Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 217

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Paul stated that the gospel had spread to the whole world in his time Paul used the same words as Jesus did thus it was the whole known world.

    The bible also uses the same words of Mt 24:29-30 to be symbolic for judgement
    The difference is Jesus referred to all nations when referring to the whole world. Showing that he has a wider view of the whole world than Paul.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    9,229
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Paul stated that the gospel had spread to the whole world in his time Paul used the same words as Jesus did thus it was the whole known world.

    The bible also uses the same words of Mt 24:29-30 to be symbolic for judgement
    Do you really believe this? The gospel has yet to reach the whole world, there are still tribes that have no knowledge of the gospel. You are forcing your interpretation into an obsolete eschatological view that has been invalidated since Israel once again became a nation. I was hold to this because once Israel was destroyed theologians had to devise an in interpretation that excluded it.With the reemergence of Israel you are clinging to false view that has been rendered obsolete. Your interpretation is total error
    2 Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    You might want to try a better translation though. The text does not say the beast and the 10 horns will hate the prostitute. The text says the 10 horns which are upon the beast, these will hate the prostitute.

    Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
    17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
    But they are a part of the beast so the beast would hate her too do you think that they will hate the whore but the beast won't?

    Regardless that has no bearing on what God uses the horns to do in their own evil way

    God also used the persecution (buy the Jews in their own evil ways)in the book of acts to make the saints spread out and spread the gospel

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    9,229
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But they are a part of the beast so the beast would hate her too do you think that they will hate the whore but the beast won't?

    Regardless that has no bearing on what God uses the horns to do in their own evil way

    God also used the persecution (buy the Jews in their own evil ways)in the book of acts to make the saints spread out and spread the gospel
    But they failed to reach the entire world, how can you not see this and justify otherwise?
    2 Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The AoD *is* the Roman Army. Luke assumes his readers know this.
    Nope, Luke does NOT assume that his readers know this. Who is Luke's main audience? Is it Jews or Gentiles? It is the Gentiles. They would have no idea what an AoD was without it being stated to them and a connection made, yet Luke makes ZERO connection to an AoD.
    You continually confuse what Matthew wrote with Luke and then claim they are the same.

    Those who read Dan 9 know this. In Dan 9 it is mentioned that the people of a prince will destroy, or desolate, the city and the sanctuary. That is an army. Immediately afterwards it is called the AoD. It is all there in Dan 9.26-27. Luke doesn't need to explain it. It is self-explained by Jesus when he said that the temple would be desolated, and then referred back to Dan 9. The only way the city and the sanctuary would be desolated, brick by brick, is if the Roman Army did it.
    Luke makes NO mention of Daniel 9 nor of an AoD. Further you are saying that Luke didn't report what Jesus said, but instead put his own words as if they were coming out of Jesus mouth.

    This seems so simple to me, and yet I've had problems with some here, like Glory, who claim that the AoD cannot be the Roman Army because the AoD is *in* the Holy Place, whereas the Roman Army stood *outside of* the Holy Place. I cannot always resolve the particulars of a passage. But one thing is clear to me: Jesus meant, by the AoD, the Roman Army! To say that the AoD and the Roman Army are *2 separate things* makes the passage impossible to understand.
    No, having it as two separate things brings clarity. One being about 70 AD and the other about a future event.
    The Roman army didn;t even stand outside the Holy Place, nor even the Temple, but ONLY outside Jerusalem.
    This is a KEY particular of the passage. There is a simple reason you can't resolve it - it is because OUT is NOT IN.

    I'm sorry, but unless you get this we will be here in 10 years still debating this. There is no gap between the 69th and the 70th week of Daniel. The 70th Week was fulfilled when Christ was "cut off." The AoD in Dan 9.27, therefore, was fulfilled in Jesus' generation, just as he said, and not at the end of the age. There are not 2 AoDs that Jesus spoke of in his Olivet Discourse--just 1! Dual prophecy is a creative way of explaining difficult prophecies, but it absolutely destroys the meaning of a passage!
    This is irrelevant, though you are wrong on this too. It is stated as AFTER the 62nd week, NOT written as DURING the 70th week.
    Further the 3 blocks are mentioned as separate groupings. Yet the 70 AD destruction was NOT part of the 70 weeks anyway.

