Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314
Results 196 to 200 of 200

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #196
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,084
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I have a different view of this than you. Your arguments don't persuade me one bit. There are 2 ways of looking at the temple of God, as a literal temple on earth of wood and stone, or as a metaphorical claim to divine authority. I believe Paul is referring to the latter, since he shows no inclination towards the belief that Antichrist will actually occupy the temple in Jerusalem.
    Yo do have a different view. Is yours tenable? Nope.
    The temple is NOT a metaphorical claim to divine authority. Paul NEVER refers to the latter.
    In 2 Thess 2 Paul refers to the PHYSICAL temple of God. So far Paul has not written a single letter to any other church suggesting that a Church is the temple of God.
    Those who agree Paul wrote it put the date as around 51 - 52 AD. Only those who attribute it to other authors put it as 80 - 115 AD.
    Ephesians for example is believed to have been written 10 years later when Paul was in prison.

    Jesus is in the Father. And the Father is in Jesus. Yes, they are both temples of one another. We go to both places to meet with God since we are not God, but only creations of God. We must meet with God in a place, because we are not God and must go *somewhere* to meet with God. We go either to the throne room of God in heaven, or to Jesus.
    Where is Jesus? He is in the throne room of God in heaven.
    Is Jesus in us?
    Yes, so is the Holy Spirit.
    So also is the Father.
    Eph 4:6* One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

    So we don't need to go anywhere, and at the same time Jesus had to enter the heavenly temple.

    I also disagree on our semantical argument about Romans being occupiers of the temple in Jerusalem. I believe they controlled all of Jerusalem, despite the Jewish war of rebellion that took place 66-70 AD. Rome didn't have to be *in* the temple to occupy Jerusalem, in terms of their political authority. Defiance of that authority was a challenge, but only a temporary reality. "Standing in the Holy Place" meant for me that Rome would stand her ground with respect to her authority over the temple site. Jesus' sign was that Rome would meet the threat of Jewish zealotry by initiating control *in place of God* in the temple, by assuming the position of *destroyers.*
    Nonsense again. Please ask someone else to read this and ask if they would accept such nonsense. Then it wouldn't just be me telling you that your definition is wrong.
    They did NOT control any of Jerusalem from 66 - 70 AD.
    The point of a rebellion is that the Rebels have control of what is INSIDE.
    The Romans were trying to reassert their authority and had to defeat the rebels.
    Once they did this THEN they were inside.
    It was a REALITY, How long it is a REALITY only matters in terms of the sign.
    It was a REALITY throughout the time you claim the opposite.

    And yes, Jesus positively was calling the Roman Army the "abomination of desolation." There is no way you can get around that, since the Olivet Discourse, discussing this AoD, opened up with a declaration that the Roman Army would desolate the city and the sanctuary, just as Daniel had predicted. Any defilement of the sanctuary would be considered an "abomination." Although the Romans had tolerated Jewish worship, Jesus said that they would eventually destroy God's worship in the sanctuary. They would become an "abomination of desolation." Thus, Jesus clearly referred to the Romans as an "abomination." We're going to have to agree to disagree on these matters.
    And NO Jesus was not and DID NOT ever call the Roman Army the "Abomination of Desolation." Please provide a SINGLE instance of where Jesus referred to the Romans in this way outside of this claim verse?
    You can't. What you do find is something different:
    Mat 22:21* They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”*

    Notice what is Caesar's is to be given to him. This is NOT an Abomination.
    You see you are employing circular reasoning because your ONLY support for this view is your assumption that this is the meaning in the OD without it being supported by any other witness to this meaning.
    Jesus actually said there would be a desolation in relation to the Romans, which was a destruction. However NO Abomination mentioned.

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,459

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Yo do have a different view. Is yours tenable? Nope.
    The temple is NOT a metaphorical claim to divine authority. Paul NEVER refers to the latter.
    He does right here!
    So, it is a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    In 2 Thess 2 Paul refers to the PHYSICAL temple of God.
    This is *your interpretation!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So far Paul has not written a single letter to any other church suggesting that a Church is the temple of God.
    Eph 2.19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Those who agree Paul wrote it put the date as around 51 - 52 AD. Only those who attribute it to other authors put it as 80 - 115 AD.
    Ephesians for example is believed to have been written 10 years later when Paul was in prison.

