What is the "abomination of desolation"?

[Arial]

You say that because I'm "a writer of novels" I must be "imagining" this: yet....

No---that is not what I said. I said your ability of imagination as a fiction writer plays into the way you see and interpret things. Did I say it that way? No. But that is what I meant, and I certainly did not say that you imagined anything.

"Lo I come in the volume of the book; it is written of me; to do your will; Oh God." (Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7)
If the prophecy of Daniel is about the coming Messiah; then where would these events fit into the life of Christ?

That dodges the problem rather than answering it.

Dan 9 ultimately points to the Messiah, but it is also explicitly about Judah, Jerusalem, and the post-exilic temple. The prophecy begins with the decree to restore Jerusalem and unfolds within that restored covenantal setting. Christ fulfills it without collapsing its historical framework. Appealing to Ps 40 and Heb 10 doesn't address whether Daniel's prophecy has been interpreted in a way that respects its historical and textual structure.

In your question do you mean by "these events" the events in Ps 40:7 and Heb 10:7? Or do you mean how do the events in Dan 9 fit into Ps 40 and Heb 10:7? Either way the answer is "They don't". Psalm 40/Heb 10 aren't about the same thing. They are doing different kinds of work.

PS/Heb are about vocation, obedience replacing sacrifice, the meaning of Christ's work, and why the sacrificial system ends (theologically). They answer the question: "What does Christs coming accomplish before God?"

Dan 9 is about exile and restoration, Jerusalem and the temple, covenant judgment and mercy, a historical timeline culminating in Messiah and desolation. It answers the question "How does God move history from exile to restoration to Messiah to judgment.

 

[Arial]

Can you please explain where the 63rd week of Daniel 9 fits into any prophetic understanding of what the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 would represent?

Can you also explain the "coincidence" as to why Pentecost is exactly 7 weeks after the crucifixion? (The end of "week 63" up to the end of week 70. (Daniel 9:25-26) Who is "the messiah" that is "cut off"?

I have no intention of even attempting to as it is a red herring avoiding what I have posted. And I actually dislike discussions on the prophecy of Daniel as they tend to get more and more heated. My involvement is only to address your view of what the abomination of desolation that you have graciously provided at my suggestion. To not do so would be rude on my part.

And also, can you give me an alternate date for John the Baptist's death?

What is your date for his death again?

I am not going through the rest of your post to respond point by point. It is mainly a repeat of the OP and hopefully someone else will pick it up. It is not a debate interest of mine personally. It is of interest to many others here. @Josheb is one of them but he hasn't been seen for a bit. Probably other irons in the fire at the moment, but I need to check on him.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The ruler list is arbitrary and selective. Why this doesn't work is because Rev 17 is explicitly symbolic. The text does not necessarily refer to Herodian rulers but to kings and are not identified by any ancient interpreter as Herods. Agrippa II never ruled independently as "king" in Judea proper.

The ruler list being arbitrary and selective according to what? Revelation states specifically "7 kings" "five are fallen" "one is" and "one is yet to come". Assuming that at the point it was written is what it's taking about. (Revelation 17:10)

Several Herods did rule various areas simultaneously. And Revelation equates the "7 mountains" with "7 kings". Jerusalem sits on 7 mountains. The mountains aren't as obvious now because after the siege a lot of the deeper parts of the valleys had been filled in.

But Agrippa II did rule over territory that had been part of Herod the Great's kingdom. He also had authority over who could be appointed priests in the temple.

AGRIPPA II - JewishEncyclopedia.com

And yes, If these 7 kings are the Herodian dynasty; then yes, this would date the writing of Revelation to the late 40's.

And why no one in church history identified these kings in Revelation as the Herods? I don't know. Someone may have; but we don't have public access to that. It's not impossible that someone other than me would have proposed this to be the Herodian Dynasty. It's clear in both Daniel and Revelation that these 7 kings interact with the Christ. So, given that; there's no one else that fits.

Now, Daniel 7:8 and 8:9 talking of "the little horn".
Compare this to Acts 12:23. The angel of the Lord strikes down Agrippa 1!
Agrippa 1 was the grandson of Herod the Great and these two Herods are the only ones who ruled Judea as sole kings. "The little horn". Was Herod the Great the proverbial big horn?

So.... these kings prophesied about in the book of Daniel do show up in the gospels and Acts. Having had interaction with the Messiah and having killed the Messiah. Who else would these kings be?

Judas is called "son of perdition" in John 17:12.

Paul's "man of lawlessness" is active after Paul's ministry, he performs public sigs and is destroyed at Christ's coming. Paul is not talking about Judas.

Bottom line: Your claim that Judas is the "abomination of desolation" (if that is your claim) is not supported by Scripture.

If your claim is that that Daniel's "abomination that makes desolate" is all animal sacrifices performed after Christ's death, that too imo is not supported by Scripture.

The phrase "son of perdition" is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. From what is said in John 17:12 though, it doesn't appear form the language that there's more than one "son of perdition".

Now Judas "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God[fn] in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.". Judas was the king pin, to the arrest of the Messiah. And it is stated in Scripture that Judas was "entered" by Satan.

Judas's father is named in John 6:71 as Simon. Now is he Simon the pharisee whose house Jesus goes to when Mary (sister of Lazarus and Martha) comes in and cries on Jesus's feet? (Possibly, there is some interesting language that would seem to connect them together. Now Scripture does identify Judas as someone who was educated. (I think he was a scribe?) But doesn't say directly that the same Simon the pharisee; in the event with Mary is Judas's father.

Paul says that "the spirit of antichrist" was "already in the world". So, who is "the man of lawlessness"? Is he the "equivalent" of Judas who comes at the end of time? (I don't know. I've tried to dig through making sense of that verse.) "The man of lawlessness" is destroyed at the return of Christ. And seeing how Christ hasn't come yet; assuming this ... individual (could there be more than one in history? - Scripture doesn't seem to indicate that there would be.

So... I don't know. We have the commencement of the judgement related to atonement of the elect that happens connected to the incarnation / "first coming" and so thus does the end of time manifest another Judas type figure?

I don't know? But I'm still convinced that all we can look to related to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is look at what we find in the New Testament.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That dodges the problem rather than answering it.

Dan 9 ultimately points to the Messiah, but it is also explicitly about Judah, Jerusalem, and the post-exilic temple. The prophecy begins with the decree to restore Jerusalem and unfolds within that restored covenantal setting. Christ fulfills it without collapsing its historical framework. Appealing to Ps 40 and Heb 10 doesn't address whether Daniel's prophecy has been interpreted in a way that respects its historical and textual structure.

