Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 170

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

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    2,826

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    I don't understand how they conflict with what I said.

    The "tents of Judah" represent those in the lower social classes, and those who are not in leadership positions. Here God is saying that when the time comes to deliver the people, God will start with the lower class so as to avoid the appearance of favoritism or partiality. Remember, Jesus said the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

    This is because at the time there will be no one alive anywhere else in Israel. Everyone who did not come to Jerusalem to pray for deliverance will be killed by the locusts or the fires or the armies.
    Because you claim that the first place Jesus Lands is The MT. Olivite, but Those two chapters in Isaiah (among others) Suggest the Lord Decends from Heaven unto "Edom" and in Isaiah 63 it specifically says he Come from "Edom". Also i don't believe the "Tents of Judah" refer to social classes especially how a similar term is used in Zech 12:2.

    Notice the Contast.

    The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah.

    So we Know what Jerusalem is but who is Judah?

    Once more i guess i'm trying to figure out how post-tribbers understand the second coming (and the events that occur during this initial coming), I know Amils decribe it as "Climatatic" but to me it seems like for them time stops at this moment and nothing else in the bible matters.

    But you seem to be well versed in your position.

    I'm just trying to understand how certain passages figure into your overall view based on what you outlined from Zech 14.

    But i'm sticking to Zech 12 and Isaiah for now.

    So in Zech 12 mentions the clan Judah spefically in verse 2-7,

    Verse 12-14 then goes on to mention other Specific families.

    So idk what you mean by the term tents of Judah refers to : those in the lower social classes.

    But maybe i'm wrong

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,981
    Blog Entries
    34

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
    Because you claim that the first place Jesus Lands is The MT. Olivite, but Those two chapters in Isaiah (among others) Suggest the Lord Decends from Heaven unto "Edom" and in Isaiah 63 it specifically says he Come from "Edom".
    I looked again and didn't find references to a decent from Heaven in the passages you mentioned.

    In general, I am sensitive to the fact that when the prophets speak about God coming down from heaven, they aren't speaking literally about his translation from one location to another. Speech that employs locative grammar with respect to God is typically figurative language indicating the source of authority.

    Also i don't believe the "Tents of Judah" refer to social classes especially how a similar term is used in Zech 12:2.

    Notice the Contast.

    The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah.

    So we Know what Jerusalem is but who is Judah?
    In my view, the contrast is between the country "Judah" and her capital city "Jerusalem." Typically, the capital city is the seat of government where those who lead the people are located and perform the business of government. This was David's home and the place where he ruled his people. So then, when Zechariah says, "the siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah" he means, "the siege against the government will also be against the people they rule.

    Once more i guess i'm trying to figure out how post-tribbers understand the second coming (and the events that occur during this initial coming), I know Amils decribe it as "Climatatic" but to me it seems like for them time stops at this moment and nothing else in the bible matters.
    I don't believe in a climatic coming as many understand that position. I believe the future will unfold just as the past and present has: a symphony of cross connected stories running simultaneously in support of a mega-narrative culminating in the inauguration of Jesus as king over a kingdom of righteousness, goodness, and truth, including but not limited to a restored Israel.

    So idk what you mean by the term tents of Judah refers to : those in the lower social classes.
    It appears that the term "tent" is used figuratively in the prophets to indicate a man and his family. The "tent" of David, for instance, is David and his family pictured as all living in one "tent." The Feast of Tabernacles (tents), for instance, involves a gathering of the people to Jerusalem whereby each family pitches a tent next to his neighbor and they feast together. The prophets declare that God himself will one day pitch his tent and dwell among the people. We know Jesus will fulfill this prophecy.

    The "tents of Judah" seem to be an expression indicating all the families of Judah, but by comparison to Jerusalem the capital city, the comparison is between the common people and the leaders of the people. (By "common" I don't mean "lack of refinement.")