    May I suggest this, just as a theory, of what the AoD might've been meant to be? Daniel presented Antiochus 4 as one who placed an AoD in the Holy Place of the temple. Jesus was saying that a similar kind of AoD would happen in his own day, when the Roman Army encircles Jerusalem.

    He may have meant that the Army was there, at the city's outskirts, to assume control over the temple. Thus, they were assuming authority over Jerusalem *in the place of God,* just as Antiochus 4 desecrated God's offerings in the place of God.
    If only you CONSISTENTLY applied what you claim here.
    A4E did indeed have an army, which allowed the AoD to be placed. That was what happened, and Hanukkah and the story in Maccabees attests to that.
    However what happened in 66 AD does NOT match that.
    No army entered the Holy Place, and set up an AoD, atthat time - so the picture is clear and 66 AD does NOT match this in any particular beyond an army being in the picture.
    The differences are crucial especially as Jesus specifically said, "when you SEE..." Nobody saw this because it was NOT seen.

    Thus, the Roman Army was standing, positionally, *in* the place of God. They were "standing in the Holy Place," even as they set up a siege against Jerusalem. After all, they already had authority over Jerusalem. Now they were imposing that authority in the temple, *in the place of God!*
    They had that authority for the previous 100 years. they had even entered the Holy Place in the past (37 BC). Yet on this occasion they did NOt impose that authority IN the temple, because they were NOT in the temple.

    This is for Glory: yes, "in is not out." This was a different "in" and a different "out." The Roman Army was "outside of" the walls of Jerusalem initially. But they, in doing so, had placed their authority *within* the Holy Place, by "standing" upon that authority. "Out" was geographical. "In" was positional. Jesus said both without contradiction. The Roman Army "encircled" Jerusalem, which was out, geographically. The same Army was standing "in" the Holy Place, positionally, ie in terms of usurping God's authority, or the place of God's authority.

    One day Antichrist will do something similar. He will take his seat in the temple of God proclaiming himself God. In my view this likely will not involve a rebuilt temple of God. Assuming divine authority Antichrist is in effect taking the place of God, which Paul would've described as "the temple of God." Antichrist will, I believe, assume God's place in His *heavenly authority* not by sitting down in an actual temple, but rather, by assuming God's authority on earth.
    No, you CANNOT place your authority IN a place UNTIL you reassert it IN that place.
    I may have authority over my child, and I can tell that child what to do. I can tell them to come out of their room. They may come out because of my authority or they may reject my authority. If I remain standing OUTSIDE the room I will NEVER assert my authority INSIDE it.
    In was NOT positional, and the Roman's were not usurping God's authority either. God had stated this was what was going to happen, and Jesus confirmed it, So the destruction was not against God.
    The only struggle was between those IN the Temple who rejected the authority of those OUTSIDE, and those OUTSIDE had NO positional authority, and decided to reassert it by entering IN.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by shepherdsword View Post
    Do you really believe this? The gospel has yet to reach the whole world, there are still tribes that have no knowledge of the gospel. You are forcing your interpretation into an obsolete eschatological view that has been invalidated since Israel once again became a nation. I was hold to this because once Israel was destroyed theologians had to devise an in interpretation that excluded it.With the reemergence of Israel you are clinging to false view that has been rendered obsolete. Your interpretation is total error
    But not in my view.

    Let me explain myself Paul was using the same words as Jesus so I see them meaning the same thing but I believe that it was the end of the temple age not the end of the world that Jesus meant and it did happen within that generation

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,149
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But not in my view.