In your question do you mean by "these events" the events in Ps 40:7 and Heb 10:7? Or do you mean how do the events in Dan 9 fit into Ps 40 and Heb 10:7? Either way the answer is "They don't". Psalm 40/Heb 10 aren't about the same thing. They are doing different kinds of work.

PS/Heb are about vocation, obedience replacing sacrifice, the meaning of Christ's work, and why the sacrificial system ends (theologically). They answer the question: "What does Christs coming accomplish before God?"

Dan 9 is about exile and restoration, Jerusalem and the temple, covenant judgment and mercy, a historical timeline culminating in Messiah and desolation. It answers the question "How does God move history from exile to restoration to Messiah to judgment.

Although Daniel 9 says some things that are very specific to the Messiah; so, how can this be talking about the return from Babylon? The kings spoken of in Daniel, interact with the Messiah. The language in the prophecy is clear about that.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That dodges the problem rather than answering it.

Dan 9 ultimately points to the Messiah, but it is also explicitly about Judah, Jerusalem, and the post-exilic temple. The prophecy begins with the decree to restore Jerusalem and unfolds within that restored covenantal setting. Christ fulfills it without collapsing its historical framework. Appealing to Ps 40 and Heb 10 doesn't address whether Daniel's prophecy has been interpreted in a way that respects its historical and textual structure.

In your question do you mean by "these events" the events in Ps 40:7 and Heb 10:7? Or do you mean how do the events in Dan 9 fit into Ps 40 and Heb 10:7? Either way the answer is "They don't". Psalm 40/Heb 10 aren't about the same thing. They are doing different kinds of work.

PS/Heb are about vocation, obedience replacing sacrifice, the meaning of Christ's work, and why the sacrificial system ends (theologically). They answer the question: "What does Christs coming accomplish before God?"

Dan 9 is about exile and restoration, Jerusalem and the temple, covenant judgment and mercy, a historical timeline culminating in Messiah and desolation. It answers the question "How does God move history from exile to restoration to Messiah to judgment.

You asked me to post my investigations. I did. And my interpretation of your response; is that you were saying that I was taking poetic license with Scripture. And I don't find that accusation justified.

Although, it is true that I did not go through and Scripture cite all my points. (I am guilty of that.) And granted, yes I know that my understanding of all this, does depart from what Christian historians / theologians have said through the centuries. Although I'm not convinced that automatically means I'm wrong.

Someone would have to have the patients to go through the points I'm making and add contradictions from Scripture if they have some to offer. I have come to these conclusions by comparing Scripture passages to each other.

What is your date for his death again?

I don't have a specific date for John the Baptist's death. I've tried compiling gospel accounts to see if I could come up with a liner timeline of events. And that's quite difficult because a lot of events in the gospels look very similar; but little details are different. For example: more than one centurion came to Jesus. More than one woman with "an issue of blood" came to Jesus. Little details from one gospel to another seem to indicate that this is the case.

Then trying to compile Old Testament prophetic things that say "X number of weeks" or "X number of days".... It gets even more difficult.

And then there's the translation issue. I believe what God intended to deliver as inspired Scripture is wholly there. Yet all of us through time are trying to understand something based on.... factors such as "what is the academic slant" of our day / society / time / access to technology.

Church fathers 1500 years ago didn't have the technological advantage of computer programs that could scan the entire Bible and make linguistic comparisons of the entire body of writhing. So yeah, there would be things buried in text that they may read and never think... Hey, wait a minute! These go together.

So yeah additional information related to my research may be buried in places in Scripture that I haven't found yet.

 

[Arial]

Someone would have to have the patients to go through the points I'm making and add contradictions from Scripture if they have some to offer. I have come to these conclusions by comparing Scripture passages to each other.

I did point out a couple of contradictions and I certainly do not have the patience to go through it all. And some of the scriptures you use, as I pointed out, may use the same words or phrases but are not addressing the same topic. Yes, scripture interprets scripture but that does not mean that every verse that uses a particular word is using it in the same way each time or in the same context.

Then trying to compile Old Testament prophetic things that say "X number of weeks" or "X number of days".... It gets even more difficult.

And then there's the translation issue. I believe what God intended to deliver as inspired Scripture is wholly there. Yet all of us through time are trying to understand something based on.... factors such as "what is the academic slant" of our day / society / time / access to technology.

This is what bothers me. This excessive fascination with counting as though that is going to solve some riddle that must be solved--for what purpose I don't know. And I am not aiming that at you specifically but across the board in eschatological discussions. Usually is is Dispensationalists that make a huge mountain to scale out of counting and I do not think you are dispensational in your interpretive framework
.

 

[Arial]

Although Daniel 9 says some things that are very specific to the Messiah; so, how can this be talking about the return from Babylon? The kings spoken of in Daniel, interact with the Messiah. The language in the prophecy is clear about that.

What is Daniel praying about in 9:1-24? where is he? And how long has Judah been there?

What is Gabrielle's answer to the prayer in24-25?

where are kings mentioned in that prophecy?

From 25. forward it moves into future historical events. Prophecy often does that. It has an immediate and/or local application, but because all of the Bible is one story---the story of redemption moving forward in history---also has a future application that may be into a final fulfillment.

 

[Arial]

The ruler list being arbitrary and selective according to what?

Your ruler list is arbitrary and selective.

As to the rest--OK and whatever. I am not interested in getting into a debate over the details in this topic. My interest lies elsewhere theologically.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I did point out a couple of contradictions and I certainly do not have the patience to go through it all.

You pointed out what you concluded disagrees with interpretations that you aforehand believed to be "right". And you'd done so without hearing the matter out fully. (And done so - admittedly as you say that you don't have the patients.) So... Ok if you don't have an interest in hearing someone else's studies on a subject you don't really have an interest in searching through; then maybe it would be more prudent not to ask them to share it?

Occasionally I do run into people who have theories on Bible subjects whom their theories I've never heard. And what I do with ideas that I'm not familiar with; is just say: "Interesting, I'd have to study that out. I don't know if you're correct or not." And that saves me from "jumping the gun" on automatically assuming the other person is wrong.

He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Proverbs 18:13)

I've had plenty of "eye openers" of people saying things I wasn't familiar with, that I discovered they were actually right; once i checked it out.

This redefines "abomination" without textual warrant. Daniel's abomination is a specific identifiable act that stands in the holy place and is visible ("when you see---"). The continued sacrifices were commanded by the Mosaic Law and were still being offered by believing Jews (Acts 21) and are never called an abomination in Scripture. They are not abominable but ineffective.