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,458
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    I apologize. Apparently I wasn't clear, and I regret that. So let me start again.

    Zechariah 14:
    1.Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!

    Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you.
    As is typical of prophecy, the prophet indicates the final outcome of events before he describes the situation that will become the cause of the final circumstances described here. After the city is ravished; after the coming war; after the coming of Jesus; after Jesus takes his place as king; then the spoil taken from Israel will be divided among them.

    For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle . . .
    This is not Armageddon. This war takes place before Jesus returns.
    My understanding is that the "nations" is the Antichrist's army. The AC is only enemy capable of mustering an army whose soldiers will traverse the earth. It is possible to assume the Arabs will be the nations, but with American influence, I don't see this possibility. This attack of nations against Israel will come at a time when America is no longer able to flex its muscles and that will only be at the time of the Beast.

    We often talk about the Jews fleeing to safety in the desert, but we forget that many will choose to remain in Jerusalem. The AC's army will prevail over these lot. I agree that the war will take place before Jesus returns, to be precise, it will occur 3.5 years to the day Messiah returns.

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled
    This situation is parallel with Zephaniah's prophecy that the city of Jerusalem will be purged of evil doers. God will use these nations to purge Jerusalem of those who do not fear the Lord. But while the nations that attack Jerusalem intend to wipe out all the Jews, God has set his mark on 144,000 who will survive. The nations will plunder Jerusalem and capture many prisoners, but God will protect some of them.

    but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city.
    Unlike the events surrounding 70AD, "the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city." This means that some people living in Jerusalem will survive these attacks. Not everyone will be taken captive into exile again. They will not be cut off from the city. Her enemies are not able to kill and capture all of them. Someof them will remain in the city as survivors.

    Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.
    This is Armageddon. Verse 3 indicates that the Lord will do battle with these nations. He physically comes to earth to defeat the enemies of God, subdue the nations, and lead them with a rod of iron. Verses 4 and 5 are not new events. They are reiterations of verse 3, adding more details. When Jesus returns to the earth to do battle with his enemies, his first stop is Mount Olivet. His feet touch the earth and the mountain splits into two parts, forming a valley. And the survivors living in Jerusalem come out to meet him there, escaping Jerusalem through this new valley.


    In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east
    This is not a new event; this is the very first moment the Lord physically returns to the earth. The actual battle of Armageddon will start momentarily after this.

    and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
    God creates a way for the survivors to exit the city.

    You will flee by the valley of My mountains
    The survivors living in Jerusalem, the holy ones, will escape Jerusalem through this valley to meet Jesus on Mount Olivet.

    Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!
    Then, meaning, "In this way . . .", or "in that manner . . .", which is a summary of the previous statements concerning the deliverance of the people and the coming of Jesus when he physically returns to the earth.

    The Jews don't go to the gathering place DURING the 3.5 years, they go to the gathering at the END of the 3.5 years. The opening lines of Revelation 11 describe the holy ones all gathered in Jerusalem. They remain in Jerusalem, and as Zechariah says, "the rest of the people are not cut off from the city." Logically then, we understand that they are NOT on Mount Olivet for 3.5 years, they are in Jerusalem for 3.5 years. They don't travel to Mount Olivet until Jesus sets his feet on that place. THEN they go out to meet him there. But obviously he doesn't stay there. He has a war to fight, and it just so happens that the war will take place to the northwest of Jerusalem, in the valley of Megiddo, which is prophetically and ironically called "Har-Megiddo." The literally Valley is pictured as a mountain because the AntiChrist will have his base of operations there, (symbolically his "mountain") and this is where Jesus will war with him.

    Hopefully I have answered your questions.
    You asserted that the Jews will see Jesus face to face 3.5 years earlier, I'm glad you seem to have corrected that assumption. But if the Jews don't go to the gathering place DURING the 3.5 years, but at the END of it, then explain these passages:

    Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
    Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.


