Page 23 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 483

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Correction to my previous post (I cannot edit):
    "Therefore, the accounts were accurately representing what Jesus said in this Discourse. Matthew and Mark recorded the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not." [Luke] recorded "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, close to being desolated." My thought is that Jesus said both these things, describing the same event, and that Matthew and Mark used one part and Luke used the other part, conveying the same event."

    Yes, each of the synoptic authors recorded what Jesus actually said, with minor editorial changes. The relationship between

    "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" and
    "Jerusalem surrounded by armies, [rendering] near [its] desolation"

    are of negligible differentiation. They mean basically the same thing, and the unbiased reader might assume they were different phrases for the same thing. Hence, none of these authors felt the need to explain the difference. Since they placed these phrases in the exact same place in Jesus' Discourse, and since they all knew each other, and since they likely knew one another's versions, they would've felt the need to explain the differences had the different wording been significant.

    But the fact is, and unbiased mind would assume that Jesus used both these phrases and used them in the exact same place to represent the exact same event. It seems highly likely that Luke used a less "biblically literate expression" to convey to his audience what Matthew and Mark used with confidence that those knowledgeable of Daniel would understand as a technical term--the AoD.

    Not only were the different phrases given in the same place in the Discourse but they both express a "desolation" in the context of Jesus' main prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, the "holy place" refers to the sacred area around the temple, where the desolator would threaten the temple. And it would be viewed as an "abomination" simply because it was a foreign intruder, presenting a pagan violation of the holy city.

    The things you call "fact" have nothing to do with resolving this troubling notion that Jesus referred to 2 separate events in the exact same place in the Discourse. In my view that is difficult pill to swallow. The Reign of Antichrist is far, far removed from both this Discourse and from the destruction of the temple in 70 AD!
    The different phrases are in different places in the OD, not in the same place. The army occurs before the diaspora, the abomination occurs after the gospel is preached to all nations, separating the two events by nearly 2000 years.

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are going down the same rabbit hole that ForHisglory went down, and he ended up slandering me as "satanic!" I never said such a thing! I do believe the synoptic authors made minor editorial changes, when they quoted Jesus. But their quotations were in effect perfectly appropriate representations of what Jesus literally said. An author may make, for example, minor variations to accommodate his audience. If, for example, an audience may understand one synonym better than another, it wouldn't violate the truth by substituting a different synonym, as long as the meaning was the same.

    In this particular instance I actually believe Jesus said *both things*--I don't think Luke changed the wording from "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies." I'm not sure Mark changed the wording from "standing in the holy place" to "standing where it ought not." I'm not sure Mark changed the wording from "spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" to "let the reader understand."
    This is what you said before: It is likely, in my view, that Luke's audience would be less able to comprehend the "abomination of desolation." And since Jesus probably had actually mentioned Jerusalem surrounded by armies, he simply inserted that part of the description that would've been more comprehensible to his readers.

    It appears you are now backtracking and well done for that! Because your original view that it is okay for the ORIGINAL writers to MISQUOTE JESUS wasn't a good or moral idea. Now you refer to me going "down a rabbit hole". No , on the contrary you were going down a rabbit hole, I pointed it out, now you are trying to extricate yourself from your own rabbit hole.

    Yet even while you do so, maybe out of pride to defend some last vestige of dignity from your previous post, you STILL say that it is okay for those original writers to misquote Jesus. You say this: If, for example, an audience may understand one synonym better than another, it wouldn't violate the truth by substituting a different synonym, as long as the meaning was the same.

    No Randyk. They must be as true as possible, and Luke is well known for being an excellent historian.


    Your assumption here is, I believe, an error. Who said that there has to be a trail of verbiage in this particular context? This is a unique change in the history of Israel--certainly not the 1st major judgment of Israel, but only the 2nd destruction of the mature nation! The AoD vocabulary is unique in Israel's history, originating from Daniel. In fact, you won't even find anything about Antichrist except in Daniel! Would you therefore dismiss the "little horn" as unacceptable verbiage? No.