The continued sacrifices were commanded by the Mosaic Law until when? (Until it was fulfilled.) Which was fulfilled in Christ.

Paul: (Acts 21:4)
If these sacrifices were still being legitimately offered by "believing" Jews; why is the Holy Spirit telling Paul to stay away from Jerusalem? (verse 4). And the next set of brethren Paul encounters tell him the same thing! (Acts 21:10-12) Now but for God's mercy Paul isn't killed; as Paul is disobeying the Spirit of God. (This is the beginning of the Roman Jewish Wars.) Jesus had told the disciples to flee. The time was upon him and Paul wasn't even seeing it. Which raises the question: what was visible abomination in the "holy place" that Paul wasn't even seeing? (There was no gentile sacrificing a pig in the temple.)

And at that point in history; where is "the holy place". The sacrifice of the Messiah had already been rendered. He'd rose from the dead and ascended back to heaven.

Herod's massacre did not occur in the temple. It did not involve worship, did not desecrate holy space. Jesus speaks of the abomination as future in Matt 24. In short, there is no biblical, Jewish, or Christian precedent for this identification.

Christ referred to his body as "the temple" he would "raise again on the 3rd day". So if Herod had killed Jesus; yes he would have "desecrated" the "holy space".

Now actually as for the Greek in Matthew 24 and Jesus's statement "when you therefore shall see the abomination.... " "shall see" is Second Aorist tense verb; which means that the concept of the verb isn't connected to past, present, or future tense. Thus the "when you shall see" doesn't automatically mean the event is in the future; but only that they did not have eyes to see it at the moment Jesus was saying this to them. Which makes sense because Jesus did tell them that the Holy Spirit would come and he would teach them all things.

So, just because one is not aware of any Jewish or Christian precedent.... doesn't automatically mean the hypothesis is wrong.

That directly contradicts the test. Matt 24:15 "When you see the abomination of desolation---then those in Judea flee."

This presumes a future observable event, and one that triggers flight. The disciples are asking about future signs, and Jesus does not rebuke them for missing something already present. The interpretation you give empties Jesus' warning of meaning.

Which.... it was there and they were supposed to flee. But apparently Paul didn't "see" it; thus he went to Jerusalem and God used a bunch of Roman soldiers to haul his butt out of there.

Now here's an interesting passage: (1 Corinthians 8) Paul is about to give instructions (to the gentile church - of all people) about "things offered to idols". Now was he talking about pagan idols or Jewish idols?

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 10 too. Paul starts by talking about the mistakes Israel of Mose's day made in the wilderness. Then he talks about the Jew and gentile all become one body in Christ. Thus Jews were not obligated to eat according to Mosaic law either. Which raises an interesting question of who are the "gentiles" who are performing these sacrifices? Israel had become no more than just.. another of the nations. As all those who "are of Israel" are those in Christ.

This is what bothers me. This excessive fascination with counting as though that is going to solve some riddle that must be solved--for what purpose I don't know. And I am not aiming that at you specifically but across the board in eschatological discussions. Usually is is Dispensationalists that make a huge mountain to scale out of counting and I do not think you are dispensational in your interpretive framework

You are correct. I'm not a dispensationalist.

What I'm doing is simply taking prophetic Scripture and inserting it into the fulfillment thereof. I'm looking in Scripture as to how the Old Testament fits into the New Testament. In all the places post Pentecost where people witnessed to / evangelized people who knew something about the Old Testament. What did they do? They went through the Old Testament and showed them where Christ was the fulfillment of X, Y and Z prophecy.

And if the numbers don't mean something related to the fulfillment of that prophecy? Why are they there?

What is Daniel praying about in 9:1-24? where is he? And how long has Judah been there?

Daniel is acknowledging the sin of the people.

What is Gabrielle's answer to the prayer in24-25?

Look at the verse:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

When is an end to sins made? When is reconciliation for iniquity made? When is everlasting righteousness brought in? When is the most Holy anointed?

All of this language is connected to the atonement! At no time from the point of Daniel has this vision; were all of these things accomplished EXCEPT at the cross!

From 25. forward it moves into future historical events. Prophecy often does that. It has an immediate and/or local application, but because all of the Bible is one story---the story of redemption moving forward in history---also has a future application that may be into a final fulfillment.

Look at verse 25:

25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Who's the "Messiah the Prince"? When did he appear on the scene in history?

And saying Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in thewilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Matthew 3:2-2)

Do you see the similarities in the language?
Now take a look at verses 26-27
You can't divorce verse 25 from the "cutting off of the Messiah" in verse 26.
This is all the same sequence. This has happened already.

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.

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

When was the covenant confirmed?
How did Christ cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease?
What is the "overspreading of abomination"?

Daniel 11:31 talks about the abomination that makes desolate. That whole chapter is talking about the kings who wreak havoc in Judea. All this happens during the Messiah's life.

Daniel 12:11 Also talks about "the abomination that makes desolate". Now there's language in here that looks like it's talking about the end of time. But I think this is speaking of the end of the Old Testament system. As i'm sure you've noticed that in 2000 years now; the animal sacrifice system has not come back. And personally, I don't think it ever will. Not "legitimately" (meaning valid fulfillment of prophecy) at least.

May there be some form of dispensational narrative that becomes part of global politics? (Maybe? I don't know.) But if there is; it's not a valid fulfillment of prophecy. It's just the loosing of Satan to deceive the nations.

Your ruler list is arbitrary and selective.

25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Herod the Great who "stood against the Prince of princes" was "broken without hand". He dropped dead of venereal disease in 4 BC!

 

[TMSO]

The continued sacrifices were commanded by the Mosaic Law until when? (Until it was fulfilled.) Which was fulfilled in Christ.

There is precedence that you are ignoring. Abomination stands for IDOL. The abomination is an idol. It is not sacrifices. Daniel prophesied of when Epiphanes (a couple/few centuries before Christ) would setup the abomination, and it was an idol. To be more precise, it was an idol of Zeus that had Epiphanes' face. It was setup in the temple, in the holy place I believe. He also forced the Jews to sacrifice a pig. Apparently he really hated the Jews. He did everything he could to denegrate them. So it wasn't he who offered the pig in sacrifice, he made the Jews do it. And he did a lot of other things. Complete desecration.