    Both speak of the same timeline that Israel will be in protective haven.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,981
    Blog Entries
    34

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    My understanding is that the "nations" is the Antichrist's army. The AC is only enemy capable of mustering an army whose soldiers will traverse the earth. It is possible to assume the Arabs will be the nations, but with American influence, I don't see this possibility. This attack of nations against Israel will come at a time when America is no longer able to flex its muscles and that will only be at the time of the Beast.
    Don't leave out the possibility that Armageddon will involve only those nations that surround Israel, and not the entire world. And I wouldn't leave out the possibility that the beast will not be a one-world government.

    You asserted that the Jews will see Jesus face to face 3.5 years earlier, I'm glad you seem to have corrected that assumption. But if the Jews don't go to the gathering place DURING the 3.5 years, but at the END of it, then explain these passages:

    Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
    Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
    I think these passages were fulfilled in the first century. If I am right, the time references are symbolic and not literal.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,458
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    Don't leave out the possibility that Armageddon will involve only those nations that surround Israel, and not the entire world. And I wouldn't leave out the possibility that the beast will not be a one-world government.
    The Beast will be a potentate, only answerable to Satan. The ten kings will be subordinate to him. And I believe he will draw his army from around the world, not just the Arab nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    I think these passages were fulfilled in the first century. If I am right, the time references are symbolic and not literal.
    Care to expatiate?

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    5,458
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
    Because you claim that the first place Jesus Lands is The MT. Olivite, but Those two chapters in Isaiah (among others) Suggest the Lord Decends from Heaven unto "Edom" and in Isaiah 63 it specifically says he Come from "Edom". Also i don't believe the "Tents of Judah" refer to social classes especially how a similar term is used in Zech 12:2.

    Notice the Contast.

    The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah.

    So we Know what Jerusalem is but who is Judah?

    Once more i guess i'm trying to figure out how post-tribbers understand the second coming (and the events that occur during this initial coming), I know Amils decribe it as "Climatatic" but to me it seems like for them time stops at this moment and nothing else in the bible matters.

    But you seem to be well versed in your position.

    I'm just trying to understand how certain passages figure into your overall view based on what you outlined from Zech 14.

    But i'm sticking to Zech 12 and Isaiah for now.

    So in Zech 12 mentions the clan Judah spefically in verse 2-7,

    Verse 12-14 then goes on to mention other Specific families.

    So idk what you mean by the term tents of Judah refers to : those in the lower social classes.

    But maybe i'm wrong
    I will speculate that "the tents of Judah" who are saved separately are Messianic Jews.

    You may probably disagree with me, JLU. But physical Edom has long been destroyed as prophesied. It doesn't exist anymore; Jesus won't destroy what he has already destroyed. So in the eschatology, I see Edom as symbolic of God's enemies just as Babylon in Revelation denotes either God's enemies or what he detests (witchcraft, idolatry etc.).

  7. #142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    I am asking this question because there are some that believe that the Abomination of Desolation has already occurred at least once or twice in history. I would like to see that actual (specific) item or event or action you believe was or will be the actual Desecration of the Holy Place. I will quote each place in scripture where the desolation of the holy place seems to occur below. Please comment on each event (as some believe they are different events.)


    Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. 12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

    Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

    Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

    Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

    Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

    (Luke 21 is implied... but comment away...)


    Please let me know if you believe there is another scripture that belong.
    As is in evidence by your scriptures:

    From the time of the daily sacrifice is taken away (586 BC) to the time of the Abomination Of The Desolation (AOD) is set up is 1290 days. Except that when one looks there is nothing that happened during that time period. So, I go to years instead of days, which brings us to 705 AD which happens to be the year that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was completed.

    So, I have concluded that the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is the AOD.

