ECT The Rebellion that Desolates

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
How can you possibly have been here these past 2 years and have any memory and retention at all and not realize that the material has to do with the zealot rebellion in the 1st century? It is not about blaming Rome, although Rome was involved in its destruction. The whole question is about Judaism's zealots not doing what the apostles did (the mission) and ruining the country in the process.

You see, those 'preterist' books sound about as ignorant about the situation on the ground in Judea in the 1st century as futurist D'ists.
Click to expand...

This is all made up stuff. Ridiculous.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The abomination that desolates is first of all a grammatical phrase in which there is cause and effect. There has to be an evil thing and what it does results in the destruction of the country.

The expression starts, however, as 'the rebellion that desolates' in 8:13. By starts I mean that this is the first spot where this kind of expression is used in Biblical language, the last being the Mt 24 and parallels.

When the 4th of the kingdoms in succession comes, there is a rebellion lead by an exceedingly evil person against the 4th kingdom over Israel, and his rebellion ruins the country. He makes blasphemous claims and bites off more than he can chew.

In ch 9, the same is called the 'abomination' that does that. We learn that it will happen in about 490 years in events that are overwhelmingly catastrophic for Israel, while the prince of that 4th kingdom over Israel is there. Also we learn that Messiah will be cut off (die) but that death will accomplish several redemptive things at the same time. Ie, Israel is destroyed but Messiah succeeds.

The end of this event will sweep the country 'like a flood.' That means it was the most devastating thing to happen since the Noah cataclysm, and the destruction of Israel in the 1st century was indeed one of the epic destructive events of antiquity.

The only expression of Daniel which Jesus quoted on was the AofD. He said that when you see him operating in the temple, get out of the country.

It had to be something a person from Israel would do (to be an abomination) and we know that it was first called a rebellion. And it had to indeed ruin the country. And happen in the 490 year era. That means it was the destruction by the zealot/Judaizer rebellion in Judea in that generation of Christ.

The whole period from the rebellion of Judas (not the disciple but certainly a name-coincidence) in 6 AD (about the census) to the event of Masada is often called the Great Revolt in Israel's history, the last 7 years being called the Jewish War.

But it is the person seizing the temple and using it for this supposed divine-assisted revolt by scandalous followers of Judaism that is the AofD. There were 3 factions among the zealots after Titus resumed the siege of Jerusalem in 68, allowing his father Vespasian to rule the Eastern Empire: John of Gischala (in Galilee); Simon bar Giora and a third by Phineas. These three fought each other for control of Jerusalem, but only managed to weaken any hope for victory. John of Gischala won out; but any of the 3 would have been the AofD signal to leave.

However, as you know, Lk 21 does not say the person is the signal, but simply that when the city is surrounded that the Christians were to leave. (It doesn't say the surrounding is the AofD; it simply says it is time to leave). This was a problem at first in 67. Because Vespasian's encirclement was too tight. But the civil dispute in Rome interrupted the siege work in 67. Vespasian left and the control was relaxed. Many Christians left Jerusalem at that time and regathered in Pella, a Greek-speaking city.

As Lk 13 asks, 'how can you with an army of 10,000, take on an army of 20,000? Shouldn't you seek 'terms of peace' instead?' Lk 19 then says Israel would not seek 'terms of peace' and would be destroyed because of that. The AofD was the cocky and scandalous and willful act of the leader(s) of the Jewish revolt of that period to think God would help them fight off Rome, in the most pathetic of conditions. It was total folly and a total failure.
Click to expand...


I thought your pinch off point was always Matthew 29 as to where and how to observe things in the discourse why do you now shift to verse 24?
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Josephus JEWISH WAR, Book 2, lines 252 + provide several paragraphs that swerve close to situations in Acts. A person should know them when reading Acts and Mt24, Mk 13, Lk 21. The Jewish archeologist Cornfeld has also provided notes on these in his illustrated edition of JEWISH WAR, Zondervan, 1982.

