The military is OUTSIDE the clear area stated, which is IN the holy place. IOW you can ONLY extend the phrase "holy place" to mean places which are determined as fitting the phrase.
    If we have an army in Egypt and in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon, then they encircle Israel, which contains within it Jerusalem, within which is the temple area. So do you claim that this is an AoD?!?!?
    No, it is *context* that determines meaning. The context is a siege against Jerusalem in order to destroy both the city and the temple. A siege does not take place outside the country! To be in the proximity of the temple would require standing in an area that is juxtaposed to the holy city and the temple. So to be in the region immediately surrounding Jerusalem would require being *right next to* the city, and not off in another land.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course no one would claim that simply because you surround a place you are somehow IN that place.
    So YES this is something which I will disagree with you about and for very clear and simple reasons.
    What is bizarre is your continuing defence of this idea. I really don't get how anyone could claim this and expect anyone to agree.
    On the contrary, if you were more flexible-minded, you might see the "Holy Place" as the area surrounding the city and the temple. To be *in* that region is perfectly reasonable language. What is unreasonable to me is your stubborn insistence that the "Holy Place" must *be* the temple, and *must exclude* the region around Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So now you make "this generation" mean those who suffered the judgement and NOT those who were involved in crucifying Jesus, and to whom He spoke?
    IOW you CHANGE the meaning of "this generation" from your previously held view, that it is those who He spoke to, to the generation who came after, as that was the generation who died in the judgement.

    This generation, means as Cadyand Zoe also explained to you - this people of Israel. It is not limited to speaking of 70 AD, but of the entire period of time UNTIL ALL these things are fulfilled, just as Jesus said.
    No, the generation to whom Jesus spoke were those who were rejecting him, including their children. All these were alive in 70 AD. For example, Jesus, had he lived a full life, would've been alive in 70 AD. And if he had had children, they too would've been alive in 70 AD. The entire group of people alive from the time Jesus said this until 70 AD would be the ones *judged* in 70 AD. Your complaints are weird!

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I get that, however it is also important to note that with Augustine we have a shift away from the idea of Jews being part of future prophecy or returning to Israel in large numbers.
    Therefore there is a clear aspect of needing to resolve things in new ways not previously considered. This is why Augustine and Chrysostom look to say this is all done and dusted. Prior to them no one held this view.


    Yet no one for more than 300 years held your view. This should give you serious pause for thought.
    The one ECF has the Roman army setting up the AoD, so they do NOT think the AoD WAS the Roman Army. The other doesn't explain how they see it being fulfilled.
    IOW you don't even have these two supporting your idea. They are simply the closest in that they think Matt 24 happened. Possibly BOTH thought that the AoD refers to the temple built on the site of the destroyed temple. So to simplify NOBODY held the view that you do, that the Roman army was the AoD.

    Further those promoting such a view, whom you have followed their website, don't even have correct references, and are claiming something unsupported by actual evidence.
    This then should also give you serious pause for thought.
    No ECF holding the same view as your own.
    Those who seem to promote the idea of Matt and Luke being the same event in the past don't actually claim the AoD was the Roman army
    I would add to my arguments about this. I only mentioned Augustine and Chrysostom in a brief scan of possible Church Fathers holding to the view that the AoD was the 70 AD event. I think we need to broaden the argument to be not just about a technical definition of the AoD as the "Roman Army," but rather, the stronger argument that the AoD had to be about the 70 AD event, whether the AoD was the Roman Army or some other element in the 70 AD event. I think that specific identification of the AoD should take 2nd place to the more important focus upon the Early Church view of *when* the AoD was fulfilled. We can get lost in the particulars and miss the bigger picture here!

    So, based on what I just read from George Kouri in http://georgekouri.com/the-early-chu...the-jewish-age I might deduce the following. Irenaeus and Hippolytus were the "futurist" interpreters of the AoD in this period of time. This was not, however, the more common view in this time period. Many others appear to have interpreted Daniel's 70th Week Prophecy in the time of Christ's 1st Coming and in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. This would include, if Kouri is correct, Barnabus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. So you might add these names to my earlier reference to Augustine and Chrysostom?

    With all of these important names lining up behind the idea of the AoD happening in 70 AD, at the terminus point of the 70th Week, we should revisit your problem with the phrase, "standing in the holy place." This, in my opinion, is the lesser problem of when the AoD took place. All of these great Church Fathers apparently felt it was reasonable to see the Abomination standing in the Holy Place as some form of the Roman Army desolating Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    Let me then just suggest, once again, that your problem really has to do with your absolute insistence that "standing in the Holy Place" must mean a sacrilegious act within the temple? This is a throwback to Antiochus 4, who actually did commit such a sacrilege.