    However, the "Dome Of The Rock" was, also, completed around the same time

    Due to the rules about date setting, I will refrain from going further.
    JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
    JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    I am asking this question because there are some that believe that the Abomination of Desolation has already occurred at least once or twice in history. I would like to see that actual (specific) item or event or action you believe was or will be the actual Desecration of the Holy Place. I will quote each place in scripture where the desolation of the holy place seems to occur below. Please comment on each event (as some believe they are different events.)


    Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. 12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

    Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

    Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

    Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

    Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

    (Luke 21 is implied... but comment away...)


    Please let me know if you believe there is another scripture that belong.
    Dan 8 and 11 is Antiochus 4. And Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) is the Roman Army. One was sacrilegious committed in the temple, along with the murder of many Jews. And the other was an act of destroying both Jerusalem and the temple, also accompanied by the murder of many Jews. These things were historically fulfilled, and are not future.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    946
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    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.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,164

    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.
    Yes, some people believe that Antichrist himself will be an AoD. I don't see that. I see not just one, but two, AoDs in the Scriptures. Dan 8 and 11 talk about the AoD of Antiochus 4, fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. This was a terribly significant event, showing God's continued support of Israel even in their diminished position.

    And in Dan 9 and in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) you see a different AoD, which I believe can only be the Roman Army invading Jerusalem 66-70 AD, and again in 135 AD. Many Christians and prophecy enthusiasts *want to believe* the Abomination of Desolation is the Antichrist. But he just doesn't fit into the context of the Olivet Discourse.

    Luke's version in ch. 21 makes it very plain that this is talking about a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem in the very days of those who crucified Christ. There is plenty of info on Antichrist elsewhere--we don't need to find him under every stone!

  11. #146

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

    One Word...

    Transhumanism.


  12. #147
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,227
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, some people believe that Antichrist himself will be an AoD. I don't see that. I see not just one, but two, AoDs in the Scriptures. Dan 8 and 11 talk about the AoD of Antiochus 4, fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. This was a terribly significant event, showing God's continued support of Israel even in their diminished position.

    And in Dan 9 and in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) you see a different AoD, which I believe can only be the Roman Army invading Jerusalem 66-70 AD, and again in 135 AD. Many Christians and prophecy enthusiasts *want to believe* the Abomination of Desolation is the Antichrist. But he just doesn't fit into the context of the Olivet Discourse.

    Luke's version in ch. 21 makes it very plain that this is talking about a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem in the very days of those who crucified Christ. There is plenty of info on Antichrist elsewhere--we don't need to find him under every stone!
    What is confusing is that you don't see that.
    We are given an example of what REALLY happened. An actual AoD. We know in detail what the phrase AoD means, yet when Jesus speaks of a future AoD, harking back to the previous one, yet you refuse to agree that Jesus means it will be like that which happened before. The ONLY reason I can think why you refuse this simple and logical connection is because it then doesn't fit your more fundamental views of things.
    Luke 21 does NOT connect the AoD with a Roman army. This is a connection which YOU make, but which Luke does NOT.

    Now Matt 24 makes NO mention of a Roman army. As the AC does fit 100% into the OD because the OD is NOT all about 66 - 70 AD at all.
    The OD spans the time from Jesus departure to the time of His return.
    Everything in the OD does NOT fit into a 40 year period. Yet Jesus said ALL these things ,(He spoke about in the OD), would occur, which includes His return.
    Anyone claiming the OD was ALL fulfilled is wrong - that is Preterism.
    Anyone who says that Jesus' statement "All these things" wasn't about the whole OD is playing with words and their meanings.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    What is confusing is that you don't see that.
    We are given an example of what REALLY happened. An actual AoD. We know in detail what the phrase AoD means, yet when Jesus speaks of a future AoD, harking back to the previous one, yet you refuse to agree that Jesus means it will be like that which happened before. The ONLY reason I can think why you refuse this simple and logical connection is because it then doesn't fit your more fundamental views of things.
    Luke 21 does NOT connect the AoD with a Roman army. This is a connection which YOU make, but which Luke does NOT.
    The connection is very clear to me. And I've shown you already how I arrived at that. I lined up 21 elements, take or leave some of them, and showed you that Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17, 21 all say the exact same things. Luke is a little out of order in ch. 17 and ch. 21, due to the fact Luke chose to deal with a couple of issues separately.