Paul: (Acts 21:4)
If these sacrifices were still being legitimately offered by "believing" Jews; why is the Holy Spirit telling Paul to stay away from Jerusalem? (verse 4). And the next set of brethren Paul encounters tell him the same thing! (Acts 21:10-12) Now but for God's mercy Paul isn't killed; as Paul is disobeying the Spirit of God. (This is the beginning of the Roman Jewish Wars.) Jesus had told the disciples to flee. The time was upon him and Paul wasn't even seeing it. Which raises the question: what was visible abomination in the "holy place" that Paul wasn't even seeing? (There was no gentile sacrificing a pig in the temple.)

You have a completely incorrect assumption. It had nothing to do with sacrifices. The Jews, who had rejected Christ as Messiah (the transgression mentioned with the 70 sets of 7 prophecy), just continued on following the law and offering the sacrifices. There is a rabbinacl legend that a red ribbon was tied around the neck of the scape goat, and that when it was released, that ribbon would turn white, signifying the atonement of sins. However, after 30 AD, that ribbon stopped turning white.

And at that point in history; where is "the holy place". The sacrifice of the Messiah had already been rendered. He'd rose from the dead and ascended back to heaven.

That is a good question. In the temple? In the spiritual temple of heaven? I mean, scripture does say Jesus entered the holy place by His own blood. So unlike the High Priest who entered using the blood of goats, Jesus entere by His own blood.

Christ referred to his body as "the temple" he would "raise again on the 3rd day". So if Herod had killed Jesus; yes he would have "desecrated" the "holy space".

That is more then a stretch, it's a tear. Jesus was not speaking literally, it was figurative. The Logos became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. Is that enough to say that the body was considered to be a temple for the spirit? So our bodies, in that way, are a temple for our spirit. That is the house/tent within which our spirit resides. Jesus enemies made the same stretch you did, saying that Jesus said He would destroy the literal temple and rebuild it in three days. I wouldn't want to get mixed up with any of that.

Now actually as for the Greek in Matthew 24 and Jesus's statement "when you therefore shall see the abomination.... " "shall see" is Second Aorist tense verb; which means that the concept of the verb isn't connected to past, present, or future tense. Thus the "when you shall see" doesn't automatically mean the event is in the future; but only that they did not have eyes to see it at the moment Jesus was saying this to them. Which makes sense because Jesus did tell them that the Holy Spirit would come and he would teach them all things.

The second aorist tense verb can speak to a future action, but it speaks to a completed one time event, a snapshot of. The sacrifices were a continuous constant event, so it can't refer to that. Putting an idol up in the temple, and seeing that... that fits the bill.

So, just because one is not aware of any Jewish or Christian precedent.... doesn't automatically mean the hypothesis is wrong..

You defeat your own argument, because it doesn't automatically mean it is right either. So this can't be used in putting forth an argument.

Which.... it was there and they were supposed to flee. But apparently Paul didn't "see" it; thus he went to Jerusalem and God used a bunch of Roman soldiers to haul his butt out of there.

You do know that there is a historical record of Christans fleeing right? When did they flee? Between 66AD and 70AD. Why? The saw the Roman armies surrounding the city (Jerusalem) in 66 AD and remember what Jesus said, which was recorded in Luke 21. The Roman armies encircled Jerusalem in 66 AD. No one could escape. However, some event or something happened that caused the Roman Army to withdraw, and it is at this time the believers in Christ who were in Jerusalem fled. And so Josephus recorded that no follower of the way (no believer in Christ) was in Jerusalem when Rome attacked, because they listend to "the prophet", that is, they listened to what Jesus had said.

I think it is here that you should consider the differents (and they are very noticeable) between Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Here is how Luke records the situation:

"7 They asked Him questions, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”"
Notice there second question differs from Matthew. In Matthew they ask for signs of His coming. Here they ask what the sign will be that the city and temple are about to be destroyed.

" 8 And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 And when you hear of wars and revolts, do not be alarmed; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately.”"

10 Then He continued by saying to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, 11 and there will be [j]massive earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrible sights and great [k]signs from heaven.

12 “But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, [l]bringing you before kings and governors on account of My name."

So, verse 12 says that before verses 9 and 11, there woudl be a systematic persecution of the church. (If you keep going after verse 12 it goes more in depth into the persecution. And then at the time of this persecution Jesus adds:

"20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then [q]recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside [r]the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled."

This first happened in AD 66, but when the armies were withdrawn, the believers listened and fleed. So in 70 AD (I know, I am repeating myself), there were no believers in Jerusalem when God's judgment fell. An author I am reading said that this is the judgment for the religious leaders national sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This judgment fell on the generation of those who comitted the sin, and not one believer in Christ as involved in the judgment, because they ran away like Jesus told them to.

Now what about Matthew? What does Matthew say?:
" And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Notice, they don't ask for a sign when these things are about to take place. They ask what the sign will be for His coming and the end of the age. So it differs already in the questions that Matthew asked. Considering how quickly one can read the whole passage in Matthew 24, I would like to say I don't think this was a 5-10 minute TED talk. I'm sure this was a long discussion, and each gospel author took what they wanted that lined up with the goal of their writing. So Luke picked AD 70, while, apparently, Matthew picked a later parallel.

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one [c]misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the [d]Christ,’ and they will [e]mislead many people. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.

So it so far sounds a little like Luke. However, right now there is a very sharp departure from Luke's rendition.

"9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [f]fall away, and they will [g]betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and [h]mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [j]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

So, AFTER verses 4 through 8, then there is a systematic persecution of the church. That is, it isn't random happenings like we have today, but a program of persecution. The thing is, Luke says that the persecution comes BEFORE what is mentioned here in verses 4 to 8. Matthew says persecution comes AFTER.

And then with this persecution that is, it should now be clear, different then what Luke talks about, and later than what Luke talks about. Matthew continues:
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[k]let the [l]reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

It is no longer when you see the armies surrounding the city. It is completely different for the event is not only inside the city, it is inside the temple. The people are supposed to be gone already. Why? What is the final result of the situation in both Luke and Matthew. (Luke first, hence how I worded that):

"24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
That sounds very much like 70 AD.
After the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled:

"25 “There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting from fear and the expectation of the things that are coming upon the [v]world; for the powers of [w]the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

For Matthew:
". 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no [q]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [r]elect those days will be cut short."

29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His [x]elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Matthew has no "times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled, perhaps because they were fulfilled in Matthew's rendition. The Great Tribulation being the last part of the times of the Gentiles, and Jesus return immediately at the end, being that which ends it.

So the sacrifices are not the abomination. God just didn't accept them anymore. He stopped listening.

