Page 1 of 12 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 178

Thread: Abomination = Army

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,335

    Abomination = Army

    I should have titled this: ABOMINATION=ARMY....NOT!

    Many claim these two sentences are describing the same event because of similar wording. They thereofre claim the armies ARE the abomination. But if this is true, then it means Jesus used the same wording twice in the same sermon describing the same events, but in the second version later in that sermon he added a few events and left out a few events. I guess it is possible, but it seem unlikely, because that would be a weird way to tell a story.


    Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

    Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    Of the 3 records of the Olivet discourse/sermon, Luke is the only one who records the armies surrounding Jerusalem and does not make reference to Daniel's abomination, so we do not doubt that Jesus spoke about the coming armies. Luke was too accurate to get that wrong. But why does he use Mark's wording about the abomination to describe a new topic, the surrounding armies The reason the wording matches so closely with Mark even though two subjects are dealt with, is that Luke was always borrowing phrases from Mark, understandable because he must have read those accounts multiple times.

    So either
    A) Jesus described the same events twice in the same sermon, using the same wording, just changing the details of the events here and there the second time
    or
    B) Luke is describing a second part of Jesus sermon about a new subject with borrowed phrases from Mark.

    People do not normally tell the same story twice using the same wording in one sermon but changing up the second version. And looking at the events that Luke lists, I would say that Luke is describing a second part of the sermon using borrowed wording from Mark 13. Context confirms this because there are major differences between the two events despite the use of similar phrases like "flee to the mountains" and "those who are nursing babies".

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Armies (Roman and other) are not an abomination per se.
    If they were then we would expect something to be mentioned of when Herod conquered Jerusalem and the Roman soldiers entered the Temple (37 BC)
    Further the prophecy in Daniel about A4E does NOT equate the armies with the abomination either.
    Rather armies ALLOW an abomination to occur.
    Further note that in Luke the armies are OUTSIDE the city, and according to all tradition and sources we have (primarily Josephus) no armies entered the city after 66 AD until its fall in 70 AD. So this wouldn't even fit what happened with A4E.

    It is Matthew who mentions the AoD, and this is connected with the great prophecy about God's working out His relationship with the Jews in Daniel 9.

    However many claim they must be the same based on the following thoughts:
    1) As mentioned in the OP the similarity of certain phrases.
    2) The fact the Temple no longer exists - this idea made sense while there was no nation of Israel in the Holy Land. Now this is no longer true, the possibility of another Temple is more possible than ever.
    3) The counting of the 70 weeks prophecy and a demand that the weeks MUST be consecutive.

    All this ignores that 70 AD does not fit WITHIN the 70 week period.
    It avoids the idea that the 70 weeks are split into 3 blocks, which means the requirement to ALL be consecutive is removed.
    It fails to deal with Luke 17 which was also spoken on the Olivet, and which matches much of Matt 24 which is missing from Luke 21. This means that those who claim Matt and Luke are speaking of the same thing have Luke repeating himself but with different words. However there are differences between Luke 17 and 21 which show that these two events are clearly at different times.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,842
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Many claim these two sentences are describing the same event because of similar wording. But if this is true, then it means Jesus used the same wording twice in the same sermon describing the same events, but in the second version later in that sermon he added a few events and left out a few events. I guess it is possible, but it seem unlikely, because that would be a weird way to tell a story.


    Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great [/COLOR]tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

    Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    Luke was known as an accurate historian, who compiled the story of Jesus from a number of sources. Yet he seemed to borrow turn of phrase from Mark, without borrowing the full details of Mark. He got the other details elsewhere. I am not saying he is inaccurate, he is known to be perfectly accurate as a recorder of places and events. Yet his wording often comes straight out of the pages of Mark.

    Of the 3 records of the Olivet discourse/sermon, Luke is the only one who records Jesus reference to Daniel's abomination, so we do not doubt that Jesus spoke about the abomination in the Olivet discourse. Luke was too accurate to get that wrong. But the reason the wording matches so closely with Mark, is that Luke was always borrowing phrases from Mark, understandable because he must have read those accounts multiple times.

    So either
    A) Jesus described the same events twice in the same sermon, using the same wording, just changing the details of the events here and there the second time
    or
    B) Luke is describing a second part of Jesus sermon about a new subject with borrowed phrases from Mark.

    People do not normally tell the same story twice using the same wording in one sermon but changing up the second version. And looking at the events that Luke lists, I would say that Luke is describing a second part of the sermon using borrowed wording from Mark 13. Context confirms this because there are major differences between the two events despite the use of similar phrases.
    They are obvious two events, Matthew is describing the end of the aion alone, nothing else (... and of the end of the aion. Greek text in v. 3) and Luke isn't. Luke talks about two similar events, 70 AD and the end of the aion. Scripture teaches us here that 70 AD is a shadow of the things to come when the Lord returns.

    The destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied as we know from v. 22 « For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled » we find this in Daniel:

    Dan. 9:26 « And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined ».

    Here to (in Daniel) there is a gap BTW, verse 27 goes on with the Antichrist just before the return of the Lord.

    When the Lord spoke these words it was all still a prophecy. The gap we live in now wasn't supposed to be there, that's why it gets difficult for most to keep things apart. I'm not making this gap up BTW, the Lord teaches us it's there in Luke 4, you know the story, the Lord visits a synagogue and is brought the book of Isaiah, he reads a part, closes the book gives it again to the minister and says « This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears ». The part He read is Isa. 61:2a, not the rest which says « and the day of vengeance of our God ... », this is still future to date.