    The point is, they are all one Discourse. Indisputable. What is illogical is your trying to find the AoD in one version try *not* to be the Roman Army in another version! The AoD and the Roman Army occur in the *same place* in each version!

    This is a positive connection. No, Luke does not call the Roman Army the AoD. He doesn't have to. He assumes it is already known from the reference Jesus made back to Dan 9, where the Roman Army destroys the "city and the sanctuary."

    In other words, Luke *knew* the Roman Army would be the "abomination" that "desolates" Jerusalem and the temple. And Jesus clearly said it would be against "this generation," assumedly because that generation would crucify him, and persecute his followers.

    No, I'm not being stubborn and connecting something illogically! But let me tell you again what *you're* doing! You're connecting the AoD of Antiochus 4 with the AoD of the Roman Army--two very different AoDs!

    Don't get me wrong. I think they were meant to be compared because they were given similar designations. But you are too ultra-literal in comparing their elements in common. You see the desecration of a pig offering in the temple as an indication the Roman Army would also have to be, if it is the AoD, in the temple as an offering made to Jupiter!

    This is not what the common elements were meant to be! One was a desecration of the temple. The other was a military invasion, a destruction of the temple. Both were "abominations" because both were pagan armies. But Antiochus only desecrated the temple. The Roman Army destroyed the temple!

    To desecrate a temple you have to offer a sacrilegious offering *within* the temple. But to destroy a temple you only have to assume a stand in order to completely *displace* the temple. The Roman Army did that when they took their stand *in* the region of Jerusalem, the "Holy Place."

    Instead of seeing the AoD that destroys the temple as a "sacrilege in the temple," why not see it as Dan 9 portrays it, as a complete *destruction* of the temple? If so, then you will stop trying to resolve the language as if this was the AoD of Antiochus 4!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now Matt 24 makes NO mention of a Roman army. As the AC does fit 100% into the OD because the OD is NOT all about 66 - 70 AD at all.
    The OD spans the time from Jesus departure to the time of His return.
    Everything in the OD does NOT fit into a 40 year period. Yet Jesus said ALL these things ,(He spoke about in the OD), would occur, which includes His return.
    Anyone claiming the OD was ALL fulfilled is wrong - that is Preterism.
    Anyone who says that Jesus' statement "All these things" wasn't about the whole OD is playing with words and their meanings.
    Back to the name-calling, huh? That pretty much determines that you have lost the argument! When someone caves to name calling and personal insults, it shows they can no longer rely on divine revelation. True revelation from God produces brotherly love--not insults!

    My points are clear. Jesus said the judgment in "this generation" would be against those who would crucify him and persecute his followers. It was an "imminent judgment." He called for his disciples to remain "on guard," or "watchful." He told his disciples to "escape" when they saw these things. He said the temple would be demolished, which we *know* was in his own generation.

    I'm not a Preterist because I don't believe anything but the "beginning of birth pains" was fulfilled in Jesus' generation. The fall of the temple, and the fall of Jerusalem, was but the "beginning" of sorrows. This event just initiated the dispersion of the Jews, or what was called the "great distress," which would last all through the age, until the coming of Christ.

    I believe in the last days, the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign, as given in the book of Revelation. I am *not* a Preterist. A number of Church Fathers believed that the Roman Army was in fact the AoD, and they were not Preterists! You may *want* to call them Preterists, because you want to call anybody a "Preterist" who believes that what Luke said in ch. 21 was literally fulfilled in history, in 70 AD. And it was.