    Where is Jesus? He is in the throne room of God in heaven.
    Is Jesus in us?
    Yes, so is the Holy Spirit.
    So also is the Father.
    Eph 4:6* One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
    Yes, and we as Christians are the temple of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So we don't need to go anywhere, and at the same time Jesus had to enter the heavenly temple.
    Yes, we do go to Christ or to the heavenly throne room of God. We do both at the Rapture/Resurrection.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nonsense again. Please ask someone else to read this and ask if they would accept such nonsense. Then it wouldn't just be me telling you that your definition is wrong.
    They did NOT control any of Jerusalem from 66 - 70 AD.
    I'm now repeating myself. We disagree, brother. I believe Rome controlled/occupied *all* of Israel in the time period 66-70 AD. They did so in terms of their authority as occupier. Their actual presence was not necessary. However, the amassing of their troops around Jerusalem did demonstrate their rightful claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The point of a rebellion is that the Rebels have control of what is INSIDE.
    The Romans were trying to reassert their authority and had to defeat the rebels.
    Once they did this THEN they were inside.
    It was a REALITY, How long it is a REALITY only matters in terms of the sign.
    It was a REALITY throughout the time you claim the opposite.
    Okay, we've already disagreed on this. Actual presence within the Holy Place was not, for me, the issue. It was their *claim* to ownership that mattered for me, along with the expressed intent to destroy the worship there. This is what made them the "abomination of desolation."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    And NO Jesus was not and DID NOT ever call the Roman Army the "Abomination of Desolation." Please provide a SINGLE instance of where Jesus referred to the Romans in this way outside of this claim verse?
    You can't. What you do find is something different:
    Mat 22:21* They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”*
    Wrong. I'm citing this very verse as evidence that Jesus called the Romans the "abomination of desolation." I also would cite Dan 9.26-27 as evidence that this is how Jesus used the term. Furthermore, I would point out that a number of the Church Fathers viewed the AoD in this way, which holds a lot more sway with me than this little Forum. Don't get me wrong--I respect the Forum. I'm just responding to your suggestion I ask others here how they would view my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Notice what is Caesar's is to be given to him. This is NOT an Abomination.
    You see you are employing circular reasoning because your ONLY support for this view is your assumption that this is the meaning in the OD without it being supported by any other witness to this meaning.
    Jesus actually said there would be a desolation in relation to the Romans, which was a destruction. However NO Abomination mentioned.

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,084
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    He does right here!
    So, it is a matter of interpretation, isn't it?
    Ha ha ha
    No it isn't simply a matter of interpretation. And yet of course it is a matter of interpretation.

    Your problem is that you are reading into it something he has not stated.
    What others call eisegesis.

    The straight forward way anybody reading it, without a later letter is the PHYSICAL temple of God. As Paul had not told the Thessalonians in either of his letters, nor was it alluded to in Acts as anything except the PHYSICAL temple, so the meaning is clear. You do not read a metaphorical meaning when a literal one is simpler and fits exactly.

    This is *your interpretation!*
    It is what he said. Yours isn't even an interpretation but a conflux of various ideas which don't fit together.

    Eph 2.19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
    Missed the point i made. This letter to the Thessalonians was written 10 years BEFORE Paul is known to teach about us being the temple of God utilising a REALITY as an example for how to understand the Church.

    Yes, and we as Christians are the temple of God.
    Not a place where the AC can sit.

    Yes, we do go to Christ or to the heavenly throne room of God. We do both at the Rapture/Resurrection.
    Actually we meet Jesus in the sky at the Rapture.

    I'm now repeating myself. We disagree, brother. I believe Rome controlled/occupied *all* of Israel in the time period 66-70 AD. They did so in terms of their authority as occupier. Their actual presence was not necessary. However, the amassing of their troops around Jerusalem did demonstrate their rightful claim.
    What you OR I believe is immaterial. The question is whether our belief (yours or mine) actual fits any definition of truth as to words.
    Your belief is up there with La La Land.
    Massing OUTSIDE Jerusalem was in order to IMPOSE something which they did NOT have. IF they had it then they would NOT have needed the troiops. Your very proof disproves your claim.

