the abomination of desolation
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
(whoso readeth, let him understand
Thanks for watching.
Interplanner
Well-known member
(whoso readeth, let him understand
STP is notorious for fracturing coherent pictures. There was just one; it was the figure in Dan 8 who leads the 'rebellion that desolates' in ch 9, which was the only reference Christ made about it and it took place in that generation as he said. That was also the rabbinic/priestly understanding of Dan 9, as Josephus says.
Ie, STP does not focus on enough detail--unless it supports a separated theology system running two shows at once.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Made up. The man of sin did not stand in the Holy Place and declare to be God, causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This is the abomination of desolation, and it has yet to occur.
why do you think this is the abomination?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It is what scripture says it is. Man of sin erects an image in the temple, and demands to be worshiped as God.
Open and shut case.
can you show me where it says that?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Compare Daniel with 1 and 2 Thess, and the Revelation.
Bible Study. Believe what you read, take God at face value.
a place
is
a place
is
a place
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Mt24A passage is not futurist. Neither is its earlier parallel Mk 13. Those passages are about 1st century Judea. Check all the details for that. At Mt24:29, it goes future and worldwide, and is expected, originally, to be right after the horrible time in Judea.
However, an allowance is made that the final day of worldwide judgement may be later, and we know it was.
The future worldwide day of judgement has no Judean detail to it; it would make no sense to.
The expression AofD started as the rebellion that desolates in Dan 8:13, a rebellion that would take place during the 4th kingdom that overran Israel, mentioned later in ch 8 and 9.
Christ was speaking of a person. Let the reader understand that. It would not be an image placed by an outside party. it would the the noxious actions of the rebellion and its leader; he would be found setting up in the temple and would ruin the country. There are events in the Great Revolt of 66-72 that follow this close enough.
Luke (Paul's) was written last, latest. When he comes close to this, it is no longer about watching for a person, but watching out for the city to be encircled. The Romans did encircle of course as part of their siege works, and this is certainly what is meant in 19:43, which passage is full of expressions from the first destruction of Jerusalem, but updated with Roman military vocabulary, making it unmistakable. However, we should note that Festus sought to protectively encircle Jerusalem even before that, but died during the constsruction and it was stopped and used against the city, once the zealot rebellion had overrun it. Festus, Agrippa and Bernice were interested in preserving the city as members of Judaism, and tried to stop the zealots.
There is also an account (in Josephus' JEWISH WAR) of Bernice making a direct appeal to a particularly horrible Roman figure, Florus, because he was agitating the rebellious zealots and trying to get them to fight.
So I think Festus effort to protect the city is signal enough for Christians to leave the city. Some stayed and were miraculously able to escape when the surrounding by Roman siege was interrupted a couple years later.
But Christ's remarks about how the zealots/Judaizers would ruin the city are not directed at Roman admins; they are all directed at the zealots; 'leistes' in Lk 19:46 is not a common thief; it is a terrorist, an insurgent. Part of this was to show in Luke-Acts that Paul was not part of any such rebellion at all.
Many, many passages in Paul refer to the 2nd coming in judgement being right round the corner. I don't know when 2 Peter was written but it appears to deal with this difficulty ('where is the coming?' 'some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand'). Once 72 went by and the world continued on, only the basic instruction to keep proclaiming Christ as Lord to all men, and his eventual return in judgement is clear.
However, an allowance is made that the final day of worldwide judgement may be later, and we know it was.
The future worldwide day of judgement has no Judean detail to it; it would make no sense to.
The expression AofD started as the rebellion that desolates in Dan 8:13, a rebellion that would take place during the 4th kingdom that overran Israel, mentioned later in ch 8 and 9.
Christ was speaking of a person. Let the reader understand that. It would not be an image placed by an outside party. it would the the noxious actions of the rebellion and its leader; he would be found setting up in the temple and would ruin the country. There are events in the Great Revolt of 66-72 that follow this close enough.
Luke (Paul's) was written last, latest. When he comes close to this, it is no longer about watching for a person, but watching out for the city to be encircled. The Romans did encircle of course as part of their siege works, and this is certainly what is meant in 19:43, which passage is full of expressions from the first destruction of Jerusalem, but updated with Roman military vocabulary, making it unmistakable. However, we should note that Festus sought to protectively encircle Jerusalem even before that, but died during the constsruction and it was stopped and used against the city, once the zealot rebellion had overrun it. Festus, Agrippa and Bernice were interested in preserving the city as members of Judaism, and tried to stop the zealots.
There is also an account (in Josephus' JEWISH WAR) of Bernice making a direct appeal to a particularly horrible Roman figure, Florus, because he was agitating the rebellious zealots and trying to get them to fight.
So I think Festus effort to protect the city is signal enough for Christians to leave the city. Some stayed and were miraculously able to escape when the surrounding by Roman siege was interrupted a couple years later.
But Christ's remarks about how the zealots/Judaizers would ruin the city are not directed at Roman admins; they are all directed at the zealots; 'leistes' in Lk 19:46 is not a common thief; it is a terrorist, an insurgent. Part of this was to show in Luke-Acts that Paul was not part of any such rebellion at all.
Many, many passages in Paul refer to the 2nd coming in judgement being right round the corner. I don't know when 2 Peter was written but it appears to deal with this difficulty ('where is the coming?' 'some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand'). Once 72 went by and the world continued on, only the basic instruction to keep proclaiming Christ as Lord to all men, and his eventual return in judgement is clear.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I agree entirely that what Jesus is talking about are the events to take place in Judea leading up to and during the impending destruction of the holy city in AD 70.
So how do you reconcile that the parallel passages of Matt 24:15KJV and Luke 21:20KJV which, taken together, identify a standing army as the abomination that makes desolate spoken of by Daniel? That army was the Roman army that compassed Jerusalem and finally stood "where it ought not"; in the temple.
There seems to be no question that Jesus' very words identify the AofD prophesied by Daniel.
So how do you reconcile that the parallel passages of Matt 24:15KJV and Luke 21:20KJV which, taken together, identify a standing army as the abomination that makes desolate spoken of by Daniel? That army was the Roman army that compassed Jerusalem and finally stood "where it ought not"; in the temple.
There seems to be no question that Jesus' very words identify the AofD prophesied by Daniel.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
All made up. Why?
Zeke
Well-known member
Holy city? its metaphoric symbolism that takes place in the only temple I AM dwells in which is in us 1Cor 3:16 Acts 17:24. Traditions of men made with hands who invented God under the time deception that doesn't even exist in the eternal.
Zeke
Well-known member
The mind partaking of the tree of good and evil a duality that intellectualizes instead of taking no thought about tomorrow, these things are symbolic Galatians 4:24.
Rondonmonson
New member
Post 137 explains in detail why the AoD is a future event and can be nothing else but.