    So if we take note of the times, it all fits. Since I believe Scripture is inspired (God-breathed) no one borrowed of made mistakes.

    Aristarkos

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,335

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Armies (Roman and other) are not an abomination per se.
    If they were then we would expect something to be mentioned of when Herod conquered Jerusalem and the Roman soldiers entered the Temple (37 BC)
    Further the prophecy in Daniel about A4E does NOT equate the armies with the abomination either.
    Rather armies ALLOW an abomination to occur.
    Further note that in Luke the armies are OUTSIDE the city, and according to all tradition and sources we have (primarily Josephus) no armies entered the city after 66 AD until its fall in 70 AD. So this wouldn't even fit what happened with A4E.

    It is Matthew who mentions the AoD, and this is connected with the great prophecy about God's working out His relationship with the Jews in Daniel 9.

    However many claim they must be the same based on the following thoughts:
    1) As mentioned in the OP the similarity of certain phrases.
    2) The fact the Temple no longer exists - this idea made sense while there was no nation of Israel in the Holy Land. Now this is no longer true, the possibility of another Temple is more possible than ever.
    Yes I agree that the armies are not an abomination. This idea that the armies of Matthew 24 match the abomination of Luke 21 is a flawed idea , based on a few similar phrases, when Luke is famous for borrowing phrases from Mark.

    And you make a good point about the surrounding armies. How can a surrounding army of a siege lasting a few years , also be an abomination inside Jerusalem at the same time. And if they only become an abomination when entering Jerusalem, then where is the 3.5 year period?



    3) The counting of the 70 weeks prophecy and a demand that the weeks MUST be consecutive.

    All this ignores that 70 AD does not fit WITHIN the 70 week period.
    It avoids the idea that the 70 weeks are split into 3 blocks, which means the requirement to ALL be consecutive is removed.
    It fails to deal with Luke 17 which was also spoken on the Olivet, and which matches much of Matt 24 which is missing from Luke 21. This means that those who claim Matt and Luke are speaking of the same thing have Luke repeating himself but with different words. However there are differences between Luke 17 and 21 which show that these two events are clearly at different times.
    I agree with the future fulfilment of the abomination. Yes the final portion of the 70 weeks is future and does not fit in with the armies/70 AD idea.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,335

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    They are obvious two events, Matthew is describing the end of the aion alone, nothing else (... and of the end of the aion. Greek text in v. 3) and Luke isn't. Luke talks about two similar events, 70 AD and the end of the aion. Scripture teaches us here that 70 AD is a shadow of the things to come when the Lord returns.
    Well said. If you believe the armies and the abomination are two separate events (as I do) what is your explanation for Luke using similar wording like fleeing to the mountains, and "woe" to the pregnant and nursing ? Wording that Luke applies to the armies, and Matthew and Mark apply to the abomination.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,842
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Well said. If you believe the armies and the abomination are two separate events (as I do) what is your explanation for Luke using similar wording like fleeing to the mountains, and "woe" to the pregnant and nursing ? Wording that Luke applies to the armies, and Matthew and Mark apply to the abomination.
    Like I said, the events are similar. It's in both about Jerusalem, both about armies surrounding the city, so the similar wording is only logical. Both these events should have — humanly speaking — happened relatively shortly after each other, now there are 2 millennia between them, but it will happen as is prophesied by the Lord.

    Aristarkos

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,335

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Like I said, the events are similar. It's in both about Jerusalem, both about armies surrounding the city, so the similar wording is only logical. Both these events should have — humanly speaking — happened relatively shortly after each other, now there are 2 millennia between them, but it will happen as is prophesied by the Lord.

    Aristarkos
    Exactly true. Those with historical tendencies tend to focus on the fact that the wording is similar, yet Luke is obviously dealing both 70 AD and the second coming. Whereas Matthew as you say, focus is more on the future abomination and second coming. This can be seen in context when Luke refers to those in Judah fleeing to the mountains in a period of distress BEFORE the Jewish diaspora/dispersion. Yet Matthew and Mark refer to the abomination as the starting point to the GREATEST distress just before the second coming.

    Sometimes this similarity of wording also indicates near/far prophecy, something you allude to when you say 70 AD is a shadow of things to come. Often the prophet when prophesying about a near event will then go on to prophesy about the similar equivalent event in the far future.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,244

    Re: Abomination = Army

    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. 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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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!*

    Even before they actually entered the Holy Place to desolate it they had set up a siege which in effect asserted their authority *within* the Holy Place. In other words, "standing in the Holy Place" may have meant that the Roman Army was engaged in an act of establishing their authority *in God's place.*

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,335

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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. 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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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!*

    Even before they actually entered the Holy Place to desolate it they had set up a siege which in effect asserted their authority *within* the Holy Place. In other words, "standing in the Holy Place" may have meant that the Roman Army was engaged in an act of establishing their authority *in God's place.*

    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.
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    9,162
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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. 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.


    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.


    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!


    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.


    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!*


    Even before they actually entered the Holy Place to desolate it they had set up a siege which in effect asserted their authority *within* the Holy Place. In other words, "standing in the Holy Place" may have meant that the Roman Army was engaged in an act of establishing their authority *in God's place.*


    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.


    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.
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.
    Amen...… ……………..

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,749

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The AoD *is* the Roman Army.
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,212
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    Although they did it in their own evil ways God still used it for His purpose just like the bible shows in the verse below

    Revelation 17:16-17
    16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,212
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,749

    Re: Abomination = Army

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Although they did it in their own evil ways God still used it for His purpose just like the bible shows in the verse below

    Revelation 17:16-17
    16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.
    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.

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
  •