    But once again let me say that this AoD is different than the one committed by Antiochus 4, who *did not* destroy the temple. This later AoD was specifically said to mean the *destruction* of the temple, in which case such an Abomination would not and could not mean a sacrilege taking place *within* the temple. Who would set up an idolatrous worship in a temple about to be destroyed?

    So this whole argument, for me, turns on your ability to refocus on the meaning of the AoD in non-Antiochus terms, and more in line with the destruction of the temple. In this case, we should redefine the "Holy Place" as the entire region surrounding Jerusalem so that an invading Army, intent upon destroying the city, would actually stand *in* the Holy Place merely by its military posture outside the city gates.

    This would effectively be *in* the Holy Place if the "Holy Place" included the area immediately outside of Jerusalem's walls, as well. It would be technically in the Holy Place by taking its stand *in* the region about Jerusalem.

    Your argument is that being outside of the walls is not being inside of the walls. And my argument is that the "Holy Place" is not just inside the walls, but also in the surrounding, adjacent territory. To be around the city is to be *in* the Holy Place, which includes the area outside of the walls as well.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I would add to my arguments about this. I only mentioned Augustine and Chrysostom in a brief scan of possible Church Fathers holding to the view that the AoD was the 70 AD event. I think we need to broaden the argument to be not just about a technical definition of the AoD as the "Roman Army," but rather, the stronger argument that the AoD had to be about the 70 AD event, whether the AoD was the Roman Army or some other element in the 70 AD event. I think that specific identification of the AoD should take 2nd place to the more important focus upon the Early Church view of *when* the AoD was fulfilled. We can get lost in the particulars and miss the bigger picture here!
    Actually, HOW or WHY they thought the AoD occurred, and their reasoning behind it is of great importance.

    So, based on what I just read from George Kouri in http://georgekouri.com/the-early-chu...the-jewish-age I might deduce the following. Irenaeus and Hippolytus were the "futurist" interpreters of the AoD in this period of time. This was not, however, the more common view in this time period. Many others appear to have interpreted Daniel's 70th Week Prophecy in the time of Christ's 1st Coming and in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. This would include, if Kouri is correct, Barnabus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. So you might add these names to my earlier reference to Augustine and Chrysostom?
    No, I couldn't agree with this, as NONE of these ECFs wrote that the AoD had occurred.
    Further some Amil claim these as sup[porting their view, but when you get into the detail of what is written it is not the case.

    With all of these important names lining up behind the idea of the AoD happening in 70 AD, at the terminus point of the 70th Week, we should revisit your problem with the phrase, "standing in the holy place." This, in my opinion, is the lesser problem of when the AoD took place. All of these great Church Fathers apparently felt it was reasonable to see the Abomination standing in the Holy Place as some form of the Roman Army desolating Jerusalem in 70 AD.
    Boy, that is some twisted logic.
    I call it twisted because NONE of them felt it reasonable to see the Abomination standing in the Holy Place as some form of Roman Army desolating Jerusalem.
    You may argue that they saw Dan 9:26 as speaking of the Roman Army.
    This in fact is what I see it referring to as well. Does that logic somehow make me believe that verse 27 is about the same army?

    Let me then just suggest, once again, that your problem really has to do with your absolute insistence that "standing in the Holy Place" must mean a sacrilegious act within the temple? This is a throwback to Antiochus 4, who actually did commit such a sacrilege.
    I don't have a problem - you do.
    The problem you ave is that YOUR translation of the AoD SPECIFIES it as being in the Temple.
    All other references to AoD has it being in the Temple.
    All references to "the Holy Place" has it as being in the Temple.
    So it is not a problem for me, but for you, as scripturally "the Holy Place" and the place connected with the AoD is the SAME place which is IN the Temple.

    So this whole argument, for me, turns on your ability to refocus on the meaning of the AoD in non-Antiochus terms, and more in line with the destruction of the temple. In this case, we should redefine the "Holy Place" as the entire region surrounding Jerusalem so that an invading Army, intent upon destroying the city, would actually stand *in* the Holy Place merely by its military posture outside the city gates.

    This would effectively be *in* the Holy Place if the "Holy Place" included the area immediately outside of Jerusalem's walls, as well. It would be technically in the Holy Place by taking its stand *in* the region about Jerusalem.

