Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415
Results 211 to 217 of 217

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually the armies were different legions and different auxiliaries led by different people.
    Nor was it on continuous event.
    I didn't say they were the same units. I said they shared the same ethnicity, ie Roman.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, a qualifier is given in the sentence of the thing it qualifiers.
    The word ALL is qualified by the words "these things", it is NOT qualified by "this generation" which MOST CERTAINLY from what you put is your qualifier.
    If it were the "desolation of the temple" then this would be speaking of a FUTURE generation.
    However that is NOT the qualifier.
    Look again at your example - look at the qualifier.
    I didn't say "generation" was the qualifier--you said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So Jesus is giving a SPEECH - was He pontificating or was He talking with the Disciples?
    Was it a discussion?
    Jesus did NOT say the destruction was the main theme, it was the FIRST theme, which is an introduction.
    The main theme is what He talked about most, and which you shy away from. The main theme was NOT the destruction of the temple. We have shown you this already by looking at the number of verses spoken about it.
    The entire Discourse was about the approaching desolation of Jerusalem, with reference to the 2nd Coming as a backdrop to the story. And then the 2nd Coming is addressed as a major subject as well. Jesus introduced the Main Subject. The Disciples added a secondary subject. So Jesus dealt with the primary and secondary subjects, both.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You said you could poke a hole in my interpretation. It is a very simple position and based on what was said and confirmed by what has happened and what hasn't.
    I could if you spoke more of your own position and less against my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I would if he were alive to debate it.
    Outside the walls is indeed inside a very large perimeter around Jerusalem. Make the perimeter the size of Israel and everyone would certainly agree.
    The problem as has been stated before is that he Holy Place is NOT a large perimeter OUTSIDE Jerusalem, but a small area INSIDE the temple, which is INSIDE Jerusalem. You KNOW you are writing nonsense, yet you seem unable to stop.
    Of course people were to respect God. This is true wherever they are. However being a Gentile does NOT make you an Abomination. Further the Romans had a fort right outside the temple and it was NEVER called an abomination by anyone in scripture.
    You're wrong on all counts. Paganism within the land of Israel was an abomination period. And no, I don't at all "know" that my position is nonsense. As I said, you are calling John Wesley's position "nonsense" as well. So my "nonsense" has good company. It is not nonsense to see pagan perversions within the territory of Israel as an "abomination" to God. And if so, a pagan Army in the vicinity of Jerusalem is *within* the perimeter of Jerusalem's neighborhood, and thus *within* the Holy Place. This is because this "Holy Territory" includes the temple of God.

    This is the most logical deduction from what Jesus said, namely that the AoD standing within the Holy Place will take place in "this generation," and constitutes an "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops." Calling this nonsense is perhaps calling Jesus nonsensical as well? If so, you're on the wrong side of "nonsense," brother!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Being dead a couple of centuries ago doesn't give you depth. Being a man of God means you should be respected, but when your view is contrary to the Bible then we should agree with Martin Luther (and John Wesley) and say sola scriptura. This is our starting point. And yes IF a position is patently absurd then it should be insulted for its absurdity.
    And if your view of what is "absurd" is flawed and anti-Scriptural, I should point that out to you, as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Well you do like to change what it means.
    It was NEVER in scripture a large perimeter OUTSIDE Jerusalem.
    You can say Jerusalem was the Holy City and the mountain the Holy Mountain, but you cannot say the Holy Place was the Holy City. It is TWO separate phrases with their own meanings.
    Luke does NOT define it as "the encompassment of Jerusalem". Luke was NOT translating Jesus' words but giving a specific sign stated by Jesus.
    IF you are correct then this means the AoD occurred in 66 AD.
    Guess what, NOT A SINGLE ECF had 66 AD as the time of the AoD. Shocking that isn't it. However i expect next you will try to argue that this is what he ECFs really meant.
    One ECF had Nero as the AoD. The AoD was, in fact, the 70 AD event. It just *includes* the 66 AD event, as well. One was an early warning. The other was the completed destruction of the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Ah so let me put this down:
    Luk 17:22* And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.*
    Luk 17:23* And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them.*
    Luk 17:24* For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.*
    Luk 17:25* But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.*
    Luk 17:26* Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.*
    Luk 17:27* They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.*
    Luk 17:28* Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,*
    Luk 17:29* but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—*
    Luk 17:30* so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.*
    Luk 17:31* On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back.*
    Luk 17:32* Remember Lot's wife.*
    Luk 17:33* Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it.*
    Luk 17:34* I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left.*
    Luk 17:35* There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”*
    Luk 17:37* And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