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,227
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The connection is very clear to me. And I've shown you already how I arrived at that. I lined up 21 elements, take or leave some of them, and showed you that Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17, 21 all say the exact same things. Luke is a little out of order in ch. 17 and ch. 21, due to the fact Luke chose to deal with a couple of issues separately.
    I know you see a connection and have explained it. And? I also see a connection. And?

    The point is, they are all one Discourse. Indisputable. What is illogical is your trying to find the AoD in one version try *not* to be the Roman Army in another version! The AoD and the Roman Army occur in the *same place* in each version!
    I agree it is one Discourse. I don't dispute that. What is in dispute, and which you seem unable to deal with is that WITHIN one Discourse Jesus could speak about MORE THAN ONE event.
    I am not trying to find that the AoD is not the Roman army. I am simply noting the FACT that the AoD is NOT the Roman army. I deal with the FACTS from the very Discourse we are reading.
    The Roman army does NOT appear at Jerusalem at the same time as the AoD, nor in the same location.
    You connect them because BOTH are connected to Jerusalem and events which will occur there.
    Those events though aren't even about the same people.

    This is a positive connection. No, Luke does not call the Roman Army the AoD. He doesn't have to. He assumes it is already known from the reference Jesus made back to Dan 9, where the Roman Army destroys the "city and the sanctuary."
    Wrong. You are making a connection which Luke couldn't have known - or are you claiming that Luke was written AFTER 70 AD?
    No one connected Dan 9 to a Roman Army destroying the "city and sanctuary".
    This is a connection made by people long after the event in question. Luke would have to be prophesying to make the connection.

    In other words, Luke *knew* the Roman Army would be the "abomination" that "desolates" Jerusalem and the temple. And Jesus clearly said it would be against "this generation," assumedly because that generation would crucify him, and persecute his followers.
    How would Luke KNOW this? Sorry, but Luke would NOT know this.
    Anyone hearing what Jesus said in Matt 24, would connect with A4E immediately, because this is HOW the AoD occurred.
    Now it is possible that Luke might consider that the Romans might play the role the Greeks played 200 years earlier. However Luke would NOT know this. Further Luke would NOT know that the Roman army would surround the city and then retreat. Additionally Luke (if making connection to Dan 9) would then be looking for
    an individual like A4E who would cause the AoD to be set up. Yet that NEVER happened.
    So you are building your claims on things which were NOT known and NOT knowable without a revelation of God.

    No, I'm not being stubborn and connecting something illogically! But let me tell you again what *you're* doing! You're connecting the AoD of Antiochus 4 with the AoD of the Roman Army--two very different AoDs!
    Of course one AoD is NOT the same as another. However we would expect them to be SIMILAR especially when Jesus makes a connection between them.

    Don't get me wrong. I think they were meant to be compared because they were given similar designations. But you are too ultra-literal in comparing their elements in common. You see the desecration of a pig offering in the temple as an indication the Roman Army would also have to be, if it is the AoD, in the temple as an offering made to Jupiter!
    I have no been ultra-literal. I am simply applying the words Jesus said. It is NOT ultra-literal to say IN means in. That is simply how language is used.

    This is not what the common elements were meant to be! One was a desecration of the temple. The other was a military invasion, a destruction of the temple. Both were "abominations" because both were pagan armies. But Antiochus only desecrated the temple. The Roman Army destroyed the temple!
    Actually for it to be an abomination it REQUIRES some form of desecration of the temple.
    A simple military invasion means desolation, not abomination.
    A4E was also a military invasion, but that invasion was not an abomination. It was the desecration in the temple which is why it was an AoD.
    A4E killed thousands and caused people to worship other than God in the temple of God.
    Destroying a temple is NOT AoD, but simply D!
    Matt 23 speaks of this same Desolation.

    To desecrate a temple you have to offer a sacrilegious offering *within* the temple. But to destroy a temple you only have to assume a stand in order to completely *displace* the temple. The Roman Army did that when they took their stand *in* the region of Jerusalem, the "Holy Place."
    Actually to destroy a temple, you need to go INTO it and pull it down. The Roman Army did this, but at that time it was already a year to late to flee.
    Being OUTSIDE Jerusalem is NOT being IN the Holy Place.