    Your argument is that being outside of the walls is not being inside of the walls. And my argument is that the "Holy Place" is not just inside the walls, but also in the surrounding, adjacent territory. To be around the city is to be *in* the Holy Place, which includes the area outside of the walls as well.
    I have highlighted what a NONSENSE being an Army OUTSIDE the city is.
    As long as you continue to hold to the NONSENSE of being OUTSIDE is somehow IN the Holy Place, then there is nothing further to be said.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    7,519

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually, HOW or WHY they thought the AoD occurred, and their reasoning behind it is of great importance.
    The danger of being a "details" person, as you seem to be, is that your judgment can be clouded by too many issues. You cannot "see the forest for the trees!" My brother is like this, and he is very smart. But sometimes he gets tied up in the smallest of details, and then loses the big picture. You seem to be like that?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, I couldn't agree with this, as NONE of these ECFs wrote that the AoD had occurred.
    Further some Amil claim these as sup[porting their view, but when you get into the detail of what is written it is not the case.
    I have no interest in confusing the issue by extending the argument into Amil vs Premil! The point is, if these Church Fathers referred, specifically, to Daniel's 70th Week being fulfilled in the actual generation of Christ, ie in the 70 AD event, then you will have to admit that they also saw the AoD fulfilled in the same event, in the Roman desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD! After all, the 70th Week of Daniel is all about the AoD. If these Church Fathers saw the 70th Week fulfilled in 70 AD, then they also saw the AoD fulfilled in 70 AD!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Boy, that is some twisted logic.
    I call it twisted because NONE of them felt it reasonable to see the Abomination standing in the Holy Place as some form of Roman Army desolating Jerusalem.
    You may argue that they saw Dan 9:26 as speaking of the Roman Army.
    This in fact is what I see it referring to as well. Does that logic somehow make me believe that verse 27 is about the same army?
    If I'm twisted you're myopic! The 70th Week Prophecy ends with the Abomination of Desolation! And if the Church Fathers saw the 70th Week Prophecy ending with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then they also saw the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the Abomination of Desolation!

    You call this "twisted logic?" I shake my head that you can be so biased that you are unable to do anything more than insult. Why not actually make an honest effort to understand what I'm saying, without the hostility?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I don't have a problem - you do.
    The problem you ave is that YOUR translation of the AoD SPECIFIES it as being in the Temple.
    All other references to AoD has it being in the Temple.
    All references to "the Holy Place" has it as being in the Temple.
    So it is not a problem for me, but for you, as scripturally "the Holy Place" and the place connected with the AoD is the SAME place which is IN the Temple.
    I have answered this already! The Abomination does in fact come against the temple. But *standing in the Holy Place* does not take place *inside* the temple! Standing in the Holy Place, rather, takes place outside the walls of Jerusalem, besieging the city and preparing to destroy the temple. There is *nothing* in this about committing sacrilege *inside* the temple!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have highlighted what a NONSENSE being an Army OUTSIDE the city is.
    As long as you continue to hold to the NONSENSE of being OUTSIDE is somehow IN the Holy Place, then there is nothing further to be said.
    Absolutely there is nothing more to be said. I've made my point in rebuttal, and you refuse to acknowledge it. The parameters of your own argument are of your own making, irrespective of the fact that there is another pov being expressed here. I'll leave you with my perspective--not your exclusive vision of how arguments are to be made.

    1) The Abomination was the Roman Army standing in the region of the city and the temple. The entire region immediately adjacent to the city was the "Holy Place." Standing there presented the Jews with pagan competition to their holy God, as they saw Him associated with the temple in Jerusalem.

    2) The Abomination is portrayed as coming against the temple to destroy both the city and the temple. The Abomination is therefore a military exercise, and not an act of sacrilege within the temple. As such, the Roman Army besieged the city from *outside of* the gates of Jerusalem, and yet still within the region we might call "the Holy Place."

    3) The Church Fathers saw the 70th Week, which included the AoD, as fulfilled in the death of Christ and in the destruction of Jerusalem's temple in 70 AD. This was the majority view, apparently. And this view affords the luxury of seeing Luke's version of an encircling Roman Army line up with the AoD mentioned in Matthew and Mark. That is, they are in this case in agreement with one another. And this makes sense, since it is the *same Discourse* in all 3 versions!

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,050
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    St. Augustine and Chrysostom are two ECFs who held to my position.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_desolation
    St. Aurelius Augustine (379) states, "For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)

    John Chrysostom understood this to refer to the armies that surrounded Jerusalem and the factions fighting within it which preceded the destruction of the city.
    Neither St. Augustine nor Chrysostom claimed that their exposition on the AoD was infallible. You erred in the assumption that since it was propagated by Christians hundreds of years before us, it must be true, but it's not. How many theories and doctrines by early Christians formerly held as true has now been found to be incorrect?

    Perhaps, as we approach the end times, God is giving our generation more discernment to understand eschatology than before. The AoD did not occur in 66AD -70AD. This is the truth.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,120
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What exactly was/is/or will be the Abomination of Desolation

    [QUOTE=randyk;3427683]The danger of being a "details" person, as you seem to be, is that your judgment can be clouded by too many issues. You cannot "see the forest for the trees!" My brother is like this, and he is very smart. But sometimes he gets tied up in the smallest of details, and then loses the big picture. You seem to be like that?[/QOTE]
    It is a problem to be aware of, however others face the opposite problem and can ONLY see the forest and are unaware of the trees or their role.
    When we are getting INTO what is meant in prophecy we should ALWAYS start with the trees and branch out into the Forest.
    If we try to explain the Forest without noting the trees then we will describe any kind of Forest, but not the right one.