    Are you saying that this above passage in Luke 17 is NOT speaking about this:
    Luk 21:20* “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.*
    Luk 21:21* Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,*
    Luk 21:22* for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.*
    Luk 21:23* Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.*

    Just want to be 100% certain I am understanding you correctly.
    Luke 17 is NOT about 70 AD.
    No, you are *not* correct. Luke 17 is certainly about 70 AD! It is just placed adjacent to mention of the 2nd Coming so that the 2nd Coming forms a backdrop for the 70 AD prediction. The circumstances will be similar. It will be the same kind of day. It will be a day of judgment.

    The Disciples thought the Day of the Lord's Coming would be all about Israel's salvation. But Jesus said that Jewish judgment will precede that day of the Lord, that the day of his Coming will not just be about Israel's salvation, but also about judgment. In the same way they were to expect judgment in their own generation, and continuing all through the age until the 2nd Coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If it is then you are saying that Luke repeated himself in two separate parts of the gospel.
    No I didn't say that. You still are quite clueless as to how it fits together. I said that there are some things the same and some things are different.
    I said that some events which seem similar aren't the same event as they are described in different ways set at different times with different implications.
    I highlighted TWO different signs, for TWO different times, with TWO different periods.
    Now where actually is the problem?
    Are you saying that it is impossible for this to be the case or are you saying it seems overly complicated?
    It's not at all complicated to me. I just disagree with you. All of the questions, in each version, are asking the same things. The answers are also the same. You change the meanings because things are said slightly different in the different versions. But the different wording helps us to understand how *all of the versions* intended them to be understood. This makes it simple--not complicated.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I didn't say they were the same units. I said they shared the same ethnicity, ie Roman.
    Nope, not even that. They were ONLY under the same Kingdom rule.

    I didn't say "generation" was the qualifier--you said that.
    Actually I said that "these things" is the qualifier. I highlighted that your way of determining meaning was based upon "this generation" whihc then makes "this generation" as YOUR qualifier.

    The entire Discourse was about the approaching desolation of Jerusalem, with reference to the 2nd Coming as a backdrop to the story. And then the 2nd Coming is addressed as a major subject as well. Jesus introduced the Main Subject. The Disciples added a secondary subject. So Jesus dealt with the primary and secondary subjects, both.
    Rubbish as has been shown you. Why do you continue putting rubbish? I don't get it. How many verses speak of the destruction of the temple in Luke 21 only?
    8 out of how many verses in the OD in Luke 21?
    36 verses in the OD in Luke 21.
    Luke is the one who writes the MOST about the destruction of the temple and in this chapter it is one third.
    If we add in Luke 17 we find more which has NOTHING to do with that destruction.
    If we add in Matthew then we get far more.
    It is a FALSE claim.

    Jesus gave an introduction, the disciples asked for more and Jesus gave more than the disciples asked for.

    I could if you spoke more of your own position and less against my position.
    Little point speaking of my position when you are so wedded to yours. Until you recognise that your position is hopeless then is there any point?