    Instead of seeing the AoD that destroys the temple as a "sacrilege in the temple," why not see it as Dan 9 portrays it, as a complete *destruction* of the temple? If so, then you will stop trying to resolve the language as if this was the AoD of Antiochus 4!
    Dan 9 has the Abomination in connection with the temple. This we read in verse 27. Verse 26 speaks of the Destruction of the city and sanctuary which does NOT mean abomination.
    Two different words with different meanings, which are also NOT synonyms though they may be used together.
    I see it EXACTLY as Daniel portrays it.

    Back to the name-calling, huh? That pretty much determines that you have lost the argument! When someone caves to name calling and personal insults, it shows they can no longer rely on divine revelation. True revelation from God produces brotherly love--not insults!
    To highlight that a particular view is Preterism is NOT name calling, but simply stating what a view is. If you hold a preterist view then that is what you are doing.
    However you don't claim everything was fulfilled from the OD, therefore you aren't a Preterist, therefore I wasn't calling you by that name.

    My points are clear. Jesus said the judgment in "this generation" would be against those who would crucify him and persecute his followers. It was an "imminent judgment." He called for his disciples to remain "on guard," or "watchful." He told his disciples to "escape" when they saw these things. He said the temple would be demolished, which we *know* was in his own generation.
    Actually Jesus generation all died BEFORE the temple was destroyed.
    Those who heard what Jesus said were gone beforehand.
    You take the number 40 and miss that the 40 years was to ensure that everyone is dead by the end of it. So IF you have Jesus being crucified at Passover 30 AD (which YOUR view of Daniel's 70 weeks demands), then by the Passover of 70 AD, the ENTIRE generation (when thinking of 40 years, as in the wilderness) was gone.
    So the connection you claim is OUTSIDE of the time limit. A point often missed by people who follow Preterist ideas.
    The Romans didn't launch their attack on Jerusalem until AFTER Passover 70 AD.

    I'm not a Preterist because I don't believe anything but the "beginning of birth pains" was fulfilled in Jesus' generation. The fall of the temple, and the fall of Jerusalem, was but the "beginning" of sorrows. This event just initiated the dispersion of the Jews, or what was called the "great distress," which would last all through the age, until the coming of Christ.
    I have highlighted above that the destruction of the city and temple occurred AFTER Jesus' generation was dead (if we use a 40 year rule for a generation.)
    So you are wrong about that as well.

    I believe in the last days, the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign, as given in the book of Revelation. I am *not* a Preterist. A number of Church Fathers believed that the Roman Army was in fact the AoD, and they were not Preterists! You may *want* to call them Preterists, because you want to call anybody a "Preterist" who believes that what Luke said in ch. 21 was literally fulfilled in history, in 70 AD. And it was.
    I didn't say you were a Preterist, however your usage of "this generation" is how a Preterist uses it.
    Please provide evidence of where a single ECF said the Roman Army was the AoD.
    You will find connections to what Luke said in chapter 21, but it is YOU who says that Luke 21's armies is the same as the AoD.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,164

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I know you see a connection and have explained it. And? I also see a connection. And?