    So we have to look at the context to interpret the meaning of these words. There is a fallacy associated with trying to use the same meaning of words throughout the Bible, instead of relying on the particular context to interpret them. It is *context* that is king, brother--not how words and phrases have been used everywhere else. A brand new context requires a brand new look for the interpretation. Words are that way. If we had used your methodology for Jesus as Messiah we would never have accepted him as such. The terminology was so lacking that the Jews of his day reject Jesus as an "unproven Messiah!"
    As you say, the AoD vocabularly is unique. It is applied in history to Antiochus Epiphanes' defilement of the temple, and it also has a future application. Since we have no other examples to draw from I see value in looking carefully at the ONLY OTHER example in the bible. If you see no value in that, well we shall just have to happliy agree to disagree and let other readers decide for themselves. I believe Daniel's historical examples of the AoD do have bearing on the future AoD. What adds strength to the view that they are similar, is that in fact 2 Thess 2 , and Rev 13 mention clear abominations to come to the temple area which would more closely resemble that historical example than any other event that has ever occurred at the temple in history.


    Yet here is your bias. You may view yourself as completely objective, and you may indeed be sincere in believing that. And yet you seem unwilling to hear the total evidence. You seem to rely upon more recent schools of eschatology, which is Hal Lindsey-like. It is like trying to read the Olivet Discourse as a list of signs to identify the last generation! But this was not the approach Jesus used, since he downplayed any effort to predict times and seasons.

    And quite frankly, Hal Lindsey's approach has been entirely discredited, because he claimed that Jesus would return within 40 years of the restoration of Israel in 1948. Then it was said Jesus would return within 40 years of the restoration of Jerusalem to Israel in 1967. And then it was said that Jesus would return with 70 years of Israel's rebirth in 1948. It is now more than 70 years from the rebirth of Israel in 1948! These kinds of prognostications are wrong, and unbiblical. And quite frankly, they are based on misinterpretations of the text!
    You associate me with relying on Hal Lindsey-like schools of thought. I have never read his books or other "schools of thought" preferring to get my views directly from the bible. The association is ridiculous. I do not rely on "schools of eschatology" but simply read the bible. The gospels are not rocket science and speak for themselves. Wrong guy, I am the opposite of someone who follows "schools of thought". It is OPPOSITE to my independent thinking. There are enough bible tools, dictionaries, and history to do my own research, and I would not want a following, we must all remain independent thinkers, taught by the bible.


    You say only Luke describes the invasion of Jerusalem, and yet you try to make Matthew and Mark about the *same thing* with respect to Antichrist! And it is patently false to say that Matthew and Mark did not refer to the same things as Luke because *they all recorded the same Address of Jesus!* They were all focused on the destruction of the temple in *their generation.*
    Please quote verses to show clearly and unambiguously that Matthew or Mark said ANYTHING about the destruction of the temple. Anything at all. If they didn't say anything, then that is all in your own mind, and inferences. You can't take the high road based on your own imagination, Mark and Matthew don't even say ONE WORD about the destruction of the temple, yet you say they FOCUS on the destruction of the temple.
    Strange that.

    Even Luke does NOT focus on the destruction of the temple, he has just 5 verses (Luke 21:20-24). ONLY 5 verses in all 3 gospels even mention the destruction of the temple. Your entire view lives in your imagination, not in text or context.

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,766
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Trivalee you misunderstood that last sentence of mine. I see you do understand his posts and I wasn't implying anything else.

    This is what I meant:
    Even if one splits the Olivet discourse according to Randyk's own division of 70AD and second coming events, even by his own view there are more verses in the OD that deal with the second coming, than deal with 70AD. (I hope that is less ambiguous, you know I battle to express my thoughts sometimes.)
    Thanks for clarifying and my apologies for taking the wrong end of the stick. Yes, I agree that even with Randy's view of the discourse, there are more that relate to the Second coming than 70AD.

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Thank you for your kind words.

    I disagree with Randy on different levels regarding the OD.

    1. He believes the "holy place" Jesus pointed to as where the AoD will be cited is the vicinity outside the temple. I totally disagree with this view as I believe the holy place is non-other than the temple's inner sanctum.

    2. He believes the AoD is the Roman soldiers surrounding the temple - I don't share this view either. I believe the AoD will actually be either or both, the man of sin sitting in the temple claiming to be God or his image placed in the temple to mirror the actions of his antitype - Antiochus IV. (2 Thess 2:4, Rev 13)

    3. He believes the Great Tribulation is protracted Jewish distress that started from 70AD to end when Jesus returns. I understand it as an intensive, unprecedented catastrophe of epic proportions that will occur in the end-times and will require divine intervention to end it so as to save lives. (Matt 24:22)

    4. He believes the GT in the OD is exclusively a Jewish experience. Again, this is an unjustifiable claim given several clues in scripture that suggest it will be worldwide (Rev 7:9).