    Let me explain myself Paul was using the same words as Jesus so I see them meaning the same thing but I believe that it was the end of the temple age not the end of the world that Jesus meant and it did happen within that generation
    Sorry Marty Fox, but i have discussed this with you previously and gone through every quote of Paul's and what we discover is that He was NOT saying the gospel of Jesus has been preached in the whole world. In Romans 15 Paul planned to go to Spain, and it seems this is because the gospel of Jesus had NOT YET been preached there.
    Jesus made no reference to any supposed temple age in regards to the gospel being preached in the whole world.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Sorry Marty Fox, but i have discussed this with you previously and gone through every quote of Paul's and what we discover is that He was NOT saying the gospel of Jesus has been preached in the whole world. In Romans 15 Paul planned to go to Spain, and it seems this is because the gospel of Jesus had NOT YET been preached there.
    Jesus made no reference to any supposed temple age in regards to the gospel being preached in the whole world.
    If I believe one thing and you believe something different that doesn't mean that we discovered what was meant just that we believe different things. My point was that Jesus used the same words as Paul

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The difference is Jesus referred to all nations when referring to the whole world. Showing that he has a wider view of the whole world than Paul.
    How do you know that?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sure, both the Olivet discourse and Daniel 9 describe the Roman army of destruction.

    Sure both the Olivet discourse and Daniel 9 describe the abomination.

    I don't see the link in logic that those two events are therefore one event instead of a Roman army that is then followed by an abomination, the order of events it is written.

    I think you have been swung by the similar wording of Luke 21 to the abomination of the Olivet discourse, but you need to succinctly clarify your argument, or at the least describe why the future view is impossible.

    If not impossible, then the less reason to be emphatic.
    The *major reason* I do not see any of this as *future* is because the 70 weeks period *must be* consecutive years, without a gap. It makes no sense to say that in 483 years something will happen, but the final 3 years will be separated from the 483 years by 2000 years! That would actually be saying that in 2,483 years something will happen, right?

    So the question becomes, does this passage make sense, historically, if indeed we are talking about 483 years? The answer is yes. This is how scholars have viewed this since the Early Church. It is completely logical to mark time from Artaxerxes decree to restore Jerusalem in 457-8 until the beginning of Christ's ministry in 26 AD.

    The other reason to not see this as *future* is because Jesus himself claimed his Olivet Discourse was based on Dan 9, and then declared that it would all be fulfilled in "this generation." It's unbelievable how we try to get around this plain statement of fact, to rationalize it away, allowing for a future fulfillment. But we do. I have too. I do so no longer.

    The reason I say the AoD = the Roman Army is because if we compare Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse with Matthew or Mark's version, we see Luke place the Roman Army precisely where Matthew and Mark place the AoD. This confirms the identification. We don't have to guess about it!

    If we wonder how the AoD of the Roman Army relates to the AoD of Antiochus 4 (Dan 8;11), we only have to consider that they were different events. Both, however, were efforts to assume divine authority in the temple in Jerusalem. Antiochus did it by actually infiltrating the Holy Place with a pig. The Roman Army did it by threatening to destroy the temple when they encircled the city. Both succeeded in their evil ambitions, because God gave the temple over to pagans due to the sins of Israel. It did not mean that *all* in Israel were sinful, however.

    Thus, God gave Israel over, in 70 AD, to the Romans to be dispersed. The destruction was repeated in 135 AD. This was the fated "great tribulation" spoken of in Dan 12, and reiterated by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse. It would afflict rebellious Jews, but because many Christians were among the Jews, it would also afflict many Christians. These Christians would suffer not just the homelessness caused by the Jewish judgment, but they would also suffer persecution by their own Jewish people.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by shepherdsword View Post
    The problem with your interpretation is this:

    Mt 24:14-15And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,

    The AOD that Jesus is speaking of here occurs after the gospel has been preached to the entire world. It is also associated with the "end"

    Jesus then goes on further and states this:
    Mt 24:21-22
    For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.