 

[TMSO]

Now here's an interesting passage: (1 Corinthians 8) Paul is about to give instructions (to the gentile church - of all people) about "things offered to idols". Now was he talking about pagan idols or Jewish idols?

Considering Corinth is not in Israel, but is a Gentile city, obviously pagan idols. Considering Israel basically had nothing to do with idols after the Babylonian captivity.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 10 too. Paul starts by talking about the mistakes Israel of Mose's day made in the wilderness. Then he talks about the Jew and gentile all become one body in Christ. Thus Jews were not obligated to eat according to Mosaic law either. Which raises an interesting question of who are the "gentiles" who are performing these sacrifices? Israel had become no more than just.. another of the nations. As all those who "are of Israel" are those in Christ.

Can you point out the verses that say that God violated all covenants and promises regarding Israel, making them just... another of the nations? There is a remnant of Israel who are still under covenant (Abrahamic) and the promises of the forefathers. The elect of God in Israel who are both physical descendants of Abraham and spiritual descendants. Those covenants and promises were not for the Gentiles. The new covenant is different. The only covenant that is not active that Israel received, is the Mosaic covenant.

You are correct. I'm not a dispensationalist.

You most certainly are not.

What I'm doing is simply taking prophetic Scripture and inserting it into the fulfillment thereof. I'm looking in Scripture as to how the Old Testament fits into the New Testament. In all the places post Pentecost where people witnessed to / evangelized people who knew something about the Old Testament. What did they do? They went through the Old Testament and showed them where Christ was the fulfillment of X, Y and Z prophecy.

You should be going the other way around. How does the New Testament fit into the Old? The Old Testament prophecies came first, and they don't bend for anything. They do, however, shed light on the New Testament. This is why, when Jesus spent his last 40 days or so with the disciples, it was all spent going through the Old Testament and explaining the prophecies related to Him. It shed light on the New Testament in that it shed light on all the disciples saw and experienced, which they recorded in the first four books of the New Testametn.

And if the numbers don't mean something related to the fulfillment of that prophecy? Why are they there?
Daniel is acknowledging the sin of the people.

Yes. Why? Why isn't he just acknowledging his own sin (if any)? Why the sins of his people? He has been reading Jeremiah and other prophets. All about the 70 years of exile, which Daniel knew was about to end. He was expecting the Messianic Kingdom to start after the exile ended, and in order for that to happen, Israel (all) had to repent of their sins and turn to God. So, Daniel was acknowledging and praying for the sins of the people. God sent Gabriel, before Daniel was even finished, to give Daniel the order of things, to correct Daniel's understanding.

Look at the verse:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

When is an end to sins made? When is reconciliation for iniquity made? When is everlasting righteousness brought in? When is the most Holy anointed?

Why are you leaving out the most important part. To finish the transgression. What is that about? What is the transgression that is to end, that is to be finished? Transgression is a much stronger word than sin, and it is in the singular, so it is one specific transgression. I can only think of one transgression that is, like, really bad. Rejection of the Messiah. However, Israel is still full on into rejection of the Messiah, which means the prophecy is over yet. 70 sets of 7 to make an end of sins. (Also translated, to seal up sin). This speaks to daily sins, so... no more sin. Is Israel without sin right now? Is sin visibly sealed in Israel? What about reconciliation for iniquity? Just what does that mean? One author I read says that means the sin nature is sealed. So, no sin nature stirring up sin. Do you see that today, showing that the 70 sets of 7 reached its end, and the results are visible? Age-enduring righteousness within Israel. Do you see that? Remember, this prophecy is specifically, as stated by God Himself through Gabriel, for theJews/Hebrews, and for their holy city Jerusalem.

All of this language is connected to the atonement! At no time from the point of Daniel has this vision; were all of these things accomplished EXCEPT at the cross!

Yes, for the world. The prophecy is for Israel, however. You can't say, well it was for Israel up to a certain point, and then no longer. That is inconsistent. God is consistent. Israel rejected Jesus, so the prophecy (Daniel 9) is not yet over.

Look at verse 25:

25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Who's the "Messiah the Prince"? When did he appear on the scene in history?

It is Jesus. And, someone took the 69 weeks of days, and calculated it so that it landed on what would have been the day of the triumphal entry in 30AD. Right down to the exact day. So, apparently, it is Jesus. And what happens after this? THe Messiah is cut off, which is basically saying, they killed Him. So His crucifixion.
-[continued in next comment]-

 

[TMSO]

And saying Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in thewilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Matthew 3:2-2)

Do you see the similarities in the language?
Now take a look at verses 26-27
You can't divorce verse 25 from the "cutting off of the Messiah" in verse 26.
This is all the same sequence. This has happened already.

Yes. Jesus was crucified in 30AD.

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.

Now here is something VERY important. The Messiah and the prince are two different people. How can we be sure? Who were the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple? The Romans right? So the people of the prince that shall come was the Gentile Romans. You do realize that if the prince here is JEsus, then the people of the prince would have to be Jews, not Gentile Romans, because Jesus was Jewish. So it can't be Jesus. It has to be a Gentile of Roman descent. (Plenty of Gentiles are going to find some Roman in their genealogy.) And it is the prince that shall come. It can't be Titus, because Titus is already around, so not... to come. It is all so complicated. However, what you need to notice is that the 70 sets of 7, are 70 sets of 7 years, in keeping with the fact that when Daniel was praying, he was focused on 70 years. Daniel set the measure. And noticing that when calculated out, it only words if it is 70 sets of 7 years. that 483 years calculates out to Jesus time, exactly. Again, right to the triumphal entry. God is precise.

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate+

There is no way to know exactly what this is, considering this translation isn't so great. He isn't confirming a covenant. The He (the prince that is a Gentile of Roman descent) is making a firm/strong agreement (covenant is but one of the definitions, and it isn't a covenant like say, the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant. Different word.) It also isn't made with all Israel, just with the many. The possibility is it is a strong agreement (not an alliance) that provides Israel with some security guarantees, considering all the fighting going on with Israel. Half way through the week, this person will violate the agreement, and just like Epiphanes, will invade Israel, take the temple, and put an end to the sacrifices. (Just like Epiphanes did.) He will put up an idol, either in the wing of the temple, or on the temple, and idol worship will spread. Consider with Epiphanes, the abomination was when he put a statue of Zeus that had Epiphanes face in the temple, and basically descrated the temple. He made the Jews sacrifice a pig in the temple. He apparently had no love for the Jews. This is a parallel to what will happen. Considering the temple was destroyed in 70 AD without it being desecrated with an idol in any way, not for lack of Titus trying, but due to God having the temple destroyed before Titus could desecrate it, it must speak to another time. SInce the temple was destroyed, it would have to be future.