    5. He believes that to "shorten or cut short" the GT means bringing his 1900+years old distress to an end when Jesus returns. This interpretation does not align with scripture. Describing its intensity, Jesus said expressly that it will be unprecedented so much so it won't ever be repeated again. Therefore, I don't know how it could have lasted 1900 years and instead of wiping out life, Israel is thriving. So either Jesus lied or there is a serious error with this interpretation!

    6. Finally, he believes the primary theme of the OD was the Jews and the judgment of 70AD. Again, I see it differently. I believe the focus is about Christ' Second coming with the events (plural) that will occur before his return plainly outlined. 70AD happens to be just one of these events. Secondly, although those addressed were Jews (the disciples), the OD, however, is for Israel [the unbelieving Jew - that he may hopefully save his life/soul in Christ] and the Church (Jew and Gentile).

    I have been debating the Olivet Discourse with Randy for years and I do hope the above shows that I fully understand his argument, even though he claims I don't. So when you said that I "split off what he regards as the 70AD verses" this should clarify that I did not.
    Thanks brother. You do a very decent job of describing my positions. I don't know if this covers every detail, but I appreciate the effort you made to explain that you do understand. This was my major burden, to just explain what I believe. Whether it is true or not is the job of every one of us, individually. I pray we all get it right...eventually.

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Wouldn't that be wonderful?
    Yes, we're still looking for a good deal. If you're not hard to find, let me know in a private chat.

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Trivalee you misunderstood that last sentence of mine. I see you do understand his posts and I wasn't implying anything else.

    This is what I meant:
    Even if one splits the Olivet discourse according to Randyk's own division of 70AD and second coming events, even by his own view there are more verses in the OD that deal with the second coming, than deal with 70AD. (I hope that is less ambiguous, you know I battle to express my thoughts sometimes.)
    I agree. What begins as a major prophecy of the destruction of the temple *in that generation* evolves into an account of the 2nd Coming. It is how we put these 2 major events together that determines how we interpret the Discourse. Obviously, the more important event is the 2nd Coming. Thanks for that.

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    The different phrases are in different places in the OD, not in the same place. The army occurs before the diaspora, the abomination occurs after the gospel is preached to all nations, separating the two events by nearly 2000 years.
    I've showed you that the AoD/encirclement of Jerusalem are the "bologna" in between identical slices of bread. In all 3 versions, X is located between "standing in the faith" and "fleeing for the hills." This is beyond dispute. Same place in all 3 versions. X is between these 2 "slices of bread" in all 3 versions.

    When you introduce other elements, this just confuses the point I'm making. Reference to the "end" is not a point in time between the preaching of the gospel and the AoD. If so, the AoD must actually *follow* Christ's 2nd Coming, which is obviously false!

    No, the gospel is preached, and then "the end will come," merely because the gospel mission is to warn the world of final judgment at Christ's Coming. This does not indicate the end *precedes* the AoD!

    As to the army preceding the diaspora, we agree. The Roman Army fought Israel in 70 AD and in 135 AD, which lead to a mass dispersal of the Jewish People into the Jewish Diaspora. This was the natural progression of things.

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    This is what you said before: It is likely, in my view, that Luke's audience would be less able to comprehend the "abomination of desolation." And since Jesus probably had actually mentioned Jerusalem surrounded by armies, he simply inserted that part of the description that would've been more comprehensible to his readers.

    It appears you are now backtracking and well done for that! Because your original view that it is okay for the ORIGINAL writers to MISQUOTE JESUS wasn't a good or moral idea. Now you refer to me going "down a rabbit hole". No , on the contrary you were going down a rabbit hole, I pointed it out, now you are trying to extricate yourself from your own rabbit hole.
    On the contrary, I've had the *same discussion* with ForHisglory, and he thought the exact same thing.
    And I explained what I really said. His response was similar to yours--he wanted to believe I said something evil. I didn't. He could never produce a statement that indicated that.

    I have indicated, however, that I don't know the extent to which the gospel authors editorialized, and altered Jesus' quotes. I just believe they quoted Jesus, as literally as they felt was needed. I showed FHg that there are clear indications that the synoptic authors did alter Jesus' words slightly, but explained that these changes were minor and consistent with the meaning of what Jesus said.

    I also explained to FGl that I did not believe Luke altered language of the AoD given in Matthew and Mark. Rather, I told him I believed Jesus had said *both things,* ie the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark chose to use the AoD language. And Luke chose to use the "encirclement of Jerusalem" language, due to his particular audience, which was ignorant of Daniel's prophecy.