    Okay, we've already disagreed on this. Actual presence within the Holy Place was not, for me, the issue. It was their *claim* to ownership that mattered for me, along with the expressed intent to destroy the worship there. This is what made them the "abomination of desolation."
    Yes we have disagreed because you continue to act as though this is irrelevant.
    Jesus MADE it relevant. He said when you see IN the Holy Place.
    Jesus did NOT say "when you see some people claiming ownership standing outside..." which is what YOU are saying, which is utterly ridiculous and not worth the amount of effort you have expended trying to argue as if it is a rational or valid stance to hold.

    Wrong. I'm citing this very verse as evidence that Jesus called the Romans the "abomination of desolation." I also would cite Dan 9.26-27 as evidence that this is how Jesus used the term. Furthermore, I would point out that a number of the Church Fathers viewed the AoD in this way, which holds a lot more sway with me than this little Forum. Don't get me wrong--I respect the Forum. I'm just responding to your suggestion I ask others here how they would view my position.
    Not wrong at all. Again by claiming the verse in question supports your view, you are then using circular reasoning. Your assumption is based upon your assumption.
    I gave another verse which shows Jesus speaking about the Romans in a manner which does NOT show them an Abomination.
    As you know I don't highly regard most ECFs, and also your claim about what ECFs is also demonstrably wrong as discussed before. You make an assumption as to what they are saying though they don't actually say it.
    So I am suggesting you ask someone who can actual read what you write rather than simply revert to your assumptions about someone elses writings.

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,459

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Ha ha ha
    No it isn't simply a matter of interpretation. And yet of course it is a matter of interpretation.

    Your problem is that you are reading into it something he has not stated.
    What others call eisegesis.

    The straight forward way anybody reading it, without a later letter is the PHYSICAL temple of God. As Paul had not told the Thessalonians in either of his letters, nor was it alluded to in Acts as anything except the PHYSICAL temple, so the meaning is clear. You do not read a metaphorical meaning when a literal one is simpler and fits exactly.
    Not at all. Paul may have been referencing the historical example of Antiochus 4 placing an abomination in the physical temple. In doing so, Paul is not even trying to interpret how the Antichrist will do this. He is only stating that in some way he will do the same thing Antiochus did by declaring himself to be God!

    It is as though Paul is saying, "Antichrist will do what Antiochus did, in situating himself in God's place, within the temple of God." And Paul may do this without making any effort trying to explain what kind of temple Antichrist will sit in. The *only thing* Paul is declaring, with respect to the type of temple he will sit in, is that he will declare himself to be in the place of God. Since Paul did *not* see God's temple as active any longer, placing one's self there is simply declaring one's self to have divine authority. It makes no reference to the authenticity of a physical temple at all, particularly since the temple no longer had authenticity in the NT era.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It is what he said. Yours isn't even an interpretation but a conflux of various ideas which don't fit together.