A sizeable amount goes into the Egyptian terrorist which Paul was thought to be, Acts 21. He had apparently heard the Mt. Olives line of Jesus (or of Zech) because he was promising his 4000 followers to arrive there where they would see the Roman garrison tumble, in a Jericho-type event, and thus insure his status as a prophet.

Cornfeld shows that there were such messianic-overthrow movements all through the 4th-6th decades. But Cornfeld believes Christ's remarks about them in Mt 24A were in support--'you will see wars and revolutions and that's a good thing.' Cornfeld provides little explanation or defense. He believes Josephus failed to meantion Jesus as a revolutionist simply because there were so many. Conservative Pharisees believed in a Son of David, but shushed those who whipped up crowds and tried 'to hasten the coming of Messiah.'

These facts show that the intention of the Luke-Acts account was to show that Paul was not a revolutionary like the others mentioned, even though totally aware of what they wanted. Instead he was there to preach something which was not invested in a revolt for independence.
Click to expand...


lol, your referring to Florus chapter 14 and onward after the fact is established that the Jews didn't set to well with the stuff he was doing right? you know where he tried his best to cause the war to hide the thefts he was doing from Nero and where that Roman solider flipped the earthen pot over and sacrificed the birds right?,,,but wouldn’t it in all fact end up meaning that the Jews actually threw a fit over it and ended up going to war over it all? My,my where in this book does it say that the A>OD was set up and the Jews received it instead of fighting to the death over it? http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-2.html
 
Last edited:
D

Danoh

New member
whitestone said:
I thought your pinch off point was always Matthew 29 as to where and how to observe things in the discourse why do you now shift to verse 24?
Click to expand...

Any long term study of a thing cannot but eventually result in one's ending up having to shift one emphasis or another, here and there - even within that of an erroneous paradigm, to begin with :chuckle:
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Any long term study of a thing cannot but eventually result in one's ending up having to shift one emphasis or another, here and there - even within that of an erroneous paradigm, to begin with :chuckle:
Click to expand...

hmm you remember his famous before and after Matthew verse 29 statements do you?,,,seems like he's slipping,,,lol
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
To whitestone,
I don't see where the essay changes anything about Mt24:29. Did you perhaps think I was referring to verse instead of chapter at one point?
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
To whitestone,
I don't see where the essay changes anything about Mt24:29. Did you perhaps think I was referring to verse instead of chapter at one point?
Click to expand...

Matthew 24:24 KJV speaks of false Christ,prophets,signs wonders ect.(the things you are trying to establish right in your first post?) but click on the link to Josephus wars2 I gave and go down to (chapter 18),,,notice that "PELLA" is laid waste by the Jews and in their control at this point? Those who went to Pella were the Nazoraeons and Ebionites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella who followed the Jews in that they believed the gentiles were to be circumcised and follow the law that's who found safety in Pella while it was under Jewish control.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
Matthew 24:24 KJV speaks of false Christ,prophets,signs wonders ect.(the things you are trying to establish right in your first post?) but click on the link to Josephus wars2 I gave and go down to (chapter 18),,,notice that "PELLA" is laid waste by the Jews and in their control at this point? Those who went to Pella were the Nazoraeons and Ebionites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella who followed the Jews in that they believed the gentiles were to be circumcised and follow the law that's who found safety in Pella while it was under Jewish control.
Click to expand...





How do you define Nazoraeons? "Under Jewish control" is not clear enough for the situation. What matters is whether the control was rebels. The zealots were enlisting the help of Arameans and Nabateans because together they could break the hold of Rome somewhere there along the eastern edge of the empire... Be careful of wiki...
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
How do you define Nazoraeons? "Under Jewish control" is not clear enough for the situation. What matters is whether the control was rebels. The zealots were enlisting the help of Arameans and Nabateans because together they could break the hold of Rome somewhere there along the eastern edge of the empire... Be careful of wiki...
Click to expand...

So, who was the man of sin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top