Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 217

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Luke addresses the question about the destruction of the temple in v20-24
    He addresses the question about the second coming in V25-36
    Yes.

    Matthew addresses the question about Jesus coming again in v15-51
    Lol. your joking right ?

    When did Matt address the destruction of the temple? Did he go off on a rant or did he address the question?
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    As you can see by the differences between Luke and Matthew that they each left out large sections of the Olivet discourse. I don't know why.
    I don't think they did Bro.
    In Matt and Mark we have this teaching...,

    23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

    Luke can tell you no more or no less.


    Lk 1
    1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,418

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Yes.



    Lol. your joking right ?

    When did Matt address the destruction of the temple? Did he go off on a rant or did he address the question?
    As you can see by the differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 21, they each left out large sections of the Olivet discourse. Matthew does not deal with the temple question, but focusses on the second coming. I wouldn't call that focus on the second coming to "go off on a rant" as you put it.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,418

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    I don't think they did Bro.
    In Matt and Mark we have this teaching...,

    23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

    Luke can tell you no more or no less.


    Lk 1
    1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
    I quoted two sections in the opening post, each with some matching wording, and some different wording. How do you think Jesus actually worded the description of the surrounding armies, and the description of the abomination?

    Plus there are numerous other differences between the two accounts.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    As you can see by the differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 21, they each left out large sections of the Olivet discourse. Matthew does not deal with the temple question, but focusses on the second coming. I wouldn't call that focus on the second coming to "go off on a rant" as you put it.
    bollocks...……………
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,418

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    bollocks...……………
    No need to be rude, put up a scriptural argument.

    Luke 21:20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


    That part about the surrounding armies and the diaspora is left out of the book of Matthew.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,418

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    I don't think they did Bro.
    In Matt and Mark we have this teaching...,

    23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

    Luke can tell you no more or no less.


    Lk 1
    1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
    Are you claiming that Luke has all the detail of the other gospels? We just need to read the gospels to know that none of them has all the detail regarding Jesus life.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    No need to be rude, put up a scriptural argument.

    Luke 21:20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


    That part about the surrounding armies and the diaspora is left out of the book of Matthew.
    wasn't meaning to be rude Bro.

    Neither Matt or Luke leave anything out, as I have tried to scripturally show .Matt states - I have told you everything , and Luke endeavors to cover things in consecutive order.


    Matt alludes, imho , to the diaspora here …,

    15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,418

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    wasn't meaning to be rude Bro.

    Neither Matt or Luke leave anything out, as I have tried to scripturally show .Matt states - I have told you everything , and Luke endeavors to cover things in consecutive order.


    Matt alludes, imho , to the diaspora here …,

    15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath
    There is some matching wording, but your stance is impossible if you read Matthew and Luke. Luke mentions the surrounding army, and the diaspora, obviously referring to the diaspora after the Roman army. Matthew mentions the flight in abomination context, which occurs 3.5 years before the second coming.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Are you claiming that Luke has all the detail of the other gospels? We just need to read the gospels to know that none of them has all the detail regarding Jesus life.
    Matt and the other disciples were an eyewitness to his majesty. This is where Luke got all his information.

    Lk 1
    1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,551

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    There is some matching wording, but your stance is impossible if you read Matthew and Luke. Luke mentions the surrounding army, and the diaspora, Matthew does not.
    Both answer the question of the coming desolation of the temple . If you want to believe that Matt ignores his own question with the disciples , that's up to you.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,526

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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.
    If my view is confusing to you, brother, it is because others have contributed so many differing views that it's hard to see. My view is very simple, with respect to this issue. The AoD is fulfilled in 66-70 AD, which is outside of the 70 Weeks prophecy. The prophecy places the destruction of the city and the sanctuary *after* the "cutting off" of Christ, and the 70th Week. This is not confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.)
    Yes, this is a very common view, but I reject it. These signs I refer to as the "beginning of birth pains." They were the initial signs leading up to the collapse of the temple. The Jews were suppose to give birth to the Kingdom of God. Instead they brought about judgment upon themselves. Their Kingdom hope was dashed, and their religious works were aborted.

    The Great Tribulation actually *follows,* in my scenario, the collapse of the temple in 70 AD. As well, it *begins* in the 70 AD destruction of the city. That's because the 70 AD judgment eventually led to the great Jewish Diaspora, which lasts throughout the entire NT age. It only ends when the "times of the Gentiles" comes to an end. These aren't my words. They're the Lord's words.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    No, I'm completely right on this, because Jesus said "this generation," referring to his own generations. He was speaking to his own disciples, in the very time that he was living! You seem to *want* to believe that this can be some future generation. But it's impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    If you don't want to believe Jesus, fine. You have to believe him--not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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?)
    That could be. I'm not clear on that. I'm open...

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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
    This is untrue. There were false Jewish messiahs in the 1st century, who either tried to get Israel to fight the Romans, or who tried to get Jews to follow their cult. As for the preaching of the gospel, Jesus never said the job would be finished in the 1st century--only started. As to Jesus' 2nd Coming, he never said he was coming back after the AoD of 70 AD. Rather, he said the AoD would lead to an age-long Jewish Dispersion, after which he would return. As to the AoD in 70 AD matching the AoD of Antiochus, there is no need for them to be an exact match. They only have to be an "abomination," and they only have to lead to "desolation." These happened in both cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    None of the signs of the Olivet Discourse fit the Antichrist. Jesus spoke primarily of the 70 AD judgment of Israel. Antichrist has to do with the last 3.5 years of this age. One fulfills Dan 9. The other fulfills Dan 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    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.
    I'm postrib, but I'm sorry--Jesus said the AoD would take place in "this generation." Believe him, and your view of the Olivet Discourse will be better.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,526

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No there is ZERO requirement for them to be consecutive years.
    Ridiculous! The premise for your response is false. Therefore, no response is worthwhile.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,526

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    I think you know what I mean? Jesus' death brought an end to God's recognition of animal sacrifices as part of the Mosaic Law. That covenant had been terminated with Jesus' death on the cross, indicated by the rending of the temple veil. Hebrews indicated that temple worship continued, but was soon to come to an end. It did come to an end when the Romans destroyed the temple, just as Jesus had prophesied.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,526

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually there may well have been Preterists in the Early Church.
    I think you know what I meant. The Preterist movement had not yet begun. Since you are one of those who try to fight your battles by name-calling--by calling me a Preterist--I will not dignify your response with anything at this point. You are one of those who might insist that I'm a preterist even though I'm not. You would spin it so that others think that's what I believe. If so, I don't respect that at all.

    The definition of a preterist normally excludes those who believe in future prophecies contained in the Olivet Discourse, such as my view of an age-long Great Tribulation of the Jewish People. It usually excludes those who believe in a future explanation of the book of Revelation, such as belief in a future Antichrist. And it normally excludes belief in a future restoration of Israel. Since I believe these, I am *not* a preterist. Your wish to brand me as such is wrong-headed. I don't know if you still wish to brand me as such, but if so, I'm disinterested in discussing with you anything about it, if anything more at all. Name-calling isn't Christian. And slander is worse. Unless you wish to completely redefine preterism, you owe me an apology?

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
  •