Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112
Results 166 to 170 of 170

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

  1. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    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.
    Especially as Chrysostom was the first to make this claim, and Augustine doesn't specifically claim anything.

    randyk is not relying on scripture, but on various ideas of ECFs who seemingly - according to someone else - held the view that the 70 weeks were completed.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Having read a bit of Bishop Kouris I find this weird claim:
    The Epistle of Barnabas sets forth the common view held by the early Church that the seventieth week of Daniel ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, as Messiah’s Day dawned and Christ’s Church was born. Barnabas writes, "For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built...in the name of the Lord.’ I find...that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord." (EOB, 16:6)

    This early Christian writer connects Daniel’s vision of seventy weeks with the prophecy of Haggai 2:7-9 and the building of a "spiritual temple," the Church. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas obviously believed that Daniel’s 70th week was fulfilled with Christ’s first advent. This was when the Old Temple was destroyed and the new “spiritual temple” was initially established. Writing in 100 AD he clearly believed the 70th week of Daniel was already completed.

    So here Barnabas is possibly speaking of an end to the 70th week being the building of the temple, not its desolation. Not supporting what randyk claims. Rather it has 70 AD as the end of the 70 weeks.
    The other quotes connect the end of the 70th week with 70 AD.
    Yet it is Kouris who claims they are connecting the AoD with this event, when they only speak of desolation or the 70 weeks coming to an end.

    Also three of the ECFs were following on, one after the other, so it isn't surprising that those three held the same teaching.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,652

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Having read a bit of Bishop Kouris I find this weird claim:
    The Epistle of Barnabas sets forth the common view held by the early Church that the seventieth week of Daniel ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, as Messiah’s Day dawned and Christ’s Church was born. Barnabas writes, "For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built...in the name of the Lord.’ I find...that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord." (EOB, 16:6)

    This early Christian writer connects Daniel’s vision of seventy weeks with the prophecy of Haggai 2:7-9 and the building of a "spiritual temple," the Church. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas obviously believed that Daniel’s 70th week was fulfilled with Christ’s first advent. This was when the Old Temple was destroyed and the new “spiritual temple” was initially established. Writing in 100 AD he clearly believed the 70th week of Daniel was already completed.

    So here Barnabas is possibly speaking of an end to the 70th week being the building of the temple, not its desolation. Not supporting what randyk claims. Rather it has 70 AD as the end of the 70 weeks.
    The other quotes connect the end of the 70th week with 70 AD.
    Yet it is Kouris who claims they are connecting the AoD with this event, when they only speak of desolation or the 70 weeks coming to an end.

    Also three of the ECFs were following on, one after the other, so it isn't surprising that those three held the same teaching.
    My read of it was that the new temple was Jesus, who replaced the temple of the Law in the 70th Week. So the prophecy of the 70th Week entailed the end of the temple, as foretold in Dan 9.26.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,001
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My read of it was that the new temple was Jesus, who replaced the temple of the Law in the 70th Week. So the prophecy of the 70th Week entailed the end of the temple, as foretold in Dan 9.26.
    I personally read Barnabas saying that too. He has it as the end of the 70th week.
    However Kouris connects that to 70 AD because he recognises that the 70th week includes the end of desolations.
    So Kouris is putting his own slant on what Barnabas and others are saying without the ECF actually saying it.
    You do the same.
    For me, I want to understand why Barnabas thought the 70th week had happened (If that is the correct interpretation - it may be the 62nd week he was really meaning but context of the quote is needed for clarifying this.)

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,652

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I personally read Barnabas saying that too. He has it as the end of the 70th week.
    However Kouris connects that to 70 AD because he recognises that the 70th week includes the end of desolations.
    So Kouris is putting his own slant on what Barnabas and others are saying without the ECF actually saying it.
    You do the same.
    For me, I want to understand why Barnabas thought the 70th week had happened (If that is the correct interpretation - it may be the 62nd week he was really meaning but context of the quote is needed for clarifying this.)
    Of course, I'm not clear either on precisely what any of these Church Fathers were saying about the 70th Week. I have my own slant on it, and I have no idea whether the same was in the mind of these Church Fathers.

    As I've said before, my slant on it is that the 70th Week ended with Christ's death and resurrection. This began the new temple of Christ as a spiritual body for the Church. It was, in effect, a new temple.

    This happened not in 70 AD, but at the time of Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. This was the beginning of the Church Age, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as a permanent possession of the Church, so that the Church is indwelt by God for ever and ever.

    Where then does the 70 AD event take place? It doesn't take place within the 70th Week, but rather, as a consequence of Christ's resurrection, following it. Jewish worship at the temple continued, despite the fact it had been nullified and replaced by Christ himself. But due to the patience of God, destruction of the temple was delayed until Jewish rebellion achieved a certain fever pitch.

    In other words, the 70th Week did not end with the desolation of the temple. Rather, the 70th Week ended with the death and resurrection of Christ. The desolation of the temple was what followed the death and resurrection of Christ as a consequence, indicating that there had already been a transfer of temples.

    The fact desolation is mentioned as part of the 70 Week prophecy, therefore, does not necessarily indicate that the desolation mentioned takes place *within* the 70th Week. Rather, it is mentioned largely as a consequence to the change in temples indicated by the Coming of Christ and his subsequent death.

    There are reasons for the diversity of opinion in the Church Fathers, regarding Premil and Amil, regarding the continuation of Israel or the replacement of Israel, etc. Clearly, Israel and her temple had been a holy nation and had now fallen into what appeared to be irrevocable judgment. How long it would last was open to question.

    However, if Jesus' disciples believed Jesus, they would tell others that Israel had entered into a long age of punishment for her people, eventually to be restored. In the meantime there could be other holy nations, who can either remain holy or like Israel, fall.

    In our age the big problem is, Can nations hope to survive as holy nations at all? If Israel fell, and if Christian nations are falling, was there ever really any hope for the concept of a lasting holy nation?

    I think the answer is yes. If we believe Abraham's testimony, he has fathered *nations,* and not just remnants that remain after holy nations fall. Neither Israel nor Christian nations are lost for all time, simply because they have fallen. Grace is all about the possibility of restoration.

    But Daniel's 70th Week was fulfilled, I think with Christ's death and resurrection, and with his own spiritual body as the new temple. The fall of the temple 40 years later was not the end of the 70 Weeks, but rather, the immediate consequence of the end of the 70 Weeks. If the new temple had been introduced 40 years earlier, it was soon to be that the old nullified temple would fall beneath the weight of Jewish sin.

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
  •