    So, no I'm not "back tracking," brother. That is a false assumption. You just misunderstood. And that's fine. I don't claim to be the best communicator in the world. These are also a little too complex to put simply.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Yet even while you do so, maybe out of pride to defend some last vestige of dignity from your previous post, you STILL say that it is okay for those original writers to misquote Jesus. You say this: If, for example, an audience may understand one synonym better than another, it wouldn't violate the truth by substituting a different synonym, as long as the meaning was the same.

    No Randyk. They must be as true as possible, and Luke is well known for being an excellent historian.
    I've already shown FHg that the synoptic authors did indeed quote Jesus using different synonyms. You think that "evil?" Do you think it's "evil" to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English? Those are not synonyms, but they're definitely different words that mean the same things!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    As you say, the AoD vocabularly is unique. It is applied in history to Antiochus Epiphanes' defilement of the temple, and it also has a future application. Since we have no other examples to draw from I see value in looking carefully at the ONLY OTHER example in the bible. If you see no value in that, well we shall just have to happliy agree to disagree and let other readers decide for themselves. I believe Daniel's historical examples of the AoD do have bearing on the future AoD. What adds strength to the view that they are similar, is that in fact 2 Thess 2 , and Rev 13 mention clear abominations to come to the temple area which would more closely resemble that historical example than any other event that has ever occurred at the temple in history.
    I do see similarities between Daniel's AoDs and the Antichrist. But I don't see any direct link between them, no. So what I do is just interpret the AoDs in Daniel, as given. And this determines, for me, how Jesus used the AoD in the Olivet Discourse, since he referenced Daniel's AoD.

    Daniel's AoD in ch. 9 is, beyond dispute, a reference to the destruction of the city and the temple--9.26. And so, I identify the AoD in the Olivet Discourse as the same, which would've meant 66-70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    You associate me with relying on Hal Lindsey-like schools of thought. I have never read his books or other "schools of thought" preferring to get my views directly from the bible. The association is ridiculous. I do not rely on "schools of eschatology" but simply read the bible. The gospels are not rocket science and speak for themselves. Wrong guy, I am the opposite of someone who follows "schools of thought". It is OPPOSITE to my independent thinking. There are enough bible tools, dictionaries, and history to do my own research, and I would not want a following, we must all remain independent thinkers, taught by the bible.
    I'm happy to hear that. However, your arguments are derived from that kind of thinking, which you obviously have referred to in the course of your studies. You may not know where that school of thought came from. But I can tell.

    I'm not trying to insult you, should you think that. I've held to the same viewpoint, but don't any longer. I was confronted with different povs.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Please quote verses to show clearly and unambiguously that Matthew or Mark said ANYTHING about the destruction of the temple. Anything at all. If they didn't say anything, then that is all in your own mind, and inferences. You can't take the high road based on your own imagination, Mark and Matthew don't even say ONE WORD about the destruction of the temple, yet you say they FOCUS on the destruction of the temple.
    Strange that.
    You think you're surprised? That is the most bizarre question, and beyond any expectation I had! You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not say the *same things* about the *destruction of the temple?*

    Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

    All 3 versions have this!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Even Luke does NOT focus on the destruction of the temple, he has just 5 verses (Luke 21:20-24). ONLY 5 verses in all 3 gospels even mention the destruction of the temple. Your entire view lives in your imagination, not in text or context.
    You don't meet the standards of rational thought. Nearly every commentary on the Olivet Discourse recognizes the central event as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. So, are you one of those who dismiss historic commentators as "pure garbage?"

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree. What begins as a major prophecy of the destruction of the temple *in that generation* evolves into an account of the 2nd Coming. It is how we put these 2 major events together that determines how we interpret the Discourse. Obviously, the more important event is the 2nd Coming. Thanks for that.
    Exactly, the more important event is the second coming, and it is in this context that the abomination is actually mentioned.

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,801

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Exactly, the more important event is the second coming, and it is in this context that the abomination is actually mentioned.
    But didn't the abomination have something to do with the temples destruction. ( desolation ) .I think it did.


    Rejection of Jesus led to their house being left desolate and the exile.


    The Gospel would follow them to wherever the exile took them and then the second coming would come.


    The Olivet makes no mention of a regathering after exile followed by a further abominable act of desolation.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Exactly, the more important event is the second coming, and it is in this context that the abomination is actually mentioned.
    Yes, that's a legitimate position. However, as I said, the term AoD originates from Dan 9, where we also have an undisputable reference to the "destruction of the city and the sanctuary." So it is also legitimate to view the AoD as potentially the 70 AD destruction of the temple. But to say that none of the synoptic authors reference the destruction of the temple is ludicrous. I honestly don't know where you're coming from?