    The AOD of 70ad cannot be forced into this text. Jesus also says this:
    Mt 24:29-30
    Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


    In the text above He associates the AOD and the resulting great tribulation with his final return.
    This didn't happen in 70AD so it must refer to a future event.
    Brother, I see the Great Tribulation as being synonyous with the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. Daniel spoke about it in ch. 12, which refers to a time following Antiochus 4. After Antiochus 4 the Romans eventually took hold of Israel, and in 70 AD destroyed the temple, beginning a period of expelling the Jews from their land. This began the great Jewish Diaspora, which last throughout the entire age!

    I know that some people like to say the Great Tribulation is the final 7 years of the age, or the final 3.5 years of the age. But in reality, Jesus described the Great Tribulation as belonging to the Jewish people, both Christian and non-Christian. And it lasts throughout the entire age, until the 2nd Coming. The Christians suffer in this period both because they were Jews, and also because the Jews persecuted them. I do believe, however, that the Great Tribulation of the Jews has also become the fate of Christians world-wide, because we have the same experiences in our own nations.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Didn't the Roman army do God a favor though, to some extent? Had they not destroyed the temple, animal sacrificing would have likely continued, and could still be continuing to this very day for all we know. Why would God need to use an abomination, that being the Roman army according to you, in order to end the sacrificing of animals in the temple for forever once the temple is destroyed? God is not pro abominations, God is anti abominations. Any abominations that might occur, God might allow it to happen, but God wouldn't have been the one behind them though. IOW any abominations wouldn't have been His idea.
    Hi David. I think that Jesus actually stopped the animal sacrifices. Dan 9.27 indicates that the Anointed One is cut off, ending sacrifice and offering. The abominable, pagan Roman Army was God's tool of judgment. Consult Habakkuk for the problem of God using evil pagans to inflict judgment upon sinful Israel.

    What made the Romans "abominable" was their "stand in the Holy Place," which is what their siege against God's city indicated. They were usurping God's place. But God was letting it happen. Consult Ezekiel on the way God lets barbarians enter into His temple to destroy it.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    2,862
    Blog Entries
    52

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But not in my view.

    Let me explain myself Paul was using the same words as Jesus so I see them meaning the same thing but I believe that it was the end of the temple age not the end of the world that Jesus meant and it did happen within that generation
    Amen............
    “A” cannot be “A” & not “A” at the same time



  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,531

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, Luke does NOT assume that his readers know this. Who is Luke's main audience? Is it Jews or Gentiles? It is the Gentiles. They would have no idea what an AoD was without it being stated to them and a connection made, yet Luke makes ZERO connection to an AoD.
    You continually confuse what Matthew wrote with Luke and then claim they are the same.
    They are *most obviously* the same Discourse! The part in the Discourse where Matthew and Mark refer to the AoD Luke refers to the Roman Army. The match is obvious. The effort to turn this into a dual prophecy is absurd, in my view--just an effort to fit a future Antichrist into an historical prophecy.

    I am not a Preterest, however. I do believe this prophecy, in the Olivet Discourse, extends beyond the events of 70 AD to encompass the entire age of Jewish Tribulation, ending with a future Antichrist and a future 2nd Coming of Christ. This is how the Early Church saw it, as well. And they were *not* Preterists!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Luke makes NO mention of Daniel 9 nor of an AoD. Further you are saying that Luke didn't report what Jesus said, but instead put his own words as if they were coming out of Jesus mouth.
    Jesus obviously mentioned both the AoD and the Roman Army in this Discourse. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all understood this, since they all spoke of a desolation of the temple, stone by stone, in *their generation!* That obviously would come by a *Roman Army!*