    Missed the point i made. This letter to the Thessalonians was written 10 years BEFORE Paul is known to teach about us being the temple of God utilising a REALITY as an example for how to understand the Church.
    Your point wasn't clear. You denied the Church is a temple. And quite frankly, the Church was God's temple before Paul acknowledged it to be such.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not a place where the AC can sit.
    It's quite simple, brother. Substitute the word "Place of God" for the word "Temple of God." Antichrist will seat himself in the Place of God. In other words, he will declare himself to be God. This has no reference to the constitution of the temple, whether brick, stone, or wood, whether Jewish temple or some pagan temple. Paul is obviously referencing the AoD, because as Antiochus or the Romans showed, they positioned themselves in *God Place,* which in their time was the Jewish temple, the physical temple of stone and wood. But in the time of Antichrist the idea is simply that he will in the same way declare himself to be God, putting himself in the *Place* of God. To "sit in the temple of God" may indeed create the illusion of one sitting in the Jewish temple. But in reality, it may only be a declaration of Deity in the Place of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually we meet Jesus in the sky at the Rapture.
    Why quibble over the exact place? It takes place in a second of time, and it assumes we must *go to God in heaven.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What you OR I believe is immaterial. The question is whether our belief (yours or mine) actual fits any definition of truth as to words.
    Your belief is up there with La La Land.
    Massing OUTSIDE Jerusalem was in order to IMPOSE something which they did NOT have. IF they had it then they would NOT have needed the troiops. Your very proof disproves your claim.
    In my view you're calling Jesus' words "La La Land." Believing what I do I could never do that. Jesus called the encircling of the Roman Army around Jerusalem a "standing in the Holy Place." I try to explain this the best I can. You deal with it the best you can, and that's okay. But I'm going to try to refrain from insults, because that just complicates things. We tend to insult things when our argument isn't strong enough on its own to win the day.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yes we have disagreed because you continue to act as though this is irrelevant.
    Jesus MADE it relevant. He said when you see IN the Holy Place.
    Jesus did NOT say "when you see some people claiming ownership standing outside..." which is what YOU are saying, which is utterly ridiculous and not worth the amount of effort you have expended trying to argue as if it is a rational or valid stance to hold.
    Yet this is how Jesus put it. He said when Roman armies encircle the holy city of Jerusalem somehow something "stood" in the Holy Place. And the thing that stood there was a sign of destruction, of both Jerusalem and the temple. So I believe the thing that stood there was the Roman Army in the vicinity of Jerusalem, claiming authority in the Holy Place to destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not wrong at all. Again by claiming the verse in question supports your view, you are then using circular reasoning. Your assumption is based upon your assumption.
    I gave another verse which shows Jesus speaking about the Romans in a manner which does NOT show them an Abomination.
    As you know I don't highly regard most ECFs, and also your claim about what ECFs is also demonstrably wrong as discussed before. You make an assumption as to what they are saying though they don't actually say it.
    So I am suggesting you ask someone who can actual read what you write rather than simply revert to your assumptions about someone elses writings.
    It would be as easy for me to insult your intelligence as it would be for you to insult mine. But that's not what we're trying to do here. I begin with the belief that we both sincerely seek the truth. I hope that's as true for you as it is for me. I sincerely believe my position. It isn't ridiculous for me. But I do see how you look at it. And I find it unfortunate that you can't view it any other way.

  5. #200
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,084
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Not at all. Paul may have been referencing the historical example of Antiochus 4 placing an abomination in the physical temple. In doing so, Paul is not even trying to interpret how the Antichrist will do this. He is only stating that in some way he will do the same thing Antiochus did by declaring himself to be God!

    It is as though Paul is saying, "Antichrist will do what Antiochus did, in situating himself in God's place, within the temple of God." And Paul may do this without making any effort trying to explain what kind of temple Antichrist will sit in. The *only thing* Paul is declaring, with respect to the type of temple he will sit in, is that he will declare himself to be in the place of God. Since Paul did *not* see God's temple as active any longer, placing one's self there is simply declaring one's self to have divine authority. It makes no reference to the authenticity of a physical temple at all, particularly since the temple no longer had authenticity in the NT era.
    So now you are saying Paul was LAX with the words he used to mislead the people in Thessalonica?
    There is ONLY ONE kind of temple that the AC can sit in - that is a PHYSICAL temple.
    He CANNOT sit the Church when we speak of the Church metaphorically as the temple of God.
    He CANNOT sit in Jesus or in the Father when we consider them as a temple.
    There is NOTHING difficult about the language. It is very simple and straight forward. Your issue is because there is no temple therefore you don't see how it could be fulfilled.
    Previously people had a problem that the nation of Israel didn't exist.

    Your point wasn't clear. You denied the Church is a temple. And quite frankly, the Church was God's temple before Paul acknowledged it to be such.
    No I denied that Paul had called the Church the temple of God at the time of writing 2 Thessalonians. Further when Paul does in Ephesians he uses the terminology based on a KNOWN reality of a temple to convey ideas.