  12. #342
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,618

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    But didn't the abomination have something to do with the temples destruction. ( desolation ) .I think it did.


    Rejection of Jesus led to their house being left desolate and the exile.


    The Gospel would follow them to wherever the exile took them and then the second coming would come.


    The Olivet makes no mention of a regathering after exile followed by a further abominable act of desolation.
    Clearly, the "abomination" had everything to do with the temple's destruction! The entire 70 Weeks Prophecy had to do with the ultimate status of the temple, which ends after the "cutting off" of Messiah, in his generation. This is exactly what Jesus was talking about in his Olivet Discourse.

    In my view, the Tribulation of the Jewish People only begins with the AoD, and lasts, according to Luke 21, until the "times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This means that the Great Tribulation, according to Jesus, is actually the Dispersion that began with the destruction of the Jewish temple.

    Thus, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the outcome of the AoD, and had nothing to do with the 2nd Coming, except that the 2nd Coming was compared, as a judgment, to this particular Jewish judgment. What happened to the Jews in 70 AD and following is also what will happen to the whole world at the 2nd Coming, unless they repent at the preaching of the gospel.

  13. #343
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, that's a legitimate position. However, as I said, the term AoD originates from Dan 9, where we also have an undisputable reference to the "destruction of the city and the sanctuary." So it is also legitimate to view the AoD as potentially the 70 AD destruction of the temple. But to say that none of the synoptic authors reference the destruction of the temple is ludicrous. I honestly don't know where you're coming from?
    You are misquoting me. I said there are 5 verses, I did not say there are none. Thanks for pointing out 3 more. So there are 8 verses about the destruction of the temple among 167 verses. Let me repeat that 8/167 hardly the focus of the Olivet Discourse.

    The destruction of the city is mentioned before the abomination is mentioned in Daniel 9, you need to prove that context associates them. They are split by a peace treaty and an ending to sacrifices, the abomination comes AFTER the sacrifices are ended, not before. This doesn't fit your earlier abomination view. Please explain your reasoning.

  14. #344
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    But didn't the abomination have something to do with the temples destruction. ( desolation ) .I think it did.
    No in Daniel 9 the abomination comes after the temple destruction, not before.


    The Olivet makes no mention of a regathering after exile followed by a further abominable act of desolation
    True. I never claimed it did. The abomination of Matthew 24 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations, and just before the second coming is mentioned, this is when I believe it occurs.

  15. #345
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,940

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've showed you that the AoD/encirclement of Jerusalem are the "bologna" in between identical slices of bread. In all 3 versions, X is located between "standing in the faith" and "fleeing for the hills." This is beyond dispute. Same place in all 3 versions. X is between these 2 "slices of bread" in all 3 versions.

    When you introduce other elements, this just confuses the point I'm making. Reference to the "end" is not a point in time between the preaching of the gospel and the AoD. If so, the AoD must actually *follow* Christ's 2nd Coming, which is obviously false!

    No, the gospel is preached, and then "the end will come," merely because the gospel mission is to warn the world of final judgment at Christ's Coming. This does not indicate the end *precedes* the AoD!

    As to the army preceding the diaspora, we agree. The Roman Army fought Israel in 70 AD and in 135 AD, which lead to a mass dispersal of the Jewish People into the Jewish Diaspora. This was the natural progression of things.
    Actually I showed you that they are in different places.
    Luke: *Standing in the faith *ARMY *fleeing *captivity *time of the Gentiles *signs in the sky *second coming
    Matthew: *Standing in the faith *gospel to ALL NATIONS *abomination *fleeing *signs in the sky *second coming

    Just like the rest of the gospels, some writers have information that other writers do not have. The army occurs before the extended period (in red) the abomination occurs after the extended period (in red).

    You entire argument rests on one tiny tiny point, that in both cases when Jerusalem is in stress, fleeing to the mountains is advised. But you have no argument from a sequence point of view.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty
    By doug3 in forum Praise
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Apr 24th 2011, 03:41 PM
  2. My first ground up build...
    By Firefighter in forum Solomon's Porch
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Mar 10th 2011, 01:39 PM
  3. Holy Ground
    By LLarios in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep 8th 2009, 06:19 AM
  4. Replies: 128
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2009, 11:28 AM

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
  •