    You're wrong on all counts. Paganism within the land of Israel was an abomination period. And no, I don't at all "know" that my position is nonsense. As I said, you are calling John Wesley's position "nonsense" as well. So my "nonsense" has good company. It is not nonsense to see pagan perversions within the territory of Israel as an "abomination" to God. And if so, a pagan Army in the vicinity of Jerusalem is *within* the perimeter of Jerusalem's neighborhood, and thus *within* the Holy Place. This is because this "Holy Territory" includes the temple of God.
    When the Jews practiced paganism then it was an abomination.
    Your position is nonsense and the fact you don't recognise that also means it isn't really possible to help etc try to show you why.
    John Wesley didn't hold the SAME position you hold. You simply hold something in common with him.
    However his position is nonsense as can be seen from a simple understanding of language and scripture.
    If you hold the same view as Martin Luther or Peter the Apostle, yet IF that position is nonsense then it doesn't help that someone else held such a position.
    Paul had a disagreement with Peter because he did something which was a nonsense and Paul called hi out on it.

    This is the most logical deduction from what Jesus said, namely that the AoD standing within the Holy Place will take place in "this generation," and constitutes an "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops." Calling this nonsense is perhaps calling Jesus nonsensical as well? If so, you're on the wrong side of "nonsense," brother!
    No it is NOT a logical deduction at all. It is a CONTORTION. The LOGICAL understanding is that there will be an Abomination standing PHYSICALLY in the Holy Place, which is in the temple. What you have done is said - I don't see the LOGICAL meaning fulfilled at that time and because I believe it happened in "this generation" therefore I have to abandon the LOGICAL meaning and try through some CONVOLUTED way to make sense of it.
    It is simply nonsense and Jesus didn't speak nonsense to the disciples. He spoke parables to others but with them He told it straight, even though they didn't always get this.

    And if your view of what is "absurd" is flawed and anti-Scriptural, I should point that out to you, as well?
    Of course. Though I would expect you to show why it is absurd from how language is used and the meaning of words and with scriptures.

    One ECF had Nero as the AoD. The AoD was, in fact, the 70 AD event. It just *includes* the 66 AD event, as well. One was an early warning. The other was the completed destruction of the temple.
    So all at odds. Yet you claim they said the same thing. There was no consensus until Augustine.

    No, you are *not* correct. Luke 17 is certainly about 70 AD! It is just placed adjacent to mention of the 2nd Coming so that the 2nd Coming forms a backdrop for the 70 AD prediction. The circumstances will be similar. It will be the same kind of day. It will be a day of judgment.
    Huh - so now you are contradicting your own previous claim.
    So are you NOW saying that actually Luke REPEATED himself in what he wrote, but chose to do so by writing it in two separate chapters?

    The Disciples thought the Day of the Lord's Coming would be all about Israel's salvation. But Jesus said that Jewish judgment will precede that day of the Lord, that the day of his Coming will not just be about Israel's salvation, but also about judgment. In the same way they were to expect judgment in their own generation, and continuing all through the age until the 2nd Coming.
    Well it will be, so they did have a reason for this. And it also was, but in another way.
    Jesus did NOT say that Jewish judgement will precede the DotL. Please provide the scripture where He says this.

    It's not at all complicated to me. I just disagree with you. All of the questions, in each version, are asking the same things. The answers are also the same. You change the meanings because things are said slightly different in the different versions. But the different wording helps us to understand how *all of the versions* intended them to be understood. This makes it simple--not complicated.
    The questions are clearly different, but as you won't even acknowledge that...

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,814

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post


    The questions are clearly different, but as you won't even acknowledge that...
    Though I tend to agree over all, more with you than Randy, there are still things I tend to agree Randy is likely correct about. This being one of them.

    Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
    2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
    4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

    Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
    6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

    What's interesting here, neither the Mark 13 account nor the Luke 21 account asks the following... and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Does that mean neither one of those accounts involve anything having to do with the end of the world? Unless one is in limbo with a Preterist mindset they can't seem to shake off, such as someone like Marty, one would have to be blind to not see that both Mark 13 and Luke 21 also include things having to do with the end of the world. That obviously means..and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?...though this was not recorded in Mark 13 or Luke 21, these questions still apply to those accounts as well, nonetheless.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Though I tend to agree over all, more with you than Randy, there are still things I tend to agree Randy is likely correct about. This being one of them.

    Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
    2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
    4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

    Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
    6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

    What's interesting here, neither the Mark 13 account nor the Luke 21 account asks the following... and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Does that mean neither one of those accounts involve anything having to do with the end of the world? Unless one is in limbo with a Preterist mindset they can't seem to shake off, such as someone like Marty, one would have to be blind to not see that both Mark 13 and Luke 21 also include things having to do with the end of the world. That obviously means..and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?...though this was not recorded in Mark 13 or Luke 21, these questions still apply to those accounts as well, nonetheless.
    Yes they do apply. However I believe Jesus didn't simply give answers. He set up the scenario in the first place noting what was to happen, then for the disciples to ask - so what will happen (with Jerusalem, the signs of it, the sign of your coming and the end of the world) - and for Jesus then to tell them a lot of things which would happen
    which not only included the answers to these questions but a lot more things as well, such as false christs, false signs, the preaching of the gospel etc.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, not even that. They were ONLY under the same Kingdom rule.
    Our arguments are degenerating into quibbling, it seems. The Roman Army in 66 AD is also the Roman Army in 70 AD. I've never said they are the same exact people. You are creating semantics issues...

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually I said that "these things" is the qualifier. I highlighted that your way of determining meaning was based upon "this generation" whihc then makes "this generation" as YOUR qualifier.
    You indicated "this generation" was the qualifier. I'm referring not to this particular verse, but to the specific context determined at the beginning of the Discourse and just prior in the book. This was all about the 70 AD destruction of the temple. You deny that in Matthew and Mark, but accept it in Luke. I find that inconsistent and contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Rubbish as has been shown you. Why do you continue putting rubbish? I don't get it. How many verses speak of the destruction of the temple in Luke 21 only?
    8 out of how many verses in the OD in Luke 21?
    36 verses in the OD in Luke 21.
    Luke is the one who writes the MOST about the destruction of the temple and in this chapter it is one third.
    If we add in Luke 17 we find more which has NOTHING to do with that destruction.
    If we add in Matthew then we get far more.
    It is a FALSE claim.
    I'll let others decide. Your view is not shared by most Christian scholars, I should think? Perhaps you wish to call their views "rubbish," as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Jesus gave an introduction, the disciples asked for more and Jesus gave more than the disciples asked for.
    2 subjects--both dealt with by Jesus. They stand in contrast. We should not co-mingle them. There are commonalities between the 2 events, but we should maintain their distinction. One took place in "this generation." The other takes place in the far off future, after a "great tribulation" of the Jewish people, which lasts throughout the NT age.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Little point speaking of my position when you are so wedded to yours. Until you recognise that your position is hopeless then is there any point?