    It doesn't matter if Luke omits parts of Jesus' Discourse. It omits the AoD language, although he does mention "desolation." And he omits the reference to Daniel, although it is obvious that Jesus did mention Daniel, from the accounts in Matthew and Mark. The Gospel authors "cherry picked" without contradiction. They included what they thought was necessary, and assumed there was no contradiction with any of the accounts. They undoubtedly knew each other!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, having it as two separate things brings clarity. One being about 70 AD and the other about a future event.
    The Roman army didn;t even stand outside the Holy Place, nor even the Temple, but ONLY outside Jerusalem.
    This is a KEY particular of the passage. There is a simple reason you can't resolve it - it is because OUT is NOT IN.
    I'm not sure where the walls of Jerusalem were back in the 1st century. Today, the wall of Jerusalem is outside of the temple square. But it really doesn't matter. A posture outside of Jerusalem at any point is still a challenge to the Holy God. It is an assault on His sacred residence. It is positioning a pagan Army *in* the Holy Place. To lay siege to the Holy City is to assume a stand in the Holy Place, because it was God's city.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is irrelevant, though you are wrong on this too. It is stated as AFTER the 62nd week, NOT written as DURING the 70th week.
    Further the 3 blocks are mentioned as separate groupings. Yet the 70 AD destruction was NOT part of the 70 weeks anyway.
    I read it as Messiah is cut off in the midst of the 70 Week, terminating sacrifices in the eyes of God. This lays the groundwork for God's judgment against the Jews in 70 AD. God abandons His holy residence to abominable pagans, because He no longer wants His residence among the Jewish People in Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If only you CONSISTENTLY applied what you claim here.
    A4E did indeed have an army, which allowed the AoD to be placed. That was what happened, and Hanukkah and the story in Maccabees attests to that.
    However what happened in 66 AD does NOT match that.
    No army entered the Holy Place, and set up an AoD, atthat time - so the picture is clear and 66 AD does NOT match this in any particular beyond an army being in the picture.
    The differences are crucial especially as Jesus specifically said, "when you SEE..." Nobody saw this because it was NOT seen.
    I do not see the AoD of Antiochus 4 and the AoD of the Roman Army as being the same. They both "stood in the Holy Place" in order to challenge God's authority there. In the case of the Roman Army, their positioning themselves as conquerors and desolators of the temple meant that they were taking their stand in the Holy Place in an entirely different way. They were, nevertheless, assuming God's place *in* the Holy Place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    They had that authority for the previous 100 years. they had even entered the Holy Place in the past (37 BC). Yet on this occasion they did NOt impose that authority IN the temple, because they were NOT in the temple.
    Marching against the Holy City was in itself a claim upon God's seat in the Holy Place! They were not just ruling over Jerusalem--they were setting themselves up as *destroyers* of God's place of dwelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, you CANNOT place your authority IN a place UNTIL you reassert it IN that place.
    I may have authority over my child, and I can tell that child what to do. I can tell them to come out of their room. They may come out because of my authority or they may reject my authority. If I remain standing OUTSIDE the room I will NEVER assert my authority INSIDE it.
    That's not true. If you come to the room and threaten to come in and punish your children, you are asserting your authority *inside of* that room!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    In was NOT positional, and the Roman's were not usurping God's authority either. God had stated this was what was going to happen, and Jesus confirmed it, So the destruction was not against God.
    The only struggle was between those IN the Temple who rejected the authority of those OUTSIDE, and those OUTSIDE had NO positional authority, and decided to reassert it by entering IN.
    That's not true, in my opinion. The Roman Army was called an "Abomination" for a reason. It was because they were pagans usurping God's place in the temple, in the Holy Place. They set themselves up as destroyers of God's dwelling. This was an "abomination," but God determined to let it happen as a punishment upon the Jewish People.

    Jesus was warning the Jewish disciples of his own generation to beware of the coming of a Roman Army to desolate Jerusalem and the temple. The signal to flee would be a positioning of this Army *in the Holy Place.* This did not happen physically. Obviously, it would be too late to flee if it got to that point.

    Therefore, the disciples were to take as a signal the Roman Army "standing in the Holy place," which could mean the establishment of military authority there. This is how I see it. Jesus said it would all take place in his generation. And it did.

    Explaining how the Roman Army stood *in the Holy Place* is not a major concern of mine. It could be, as I've said before, that the Roman Army was *in the region of* the Holy Place. This was a warning signal to Jesus' disciples to flee. And history says that they did!

    1 Sam 6.20 And the people of Beth Shemesh asked, “Who can stand in the presence of the Lord, this holy God? To whom will the ark go up from here?”

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The *major reason* I do not see any of this as *future* is because the 70 weeks period *must be* consecutive years, without a gap. It makes no sense to say that in 483 years something will happen, but the final 3 years will be separated from the 483 years by 2000 years! That would actually be saying that in 2,483 years something will happen, right?

    So the question becomes, does this passage make sense, historically, if indeed we are talking about 483 years? The answer is yes. This is how scholars have viewed this since the Early Church. It is completely logical to mark time from Artaxerxes decree to restore Jerusalem in 457-8 until the beginning of Christ's ministry in 26 AD.

    The other reason to not see this as *future* is because Jesus himself claimed his Olivet Discourse was based on Dan 9, and then declared that it would all be fulfilled in "this generation." It's unbelievable how we try to get around this plain statement of fact, to rationalize it away, allowing for a future fulfillment. But we do. I have too. I do so no longer.

    The reason I say the AoD = the Roman Army is because if we compare Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse with Matthew or Mark's version, we see Luke place the Roman Army precisely where Matthew and Mark place the AoD. This confirms the identification. We don't have to guess about it!

    If we wonder how the AoD of the Roman Army relates to the AoD of Antiochus 4 (Dan 8;11), we only have to consider that they were different events. Both, however, were efforts to assume divine authority in the temple in Jerusalem. Antiochus did it by actually infiltrating the Holy Place with a pig. The Roman Army did it by threatening to destroy the temple when they encircled the city. Both succeeded in their evil ambitions, because God gave the temple over to pagans due to the sins of Israel. It did not mean that *all* in Israel were sinful, however.

    Thus, God gave Israel over, in 70 AD, to the Romans to be dispersed. The destruction was repeated in 135 AD. This was the fated "great tribulation" spoken of in Dan 12, and reiterated by Jesus in his Olivet Discourse. It would afflict rebellious Jews, but because many Christians were among the Jews, it would also afflict many Christians. These Christians would suffer not just the homelessness caused by the Jewish judgment, but they would also suffer persecution by their own Jewish people.
    I'm not sure why you claim there should be no gap in the 490 years yet claim 70 AD is relevant, even though you use a 457 BC date. This would place the abomination around 30 AD, not 70 AD. So if you believe there was an abomination in 70 AD, you too believe in a gap.

    If you read the text carefully, Jesus reference to this generation is referring to the generation which experiences the Gospel preached to all nations, and the appearance of the abomination. The abomination being something like Antiochus abomination, a statue representing religious compromise with the world in the temple grounds. Could it be a temple? Possibly let's see. So you absolutely require that it is Jesus generation, the Greek word "houtos" and even the English word "this" do not require that it is that original generation. It is this generation that experiences those things, and knowing the Antiochus example, no abomination was in Jerusalem during that generation.

    On the balance of logic,
    A) the Roman threat to Jerusalem being a weak form of an abomination compared to the image of the beast described in Rev 13, which more closely resembles Antiochus abomination.
    B) The Gospel not as spread back then yet Jesus associated the abomination with the Gospel to ALL nations.
    C) the abomination of Daniel 12 being associated with 1290 days leading up to the resurrection, makes it an end times event
    D) no abomination truly existed at 30AD as it should have done if there is no gap in the 490 years.
    E) The second coming as described in Matthew 24 didn't actually occur, so how then can that generation be fulfilled? Read this, hasn't happened yet:

    27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
    “‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
    the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

    So for many reasons, a future abomination makes more sense. That generation which experiences the early signs will experience the second coming.

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
  •