There are those in Israel who have been trying to rebuild the temple for some time now. They are all ready to go. All they need is the building. They have already made all the altar's, implements, priestly vestments, etc. It's all ready. They even got red heifers from Texas. Why? That is the blood they need to reconsecrate the people if/when the temple is rebuilt. There has been a lot of movement there. Supposedly even one of the last of Aaron's line has already been on the temple mount within the past few years. Taken with the required teaspoon of salt, but definitely something to keep an eye on.

When was the covenant confirmed?

Since it isn't a covenant being confirmed but made, not sure.

How did Christ cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease?

He didn't. The only reason the sacriices ceased for about 300-400 years (they started again for a short period of time), is because the temple was destroyed.

What is the "overspreading of abomination"?

Widespread idolatry.

Daniel 11:31 talks about the abomination that makes desolate. That whole chapter is talking about the kings who wreak havoc in Judea. All this happens during the Messiah's life.

This is not during the Messiah's life. This is a few centuries prior to Jesus. Epiphanes is the one who was involved in the abomination. He came to the temple, he put an end to the sacrifices, he set up a statue of Zeus (with his [Epiphanes] face) in the temple, he forced the Jews to sacrifice a pig in the temple, etc. It was really, really bad. I'm surprised you didn't know.

Daniel 12:11 Also talks about "the abomination that makes desolate". Now there's language in here that looks like it's talking about the end of time. But I think this is speaking of the end of the Old Testament system. As i'm sure you've noticed that in 2000 years now; the animal sacrifice system has not come back. And personally, I don't think it ever will. Not "legitimately" (meaning valid fulfillment of prophecy) at least.

The issue with Daniel 12 is that, in the 1st century, the sacrifice wasn't "abolished", that is, it didn't end until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. The sacrifices continued until then. You have to understand that abolished means put to an end. It doesn't mean that someone simply stopped accepting sacrifices. It is taken away. So, the sacrifice ends in 70 AD due to the destruction of the temple. Using Daniel 12, that means that the abomination was set up in the temple about 3 1/2 years after the temple was destroyed. Make it make sense. Also, it hasn't been 2000 years, because sacrifices started up again 4 or 5 centuries later, but only lasted about 30 years if I recall, considering there was no temple. This does not include those people who were arrested a few years ago in Israel for sacrificing an animal. This is due to those groups who are practicing the sacrifices for when the temple is finally rebuilt. (I'm not saying it will be, I'm just stating what they are doing and why. They actually imported some red heifers from Texas so that they can be ready to reconsecrate the people if/when the temple is rebuilt.

May there be some form of dispensational narrative that becomes part of global politics? (Maybe? I don't know.) But if there is; it's not a valid fulfillment of prophecy. It's just the loosing of Satan to deceive the nations.

Revelation tells us what that deceiving is about. Deceiving nations to attack Israel. Do we see Israel being attacked today? So has Satan been locked up so he can't do that? Apparently not.

25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Herod the Great who "stood against the Prince of princes" was "broken without hand". He dropped dead of venereal disease in 4 BC!

Where is this passage from.

My final input on the 70 sets of 7 is that there is one last 7 year period, the 70th week that is unaccounted for. The time frame from the Messiah being cut off, and the city/temple being destroyed is 47 years. That is way more than 7 years, so that is not the final week. Considering God gave the prophecy as 70 sets of 7, they do not have to be contiguous. The first 69 weeks were. It is as though, if Israel had accepted the Messih, the 70 sets would havfe been contiguous. However, they did not, so the final week of God's dealings with Israel is put off until the last 7 years of the times of the Gentiles. (My take.) Then Jesus returns, and that will be the rock that destroys the statue in Daniel 2.

 

[Arial]

You pointed out what you concluded disagrees with interpretations that you aforehand believed to be "right".

I did not present my views at all or say what I used to believe and no longer did. I pointed out the fallacies and internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with Scripture in your own assertions. It seemed "held together" with a piece of string and healthy dose of "coulda, woulda, shoulda by the end of this post.

So... Ok if you don't have an interest in hearing someone else's studies on a subject you don't really have an interest in searching through; then maybe it would be more prudent not to ask them to share it?

I ask you to share your views for your benefit and the benefit of those members who are interested in the subject.

 

[The Righterzpen]

There is precedence that you are ignoring. Abomination stands for IDOL. The abomination is an idol. It is not sacrifices. Daniel prophesied of when Epiphanes (a couple/few centuries before Christ) would setup the abomination, and it was an idol. To be more precise, it was an idol of Zeus that had Epiphanes' face. It was setup in the temple, in the holy place I believe. He also forced the Jews to sacrifice a pig. Apparently he really hated the Jews. He did everything he could to denegrate them. So it wasn't he who offered the pig in sacrifice, he made the Jews do it. And he did a lot of other things. Complete desecration.

This is a popular interpretation of what the "abomination that makes them desolate" is; but is this interpretation supported by the rest of Scripture? "The Messiah the Prince" in Daniel is clearly the Jewish Messiah promised in the prophecy. It's not some Greek king. Daniel 8:25 states a wicked king (kingdom) will "stand up against the Prince of princes". Well, who's the Prince of princes? (Christ) which would require than that this prophecy be tied to the life of the Messiah.

The other question is; is this interpretation even historically accurate? What you are citing here is how post 70 AD Rabbinic Judaism generally says is the fulfillment of Daniel. Yet if you dig into what the Greeks say about the Jews in the Maccabean era; you get a totally different picture. So my challenge to you regarding the history; is to check whether or not this narrative is actually what happened.

According to Greek historians; King Archelaus IV found a Greek merchant held captive in the temple who when he saw the king; pleaded for his life. The merchant sated that he'd been abducted almost a year prior and that his captors told him that he was to be a human sacrifice in a Jewish vow to "hate the Greeks forever". And according to ancient Greek historians; this is why the king shut down the temple and forbid the sacrifices.

Now, according to the records of the Seleucid empire; the Greek civil authority stepped in to stop riots among differing sects of Judaism. This was in the era where the Sadducees and Pharisees (among other groups) were developing into "political movements"; and there was civil strife among the groups. Which was spilling over into the streets of the city and causing civil unrest. So the king stepped in; put an end to the civil unrest and shut down the temple sacrifices. Once the Jews stopped fighting among themselves (about 15 years later) they petitioned the king to reestablish the temple sacrifices and since civil order had been restored; the king agreed. And the temple sacrifices resumed.