    When the Jews practiced paganism then it was an abomination.
    Your position is nonsense and the fact you don't recognise that also means it isn't really possible to help etc try to show you why.
    John Wesley didn't hold the SAME position you hold. You simply hold something in common with him.
    However his position is nonsense as can be seen from a simple understanding of language and scripture.
    If you hold the same view as Martin Luther or Peter the Apostle, yet IF that position is nonsense then it doesn't help that someone else held such a position.
    Paul had a disagreement with Peter because he did something which was a nonsense and Paul called hi out on it.
    What you do here is try to discredit all reference material if you don't agree with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No it is NOT a logical deduction at all. It is a CONTORTION. The LOGICAL understanding is that there will be an Abomination standing PHYSICALLY in the Holy Place, which is in the temple. What you have done is said - I don't see the LOGICAL meaning fulfilled at that time and because I believe it happened in "this generation" therefore I have to abandon the LOGICAL meaning and try through some CONVOLUTED way to make sense of it.
    It is simply nonsense and Jesus didn't speak nonsense to the disciples. He spoke parables to others but with them He told it straight, even though they didn't always get this.
    You stumble over the "in is out" issue. And I stumble over the "this generation" issue. One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. The Church Fathers are on my side, even if they don't all completely agree on all issues. The Church Fathers largely felt that the AoD was the Roman invasion in the Jewish Wars in that time frame. It doesn't matter if one of them saw the "abomination" as a sacrilegious idol actually placed in the temple or not. What matters most to me is how "this generation" relates to the event Jesus described as happening in the lifetime of his disciples: the destruction of the temple, "stone by stone."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course. Though I would expect you to show why it is absurd from how language is used and the meaning of words and with scriptures.
    And I do. Your denial that Matthew and Mark are dealing with the destruction of the temple in "this generation" is false and illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So all at odds. Yet you claim they said the same thing. There was no consensus until Augustine.
    You play these semantics games. I'm saying the Church Fathers generally agreed that Daniel's 70th Weeks was fulfilled in the time of Christ, and thus saw the AoD as the destruction of the temple in Christ's generation. There was indeed a general consensus, although there were at least 3 Church Fathers who preferred to see the AoD as a reference to the Antichrist. And even that I don't have a huge issue with if the *primary application* of the AoD is applied to the historical 70 AD event, and only afterwards, as a symbol of a future Antichristian desecration.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Huh - so now you are contradicting your own previous claim.
    So are you NOW saying that actually Luke REPEATED himself in what he wrote, but chose to do so by writing it in two separate chapters?
    I think you are confusing yourself with your own semantics-type arguments. My view is simple. Luke 17 and Luke 21 are parts of the same Discourse. They both are focused primarily on the 70 AD destruction of the temple, with the Return of the Lord as a secondary subject, albeit an important one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Well it will be, so they did have a reason for this. And it also was, but in another way.
    Jesus did NOT say that Jewish judgement will precede the DotL. Please provide the scripture where He says this.
    The Olivet Discourse is in fact saying this. You just interpret it differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The questions are clearly different, but as you won't even acknowledge that...
    Don't be ridiculous. I recognize that *different words* are used.
    I clearly recognize that all questions are not articulated in the same way in all versions.

    But the discussion has become about words and semantics, and has gotten petty, in my view...

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Though I tend to agree over all, more with you than Randy, there are still things I tend to agree Randy is likely correct about. This being one of them.

    Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
    2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
    4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

    Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
    6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
    7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

    What's interesting here, neither the Mark 13 account nor the Luke 21 account asks the following... and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Does that mean neither one of those accounts involve anything having to do with the end of the world? Unless one is in limbo with a Preterist mindset they can't seem to shake off, such as someone like Marty, one would have to be blind to not see that both Mark 13 and Luke 21 also include things having to do with the end of the world. That obviously means..and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?...though this was not recorded in Mark 13 or Luke 21, these questions still apply to those accounts as well, nonetheless.
    Thank you, David. I, of course, agree. All 3 versions, in my view, are the same Discourse. Even Luke 17 is, in my view, part of the same Discourse. They are *all of them* about both events, the 70 AD destruction of the temple and the 2nd Coming of Christ. It is how we blend these 2 subjects that makes the difference in our interpretations!

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Thank you, David. I, of course, agree. All 3 versions, in my view, are the same Discourse. Even Luke 17 is, in my view, part of the same Discourse. They are *all of them* about both events, the 70 AD destruction of the temple and the 2nd Coming of Christ. It is how we blend these 2 subjects that makes the difference in our interpretations!
    I of course agree as well.
    It is certainly ALL one Discourse.

    Yet the methodology for how we interpret is important.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Is the 200 Million Man Army an Army of God or of Israels Enemies ?
    By Revelation Man in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: Aug 18th 2016, 01:52 AM
  2. USA Army
    By Ta-An in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Sep 17th 2012, 06:37 PM
  3. What the Abomination REALLY is
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: Apr 23rd 2009, 07:40 PM

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
  •