    I agree it is one Discourse. I don't dispute that. What is in dispute, and which you seem unable to deal with is that WITHIN one Discourse Jesus could speak about MORE THAN ONE event.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am not trying to find that the AoD is not the Roman army. I am simply noting the FACT that the AoD is NOT the Roman army. I deal with the FACTS from the very Discourse we are reading.
    The Roman army does NOT appear at Jerusalem at the same time as the AoD, nor in the same location.
    You connect them because BOTH are connected to Jerusalem and events which will occur there.
    Those events though aren't even about the same people.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Wrong. You are making a connection which Luke couldn't have known - or are you claiming that Luke was written AFTER 70 AD?
    No one connected Dan 9 to a Roman Army destroying the "city and sanctuary".
    This is a connection made by people long after the event in question. Luke would have to be prophesying to make the connection.
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How would Luke KNOW this? Sorry, but Luke would NOT know this.
    Anyone hearing what Jesus said in Matt 24, would connect with A4E immediately, because this is HOW the AoD occurred.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now it is possible that Luke might consider that the Romans might play the role the Greeks played 200 years earlier. However Luke would NOT know this. Further Luke would NOT know that the Roman army would surround the city and then retreat. Additionally Luke (if making connection to Dan 9) would then be looking for
    an individual like A4E who would cause the AoD to be set up. Yet that NEVER happened.
    So you are building your claims on things which were NOT known and NOT knowable without a revelation of God.


    Of course one AoD is NOT the same as another. However we would expect them to be SIMILAR especially when Jesus makes a connection between them.
    The similarity is the fact they were both pagan armies--not a sacrilege committed *inside* the temple!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have no been ultra-literal. I am simply applying the words Jesus said. It is NOT ultra-literal to say IN means in. That is simply how language is used.
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually for it to be an abomination it REQUIRES some form of desecration of the temple.
    A simple military invasion means desolation, not abomination.
    A4E was also a military invasion, but that invasion was not an abomination. It was the desecration in the temple which is why it was an AoD.
    A4E killed thousands and caused people to worship other than God in the temple of God.
    Destroying a temple is NOT AoD, but simply D!
    Matt 23 speaks of this same Desolation.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually to destroy a temple, you need to go INTO it and pull it down. The Roman Army did this, but at that time it was already a year to late to flee.
    Being OUTSIDE Jerusalem is NOT being IN the Holy Place.
    Don't agree for the reasons already given. This was the assumption of a military position. That is "standing in the Holy Place," unless you want to be ultra-literal, and compare this to a sacrilege being committed actually within the temple. But this was not that. Instead, this was a *military operation,* and as such began outside the walls of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it assumed the position of challenger to the Jewish temple. As such the Roman Army "stood in the Holy Place."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Dan 9 has the Abomination in connection with the temple. This we read in verse 27. Verse 26 speaks of the Destruction of the city and sanctuary which does NOT mean abomination.
    Two different words with different meanings, which are also NOT synonyms though they may be used together.
    I see it EXACTLY as Daniel portrays it.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    To highlight that a particular view is Preterism is NOT name calling, but simply stating what a view is. If you hold a preterist view then that is what you are doing.
    However you don't claim everything was fulfilled from the OD, therefore you aren't a Preterist, therefore I wasn't calling you by that name.
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually Jesus generation all died BEFORE the temple was destroyed.
    Those who heard what Jesus said were gone beforehand.
    You take the number 40 and miss that the 40 years was to ensure that everyone is dead by the end of it. So IF you have Jesus being crucified at Passover 30 AD (which YOUR view of Daniel's 70 weeks demands), then by the Passover of 70 AD, the ENTIRE generation (when thinking of 40 years, as in the wilderness) was gone.
    So the connection you claim is OUTSIDE of the time limit. A point often missed by people who follow Preterist ideas.
    The Romans didn't launch their attack on Jerusalem until AFTER Passover 70 AD.
    No, John and lots of people who were co-conspirators in the death of Jesus were alive in 70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I have highlighted above that the destruction of the city and temple occurred AFTER Jesus' generation was dead (if we use a 40 year rule for a generation.)
    So you are wrong about that as well.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I didn't say you were a Preterist, however your usage of "this generation" is how a Preterist uses it.
    Please provide evidence of where a single ECF said the Roman Army was the AoD.
    You will find connections to what Luke said in chapter 21, but it is YOU who says that Luke 21's armies is the same as the AoD.
    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.

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
  •