So there's the three different narratives regarding the Maccabean revolt. So which narrative is the actual truth?

We have this problem in this country now. Whose narrative is going to be the one that makes it into the history books?

You have a completely incorrect assumption. It had nothing to do with sacrifices. The Jews, who had rejected Christ as Messiah (the transgression mentioned with the 70 sets of 7 prophecy), just continued on following the law and offering the sacrifices. There is a rabbinacl legend that a red ribbon was tied around the neck of the scape goat, and that when it was released, that ribbon would turn white, signifying the atonement of sins. However, after 30 AD, that ribbon stopped turning white.

Again though, I encourage you to check for the historical validity of any of this. Rabbinic Judaism has "a dog in the fight" about Jesus Christ not being the Messiah. I don't know how much you know about the Talmud? There's some pretty horrendous things in there.

And their attempts to "and his visage was marred more than any man and his form more than the sons of men"; (Isaiah 52:13-15) is a prophecy about their attempts to distort how Christ was perceived as King. Dig into the Hebrew of this. (Below is my translation of those verses.)
Behold, on account of his wisdom; my Servant shall rise, being carried on high in exceeding exaltation.

Just as many are made desolate on account of him; his likeness was intentionally distorted more than any man and the nature of his Kingship more than the sons of men.

Therefore he shall send nations as locusts to cover the land of Judah and shut the mouths of kings, for he they did not consider, now they are forced to recognize. Also, he who they would not hearken to; they will be forced to consider diligently.

So, consider all this in the light of Acts 21 when the Holy Spirit specifically told Paul to stay out of Jerusalem.

That is more then a stretch, it's a tear. Jesus was not speaking literally, it was figurative. The Logos became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. Is that enough to say that the body was considered to be a temple for the spirit? So our bodies, in that way, are a temple for our spirit. That is the house/tent within which our spirit resides. Jesus enemies made the same stretch you did, saying that Jesus said He would destroy the literal temple and rebuild it in three days. I wouldn't want to get mixed up with any of that.

Is Christ the fulfillment of the prophecy or is he not? What was the point of the temple once the true sacrifice was rendered. I'm sure you've noticed there's been no animal sacrifices in earthy Jerusalem for almost 2000 years now. And... (rhetorical question here) but why do you suppose that is?

You defeat your own argument, because it doesn't automatically mean it is right either. So this can't be used in putting forth an argument.

And your argument against my hypothesis doesn't prove you're right either. Thus we still stand on equal ground; you can't use this argument against me either.

The second aorist tense verb can speak to a future action, but it speaks to a completed one time event, a snapshot of. The sacrifices were a continuous constant event, so it can't refer to that. Putting an idol up in the temple, and seeing that... that fits the bill.

You still have to answer the question though of how did God see the animal sacrifices once Christ rose from the dead?

And we pretty well can "guess" what God thought of the temple post resurrection because He gave them 40 years (from the point John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness) to repent and then wiped the disobedient off the face of the earth.

Here's another rabbit hole you could go down. Find genetically verifiable descendants of Jacob from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (or any descendent of Jacob for that matter). (They don't exist.) Matter of fact 85% of people who claim Judaism as their religion / ethic group today aren't even Semites.

The second aorist tense verb can speak to a future action, but it speaks to a completed one time event, a snapshot of. The sacrifices were a continuous constant event, so it can't refer to that. Putting an idol up in the temple, and seeing that... that fits the bill.

If a religious action has no value; yet one clings to it believing it will bestow them favor with God, then it fits the definition of an idol.

You do know that there is a historical record of Christans fleeing right? When did they flee? Between 66AD and 70AD. Why? The saw the Roman armies surrounding the city (Jerusalem) in 66 AD and remember what Jesus said, which was recorded in Luke 21. The Roman armies encircled Jerusalem in 66 AD. No one could escape. However, some event or something happened that caused the Roman Army to withdraw, and it is at this time the believers in Christ who were in Jerusalem fled. And so Josephus recorded that no follower of the way (no believer in Christ) was in Jerusalem when Rome attacked, because they listend to "the prophet", that is, they listened to what Jesus had said.

And apparently people were fleeing Jerusalem at the point the brethren told Paul to stay away. (Why otherwise would they tell him not to go?) The estimate of the year of Paul's arrest was 57 AD. The civil unrest in Jerusalem (which ultimately would cause the Roman / Jewish wars to come to pass) started in the late 40's to early 50's. The first military incursion (the "official start" of the conflict) was in 66 AD. Those that heeded Christ's warning were long gone.

I think it is here that you should consider the differents (and they are very noticeable) between Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Here is how Luke records the situation:

I'm of the assertion that in Matthew 24 Jesus was talking to the disciples and in Luke 21 he was talking to the public. Thus the difference in the amount and content of the information.

There's a lot to dissect in Matthew 24.

The disciples ask Jesus a couple of different questions and Jesus actually gives them more information than they could reconcile. Jesus gives them information about "the end of the age" (the end of the Old Testament system) and then tacks on several statements that there will be a future reconstruction of the cosmos. (Matthew 24:36+)

The disciples assumed that both events were happening in one; because in their worldview, there was nothing beyond Judaism. It seems that they didn't realize until well into the establishment of "the church age" that the "end end" would be a long time in coming.

And obviously hasn't happened yet; because.... here we are!

This is where you get into debates between the Preterists, the Historical Pre-mill, Dispensationalists, Amillennialism etc.

For a good deal of church history; no one even attempted to study eschatology. For the first 1000 or so years; the Roman Catholic church considered it anathema to try and figure out when Christ would return. But I kind of get their point; as living in Medieval Europe was it's own version of living though the apocalypse.

So any serious study on eschatology has only been in the last 150 to almost 200 years.

Now I do believe there is a "final tribulation" (which I believe we are most likely within; in our current time). I've been studying this specifically for probably close to 20 years now. My conclusion though is that it will be far "different" than what most people are expecting as the "dispensational narrative" (or some variation thereof) seems to be what is most prevalently believed at current.

I'm "tossed" between "will the end come before any reconstructed temple" or "will God allow the dispensational type narrative to be manifest as a.... test? of (basically dead) Christendom?

Jesus does ask the question of whether or not He'll find faith on the earth when He returns? (Luke 18:8)

So... (a bit on the lighter side maybe) Shall we call ourselves "pan-millennialists" (It'll all pan out in the end!)

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes. Jesus was crucified in 30AD.