    I have no interest in confusing the issue by extending the argument into Amil vs Premil! The point is, if these Church Fathers referred, specifically, to Daniel's 70th Week being fulfilled in the actual generation of Christ, ie in the 70 AD event, then you will have to admit that they also saw the AoD fulfilled in the same event, in the Roman desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD! After all, the 70th Week of Daniel is all about the AoD. If these Church Fathers saw the 70th Week fulfilled in 70 AD, then they also saw the AoD fulfilled in 70 AD!
    Actually, no they did NOT.
    Get references and look up what they actually said in the CONTEXT when they said it.
    Further IF they said that the 70 weeks are up, it does NOT mean that they saw the Roman armies in connection with verse 27, but could be connecting it to verse 26, which is what I recall of what I read.
    So no, I disagree with your reasoning. It isn't solid.

    If I'm twisted you're myopic! The 70th Week Prophecy ends with the Abomination of Desolation! And if the Church Fathers saw the 70th Week Prophecy ending with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then they also saw the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the Abomination of Desolation!
    I didn't say you were twisted, I said your logic is twisted.
    If the 70th week ends with the AoD, then 70 AD MUST BE the end of the 70th week. Yet you are NOT saying that. Your OWN logic trips you up.
    I am not actually being myopic at all. I do see a bigger picture, but my BIG picture is made up of lots of small pictures fitting together correctly to form a wonderful mosaic.

    You call this "twisted logic?" I shake my head that you can be so biased that you are unable to do anything more than insult. Why not actually make an honest effort to understand what I'm saying, without the hostility?
    I do understand what you are saying. I am saying the logic you are employing is twisted. It doesn't actually work.
    If you have read Terry Pratchett he loved to do this sort of thing. I enjoy it too, but it helps to recognise when you are doing it:
    Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass

    By this correct sequence of equivalents you come to the realisation that knowledge equals mass. Yet this is of course absurd.

    The Greeks had a major problem when trying to work out how anyone could hit a moving target. After all though your arrow would move closer, the object would also move a small amount and so you would never hit. Logically they were sound, but practically they knew they had a problem.

    I have answered this already! The Abomination does in fact come against the temple. But *standing in the Holy Place* does not take place *inside* the temple! Standing in the Holy Place, rather, takes place outside the walls of Jerusalem, besieging the city and preparing to destroy the temple. There is *nothing* in this about committing sacrilege *inside* the temple!
    Sorry, but the statement is not "when you see the abomination coming against the holy place..."
    Standing IN the Holy Place means "standing IN the Holy Place". It does NOT mean moving, it does NOT mean at some future time. It is IN the oly Place.

    Absolutely there is nothing more to be said. I've made my point in rebuttal, and you refuse to acknowledge it. The parameters of your own argument are of your own making, irrespective of the fact that there is another pov being expressed here. I'll leave you with my perspective--not your exclusive vision of how arguments are to be made.
    You have not made a serious rebuttal.
    I acknowledge you have attempted to, but your argument is one that a 1st grader would see is lacking, and so it astounds me you even seriously try to suggest it.

    1) The Abomination was the Roman Army standing in the region of the city and the temple. The entire region immediately adjacent to the city was the "Holy Place." Standing there presented the Jews with pagan competition to their holy God, as they saw Him associated with the temple in Jerusalem.
    Nope, the entire region was NOT the Holy Place.

    2) The Abomination is portrayed as coming against the temple to destroy both the city and the temple. The Abomination is therefore a military exercise, and not an act of sacrilege within the temple. As such, the Roman Army besieged the city from *outside of* the gates of Jerusalem, and yet still within the region we might call "the Holy Place."
    The Abomination is NOT a military exercise. Please stick to the language Jesus used. We CANNOT call being in Israel as "standing IN the holy Place"

    3) The Church Fathers saw the 70th Week, which included the AoD, as fulfilled in the death of Christ and in the destruction of Jerusalem's temple in 70 AD. This was the majority view, apparently. And this view affords the luxury of seeing Luke's version of an encircling Roman Army line up with the AoD mentioned in Matthew and Mark. That is, they are in this case in agreement with one another. And this makes sense, since it is the *same Discourse* in all 3 versions!
    Some Church Fathers may have seen the 70th week as fulfilled in the death of Christ. However NONE of them connected it with the AoD of Matt 24, nor of any AoD in Dan 9:27 - no NIV in those days.
    This was also NOT the majority view.
    On BOTH levels it does NOT afford what you are claiming.

    Please check your references and understand what they actually said and don't rely on 2nd hand claims.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •