Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 217

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    No, I count 483 years from 457-8 BC to 26 AD, from the decree of Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Then Jesus ministered for approx. 3.5 years, and was cut off in the final Week of Daniel's 70 Weeks. The remaining 3.5 years are insignificant.

    The 70 Weeks were to lead to Christ being cut off. They didn't lead directly to the fall of Jerusalem. However, the insinuation is that the fall of Jerusalem was to follow after the cutting off of Christ, because offering was to cease. This would lead to a complete nullification of worship under the Law by God, who would send the pagan Roman Army into Jerusalem, to destroy the temple. As Jesus said, "all this will happen in *this generation!* "

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    No, impossible. Jesus indicated that the generation that rejected him would see all of this judgment. It can't be an arbitrary future generation. In fact, it *did* happen in Jesus' generation, just 40 years after his death.

    The preaching of the gospel to all nations Jesus said would take place in his generation. He did not say the mission would be completed in his generation. It would, rather, continue to the end of the age, when he would return.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    No, Jesus said the AoD would take place in *his generation.* He said, in *this generation.* This was not a future generation. His own generation saw the beginning signs of distress, which culminated against Jerusalem in 70 AD. This led to an age-long period of distress for the Jewish People called the Great Tribulation. It hurt unbelieving Jews as well as believing Jews, although the believing Jews had the added indignity of suffering rejection by their own people.

    I do think the AoD, represented by the Roman Army in Jesus' time, was different from the AoD presented by Antiochus 4. What they both had in common, as well as with Antichrist, is they challenge Deity in His heavenly temple. They lay claim to sacred territory that belongs to God on earth. Antiochus massacred Jews and offered a pig in the temple. The Roman Army massacred the Jews and desolated the temple. Antichrist will assume the seat of Deity in his "temple," massacring Christians. They are all an "abomination," as far as I'm concerned.

  2. #32

    Re: Abomination = Army

    The abomination is also described in other passages in Daniel:

    Daniel 11:31 WEB Forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering, and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.

    Daniel 12:11 From the time that the continual burnt offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days.


    The abomination is something that is set up by the "forces". Therefore, the "forces" (army) are not the abomination.

    I think Daniel 11:31 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes in the past, and it foreshadows a future event with a similar kind of abomination.

    I also think Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are talking about the same event.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,528

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    The abomination is also described in other passages in Daniel:

    Daniel 11:31 WEB Forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering, and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.

    Daniel 12:11 From the time that the continual burnt offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days.


    The abomination is something that is set up by the "forces". Therefore, the "forces" (army) are not the abomination.

    I think Daniel 11:31 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes in the past, and it foreshadows a future event with a similar kind of abomination.

    I also think Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are talking about the same event.
    On one occasion the military force did set up the AoD--that was under Antiochus 4. You will read about him in Dan 8 and 11, and it is summarized in 12.11.

    But the other reference in Daniel to the AoD is in Dan 9.27, and on this occasion the miitary force *is* the AoD, because the prince of this Army "desolates" the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9.26).

    Mat 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all talking about the Dan 9.26-27 reference, in which the military force, the Roman Army, desolates the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus said it would happen in his own generation, after he is removed from Israel. That happened in 66-70 AD, when the Roman Army marched up to Jerusalem, took their stand in the Holy Place, and later returned to destroy the temple.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, I count 483 years from 457-8 BC to 26 AD, from the decree of Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Then Jesus ministered for approx. 3.5 years, and was cut off in the final Week of Daniel's 70 Weeks. The remaining 3.5 years are insignificant.
    You say the remaining 3.5 years are insignificant, but they actually contain an abomination of Daniel. In an earlier post you seem to associate this abomination event within the 490 years with the Roman army which is an event outside the 490 years, seeming to claim they are the same event:
    "The AoD *is* the Roman Army. Luke assumes his readers know this. 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. ".

    Your view is very confusing, and to claim there is no gap, yet associate an event within the 490 years with an event outside the 490 years makes no sense.


    The 70 Weeks were to lead to Christ being cut off. They didn't lead directly to the fall of Jerusalem. However, the insinuation is that the fall of Jerusalem was to follow after the cutting off of Christ, because offering was to cease. This would lead to a complete nullification of worship under the Law by God, who would send the pagan Roman Army into Jerusalem, to destroy the temple. As Jesus said, "all this will happen in *this generation!*

    No, impossible. Jesus indicated that the generation that rejected him would see all of this judgment. It can't be an arbitrary future generation. In fact, it *did* happen in Jesus' generation, just 40 years after his death.

    The preaching of the gospel to all nations Jesus said would take place in his generation. He did not say the mission would be completed in his generation. It would, rather, continue to the end of the age, when he would return.

    No, Jesus said the AoD would take place in *his generation.* He said, in *this generation.* This was not a future generation. His own generation saw the beginning signs of distress, which culminated against Jerusalem in 70 AD. This led to an age-long period of distress for the Jewish People called the Great Tribulation. It hurt unbelieving Jews as well as believing Jews, although the believing Jews had the added indignity of suffering rejection by their own people
    I am certainly not referring to an "arbitrary future generation, I am referring to the generation that sees the signs mentioned in Matt 24. The main signs being the abomination, signs in the sky, the gospel preached to all nations, Messianic claims with signs and wonders. Sure there were claims of Messianic status flying around at the first century, but they did not perform great signs and wonders to make even the church question their validity. ( 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.)

    From a grammar perspective, the phrase "this generation" easily could mean "this generation that I am currently referring to". You seem adamant that grammar cannot be used in that way. You are completely wrong on that.

    There will be flying cars as the main form of transport in the future. The young people who see this happening will have a whole new lifestyle. This generation will be able to get around a lot easier.

    The phrase "this generation" does not always refer to the generation of one's audience, but can also refer to the generation in context. This is fact. Furthermore the Greek word also means "THAT", that generation. An emphatic argument, that is untrue, does not become a good point just because of the emphatic manner it is expressed.
    .

    I do think the AoD, represented by the Roman Army in Jesus' time, was different from the AoD presented by Antiochus 4. What they both had in common, as well as with Antichrist, is they challenge Deity in His heavenly temple. They lay claim to sacred territory that belongs to God on earth. Antiochus massacred Jews and offered a pig in the temple. The Roman Army massacred the Jews and desolated the temple. Antichrist will assume the seat of Deity in his "temple," massacring Christians. They are all an "abomination," as far as I'm concerned.
    Completely agree that Daniel 8 is referring to another abomination. However as a forerunner to the antichrist due to matching wording and symbolism you would expect the next abomination to have similarities. The statue to Zeus (an image of Grecian religion) erected in the temple seems to closely match the description of the image of the beast in Rev 13 (an image of Judaism or Islam?)

    To compare historical fulfilment of Matthew 24 to a future fulfilment:
    A) A abomination of a Roman army, not clearly matching Antiochus' examples of a statue of Zeus or a pig desecration
    3.5 years, not clearly matching any period surrounding 70 AD
    No significant deceiving Messianic signs and wonders in the first century
    Gospel to all nations, not yet achieved in 70 AD
    A second coming, not clearly seen in 70 AD

    B) A Rev 13 image of the beast, matching well with Antiochus' Zeus image in the temple
    3.5 years clearly stated as 42 months in Rev 13
    Deceiving signs and wonders clearly described in Rev 13
    A great victory of the gospel in Rev 12, the victory of our testimony, that is so great it causes Satan to fall from heaven for 3.5 years of final wrath
    The beast comes to his end at the second coming, as described in 2 thess 2 and Rev 19, putting an end to the 42 month reign of the beast.

    Of the two, in every area Rev 13 is a better fit to the fulfilment of Matthew 24 than 70 AD is. The length of period is firmer, the starting point is firmer, the persecution/greatest ever tribulation is a firmer fulfilment, the abomination of an image is clearer and better fits the Antiochus example. The victory of the gospel is clear in Rev 12 which occurs at the same timing at the beginning of the GT. The second coming is a better fit to the dramatic description of Matthew 24. And of course this all fits in with the post-trib timing of the rapture, described so well in... Matthew 24.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    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
    I know you have claimed this, which is why I looked at every reference where you claim this and discovered this is incorrect.
    It isn't simply about believing different things, but about what is actually stated.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    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?
    No there is ZERO requirement for them to be consecutive years.
    God did NOT say AFTER 70 weeks then these things will happen. IF He had said that, THEN your requirement that it"must be" consecutive would be correct.
    What He said was there was going to be a total of 70 weeks, which are split into 3 blocks and which have certain things showing the start and end of each block.

    So an example would be if you go to a car repair place and say he says, the work to fix your car will take 70 weeks. You may assume it is consecutive.
    However if he continues and says. Before I can start the work I will need to order in the parts. The parts take 7 weeks to arrive. I will put the new part in.
    Then you will need to come and collect it.
    After you have collected it and driven it around for 62 weeks then you will need to bring it in again for me to then readjust and finalise everything. The final adjustment will take 1 week.

    Based on this you would realise that though the work takes 70 weeks, the whole thing will take longer.
    There will be delays based on:
    1) whether you place the order immediately or not.
    2) Once the part comes and is fitted how long before you come and pick it up.
    3) Once you have driven it around, do you remember to bring it back.

    So though I understand why people say it is consecutive, the prophecy itself does NOT require that, and my example shows valid reasons why not.
    For the Jews, they needed to return to Jerusalem and build the city.
    They did return but took years to build, and then even longer for the city to be finished.
    Once the 62 weeks were up they needed to respond to the anointed one, which they did not, and so the final week is still waiting. It will NOT happen UNTIL they say "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord".

    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.
    Actually incorrect. ECF didn't have the idea of the dates or Artaxerxes Longiman.
    There were some who saw the AOD being fulfilled in 70 AD, but NOT as a fulfillment of Luke, but of Matthew - yet the ECF who thought that based it in the idea of an AoD AFTER the city was taken. I doubt anyone on this forum would agree that matches the prophecy.
    An idea in Antiquity doesn't make it more correct.
    As Artaxerxes made no decree in 458 BC so this is moot anyway.

    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.
    It is a PLAIN statement of FACT - yet you make out one meaning which does NOT fit FACTS.
    Jesus did NOT claim His Olivet Discourse was based on Dan 9 - in FACT He stated FUTURE events would happen of which one may be claimed to fit Dan 9.
    He 100% did NOT say the 70 weeks are now fulfilled.
    This generation does NOT refer to a period of 40 years.

    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!
    Except Luke does NOT.

    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.
    The Romans didn't threaten to destroy the Temple. You do make claims which are not supported by any source. In fact from what we know Titus didn't want to destroy the Temple and ordered that it would not be.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    Not only did Jesus NOT stop animal sacrifices, but the apostles even paid for them to happen. So the apostles had a very different view to you even as late as twenty years after His death.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,148
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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!
    Actually there may well have been Preterists in the Early Church.
    Further who among the ECF actually believed this. I seem to remember discussing this with you before and the one ECF before Augustine (who spearheaded AMil and the idea of it all fulfilled) assumed the AoD happened AFTER the city and temple had been taken and destroyed, and was the placing of the statue of Zeus there.
    There isn;t a single ECF who equates Luke 21 to Matt 24.
    I never said it wasn't one Discourse. What is key is that Matthew and Mark do NOT talk about 70 AD, whereas Luke does. Luke does also tak about the FUTURE, but not in Luke 21, but Luke 17.
    It isn't a dual prophecy, it is a multi-prophecy, speaking of may things which would happen including 70 AD and a future AoD.

    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!
    Indeed Jesus mentioned BOTH, and yet you claim they are the SAME thing. The error is ENTIRELY on your part. For as soon as you accept that Jesus mentioned BOTH, and that the Roman Army was in reference to 66 AD, which is what the Early Church did, and so fled beyond the Jordan, then you will realise that what Jesus said was the fullness of BOTH Matthew, Mark AND Luke. SO BOTH an army and an AoD is mentioned.
    Luke does NOT mention the AoD, while Matthew and Mark do not mention the armies, and so you incorrectly pull the mention of one into the mention of the other when they are TWO separate things.
    66 AD was NOT 70 AD.
    Luke 21 armies surround Jerusalem does NOT refer to 70 AD, but to 66 AD. Get that clear in your head and your entire argument falls flat.
    When you realise that Luke 17 refers to the same things as Matt 24 THEN this will also help you.

    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.
    Nonsense argument. The Roman army had been based inside the city ON the Temple mount just outside the temple for decades, and this was NOT a challenge to the Holy God. Nor was it an assault on His Holy Residence.
    There is NO positioning IN, UNTIL it entered IN, which was then too late for it to be a valid sign.

    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.
    As you are reading things into it, rather than reading what is stated...
    There was no terminating of sacrifices. This idea stems from Augustinian thinking in particular.
    God had no problem with people making sacrifices. His issue was ALWAYS people making sacrifices without the correct attitude of heart and mind.

    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.
    Of course you don;t see them as the same as IF they were the same then your view would show you are wrong.
    Yet Jesus is the one who makes reference to Daniel and the AOD, which is clearly a reference to what was SEEN before - IOW it will be the same as A4E.

    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.
    More rubbish. The Romans had control over the whole land for decades and they didn;t march against God, but against Jews acting in rebellion.

    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!
    I can threaten as much as I like OUTSIDE, but UNTIL the child responds and comes OUT or I enter IN the authority isn't asserted.
    The example is of a child who has locked the door of their room and the parent saying - you are grounded, no more TV, no computer, and then does NOT enter, complete fails to assert their authority. Instead there is an ATTEMPT to assert authority.

    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.
    Nowhere is the Roman army called an abomination. So there is no reason.

    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.
    Incorrect. There were TWO different signs.
    One sign was an AoD set up IN the Holy Place, the other was a SIGN which happened in 66 AD, when the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem (and failed to assert its authority leaving and being routed.)
    TWO different periods of time. The Church responded to the first , and left after 66 AD when the Roman army had FAILED to assert any authority in the Holy Place.

    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.
    Your entire thesis is based on wonky understanding of "this generation". As soon as you drop that Preterist claim then the sooner you can make progress in your understanding. It is a compelling claim and IF true would mean we should ALL be Preterists.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    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
    I already pointed out that Jesus clarified his meaning better than Paul did:

    14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world AS A TESTIMONY TO ALL NATIONS and then the end will come.

    Jesus didn't stop at the whole world, but clarified further that he was referring to ALL NATIONS

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post

    Many claim these two sentences are describing the same event because of similar wording.
    What got the party started was this...,

    Matt 24
    Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
    3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”


    Lk 21
    5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
    7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”



    Where does Matt and Luke address this question? Don't need the chapter , just the verse .
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  11. #41
    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
    I already pointed out that Jesus clarified his meaning better than Paul did:

    14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world AS A TESTIMONY TO ALL NATIONS and then the end will come.

    Jesus didn't stop at the whole world, but clarified further that he was referring to ALL NATIONS
    This is a section on my Matthew 24 study

    Mt 24:14
    14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

    This shows that the disciples were asking about the end of the temple sacrificial age as the whole world was preached to before 70AD .

    Paul says the gospel was preached to the whole known world in

    Romans Ch 1:8
    8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world

    and

    Ch10:17-18
    ,17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
    “Their voice has gone out into all the earth,their words to the ends of the world.”

    Paul also mentions it in

    Colossians Ch 1:6
    6 that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.

    and

    Ch 1:23
    23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

    Acts chapter 2:5
    5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

    This verse shows that Jews from all over the world from every nation heard the gospel in their own tongue and could take it back to their own countries and share the good news.

    This same bible uses the same words which easily means that they could be talking about the same event

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    This is a section on my Matthew 24 study

    Mt 24:14
    14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

    This shows that the disciples were asking about the end of the temple sacrificial age as the whole world was preached to before 70AD .

    Paul says the gospel was preached to the whole known world in

    Romans Ch 1:8
    8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world

    and

    Ch10:17-18
    ,17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
    “Their voice has gone out into all the earth,their words to the ends of the world.”

    Paul also mentions it in

    Colossians Ch 1:6
    6 that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.

    and

    Ch 1:23
    23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

    Acts chapter 2:5
    5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

    This verse shows that Jews from all over the world from every nation heard the gospel in their own tongue and could take it back to their own countries and share the good news.

    This same bible uses the same words which easily means that they could be talking about the same event
    Jesus mentions all nations, which Paul does not. Do you have any reason to believe Jews of Acts 2 were not from beyond the borders of Rome?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    What got the party started was this...,

    Matt 24
    Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
    3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”


    Lk 21
    5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
    7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”



    Where does Matt and Luke address this question? Don't need the chapter , just the verse .
    Luke addresses the question about the destruction of the temple in v20-24
    He addresses the question about the second coming in V25-36

    Matthew addresses the question about Jesus coming again in v15-51

  14. #44
    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
    Jesus mentions all nations, which Paul does not. Do you have any reason to believe Jews of Acts 2 were not from beyond the borders of Rome?
    Yes acts 2

    Again my point is that the bible uses the same words thus the meanings are the same

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,421

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Yes acts 2

    Again my point is that the bible uses the same words thus the meanings are the same
    It's entirely possible that Acts 2 and Jesus both actually mean all nations. Jews were well travelled beyond the Roman Empire

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
  •