    It's quite simple, brother. Substitute the word "Place of God" for the word "Temple of God." Antichrist will seat himself in the Place of God. In other words, he will declare himself to be God. This has no reference to the constitution of the temple, whether brick, stone, or wood, whether Jewish temple or some pagan temple. Paul is obviously referencing the AoD, because as Antiochus or the Romans showed, they positioned themselves in *God Place,* which in their time was the Jewish temple, the physical temple of stone and wood. But in the time of Antichrist the idea is simply that he will in the same way declare himself to be God, putting himself in the *Place* of God. To "sit in the temple of God" may indeed create the illusion of one sitting in the Jewish temple. But in reality, it may only be a declaration of Deity in the Place of God.
    Sorry but your substitution does NOT work.
    The AC has NO possible way to be SEEN sitting in the Place of God.
    To SIMPLY declare yourself God is insufficient. Many false Christs do this. They were NOT the AC.
    Imagine for a moment you are living in Thessalonica and you receive this letter - what would be the CLEAR meaning you would have from it?
    It would be very sclear it is speaking of the EXISTING temple of God in Jerusalem.

    Why quibble over the exact place? It takes place in a second of time, and it assumes we must *go to God in heaven.*
    Firstly, why do you say it takes a second? Jesus didn't take a second it seems. Nor did Elijah when he was taken by the chariots into the sky.
    Secondly it does NOT assume we go to God in Heaven. In fact we have an opposite picture. It is God coming to earth and we join Him.

    In my view you're calling Jesus' words "La La Land." Believing what I do I could never do that. Jesus called the encircling of the Roman Army around Jerusalem a "standing in the Holy Place." I try to explain this the best I can. You deal with it the best you can, and that's okay. But I'm going to try to refrain from insults, because that just complicates things. We tend to insult things when our argument isn't strong enough on its own to win the day.
    Believing what you do DOES make Jesus' words La La Land.
    It makes jesus' words be divorced from meaning and any kind of nonsense.
    Jesus did NOT EVER call the Roman army around Jerusalem as standing in the Holy Place.
    Jesus KNEW EXACTLY what standing in the Holy Place meant. He said it nice and simple so that most people who don't have pre-determined meanings and circular reasoning could easily understand. Standing in the Holy Place means Standing in the Holy Place.
    You make it mean, being powerless OUTSIDE the Holy Place and no way to be there for 4 years.
    A VERY different meaning.
    I am INSULTING your claim because the claim is CONTEMPTUOUS of what Jesus said.
    My argument is completely fine. It is what the words mean when used and can stand on its own.
    However your version is belittling the very words Jesus gives and makes them playthings, to be given any meaning you like.

    Yet this is how Jesus put it. He said when Roman armies encircle the holy city of Jerusalem somehow something "stood" in the Holy Place. And the thing that stood there was a sign of destruction, of both Jerusalem and the temple. So I believe the thing that stood there was the Roman Army in the vicinity of Jerusalem, claiming authority in the Holy Place to destroy it.
    Nope Jesus did NOT say that.
    Luke 21 armies surrounding in 66 AD did NOT stand in the Holy Place. Those armies were routed and gone. After that event the Christians fled as they saw the prophecy in Luke 21 fulfilled.
    However your connection is to different armies which came in 70 AD and which would be TOO late to flee from.

    It would be as easy for me to insult your intelligence as it would be for you to insult mine. But that's not what we're trying to do here. I begin with the belief that we both sincerely seek the truth. I hope that's as true for you as it is for me. I sincerely believe my position. It isn't ridiculous for me. But I do see how you look at it. And I find it unfortunate that you can't view it any other way.
    Insulting your intelligence is not the point. I simply cannot see how ANYONE with any level of intelligence can claim what you are doing. This is why I suggested asking someone else whether your claim is anything more than risible. Then you will see it is NOT me insulting you, but simply the very claim you make is an insult to yourself.
    You do yourself and your position a disservice by writing as if this idea of an army which is OUTSIDE is simultaneously INSIDE the Holy Place.
    Then again you also somehow have the AC sit inside Jesus or the Father or the Spirit-filled Church as a possibility.

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
  •