Now here is something VERY important. The Messiah and the prince are two different people. How can we be sure? Who were the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple? The Romans right? So the people of the prince that shall come was the Gentile Romans. You do realize that if the prince here is JEsus, then the people of the prince would have to be Jews, not Gentile Romans, because Jesus was Jewish. So it can't be Jesus. It has to be a Gentile of Roman descent. (Plenty of Gentiles are going to find some Roman in their genealogy.) And it is the prince that shall come. It can't be Titus, because Titus is already around, so not... to come. It is all so complicated. However, what you need to notice is that the 70 sets of 7, are 70 sets of 7 years, in keeping with the fact that when Daniel was praying, he was focused on 70 years. Daniel set the measure. And noticing that when calculated out, it only words if it is 70 sets of 7 years. that 483 years calculates out to Jesus time, exactly. Again, right to the triumphal entry. God is precise.

There is no way to know exactly what this is, considering this translation isn't so great. He isn't confirming a covenant. The He (the prince that is a Gentile of Roman descent) is making a firm/strong agreement (covenant is but one of the definitions, and it isn't a covenant like say, the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant. Different word.) It also isn't made with all Israel, just with the many. The possibility is it is a strong agreement (not an alliance) that provides Israel with some security guarantees, considering all the fighting going on with Israel. Half way through the week, this person will violate the agreement, and just like Epiphanes, will invade Israel, take the temple, and put an end to the sacrifices. (Just like Epiphanes did.) He will put up an idol, either in the wing of the temple, or on the temple, and idol worship will spread. Consider with Epiphanes, the abomination was when he put a statue of Zeus that had Epiphanes face in the temple, and basically descrated the temple. He made the Jews sacrifice a pig in the temple. He apparently had no love for the Jews. This is a parallel to what will happen. Considering the temple was destroyed in 70 AD without it being desecrated with an idol in any way, not for lack of Titus trying, but due to God having the temple destroyed before Titus could desecrate it, it must speak to another time. SInce the temple was destroyed, it would have to be future.

There are those in Israel who have been trying to rebuild the temple for some time now. They are all ready to go. All they need is the building. They have already made all the altar's, implements, priestly vestments, etc. It's all ready. They even got red heifers from Texas. Why? That is the blood they need to reconsecrate the people if/when the temple is rebuilt. There has been a lot of movement there. Supposedly even one of the last of Aaron's line has already been on the temple mount within the past few years. Taken with the required teaspoon of salt, but definitely something to keep an eye on.

Since it isn't a covenant being confirmed but made, not sure.

He didn't. The only reason the sacriices ceased for about 300-400 years (they started again for a short period of time), is because the temple was destroyed.

Widespread idolatry.

This is not during the Messiah's life. This is a few centuries prior to Jesus. Epiphanes is the one who was involved in the abomination. He came to the temple, he put an end to the sacrifices, he set up a statue of Zeus (with his [Epiphanes] face) in the temple, he forced the Jews to sacrifice a pig in the temple, etc. It was really, really bad. I'm surprised you didn't know.

The issue with Daniel 12 is that, in the 1st century, the sacrifice wasn't "abolished", that is, it didn't end until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. The sacrifices continued until then. You have to understand that abolished means put to an end. It doesn't mean that someone simply stopped accepting sacrifices. It is taken away. So, the sacrifice ends in 70 AD due to the destruction of the temple. Using Daniel 12, that means that the abomination was set up in the temple about 3 1/2 years after the temple was destroyed. Make it make sense. Also, it hasn't been 2000 years, because sacrifices started up again 4 or 5 centuries later, but only lasted about 30 years if I recall, considering there was no temple. This does not include those people who were arrested a few years ago in Israel for sacrificing an animal. This is due to those groups who are practicing the sacrifices for when the temple is finally rebuilt. (I'm not saying it will be, I'm just stating what they are doing and why. They actually imported some red heifers from Texas so that they can be ready to reconsecrate the people if/when the temple is rebuilt.

Revelation tells us what that deceiving is about. Deceiving nations to attack Israel. Do we see Israel being attacked today? So has Satan been locked up so he can't do that? Apparently not.

Where is this passage from.

My final input on the 70 sets of 7 is that there is one last 7 year period, the 70th week that is unaccounted for. The time frame from the Messiah being cut off, and the city/temple being destroyed is 47 years. That is way more than 7 years, so that is not the final week. Considering God gave the prophecy as 70 sets of 7, they do not have to be contiguous. The first 69 weeks were. It is as though, if Israel had accepted the Messih, the 70 sets would havfe been contiguous. However, they did not, so the final week of God's dealings with Israel is put off until the last 7 years of the times of the Gentiles. (My take.) Then Jesus returns, and that will be the rock that destroys the statue in Daniel 2.

All of this is according to your understanding of what you think is going to happen. When one is convinced of their own position; there is no space to investigate another.

I've supplied ample evidence of truths such as Jesus could not have been crucified in 30 AD. As "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar" fell between summer of 29 AD and summer of 30 AD.

So, unless you are willing to have an open mind and take a serious look at what I'm saying; there's no point in continuing this debate.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I did not present my views at all or say what I used to believe and no longer did. I pointed out the fallacies and internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with Scripture in your own assertions. It seemed "held together" with a piece of string and healthy dose of "coulda, woulda, shoulda by the end of this post.

But the fact that you were unwilling (or unable) to step back and hear the theory out; demonstrates that you hold a belief somewhere that I'm wrong. (Even if you didn't articulate your own view.)

You didn't point out any fallacies and internal inconsistencies, because you flat out would not consider what I was saying as the counter to your objections.

And I still stand on the basic argument that either Christ is the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament; or he's not.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Considering Corinth is not in Israel, but is a Gentile city, obviously pagan idols. Considering Israel basically had nothing to do with idols after the Babylonian captivity.

Why then is Paul telling them stories of Old Testament Israel; if the subject is pagan idols? Obviously these people had some knowledge of what was written in the Old Testament. And yes, there were Jews in Corinth. There is archeological evidence of synagogues.

Can you point out the verses that say that God violated all covenants and promises regarding Israel, making them just... another of the nations? There is a remnant of Israel who are still under covenant (Abrahamic) and the promises of the forefathers. The elect of God in Israel who are both physical descendants of Abraham and spiritual descendants. Those covenants and promises were not for the Gentiles. The new covenant is different. The only covenant that is not active that Israel received, is the Mosaic covenant.

Joshua 21:43-45
And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers;and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: andthere stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemiesinto their hand.

There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

You should be going the other way around. How does the New Testament fit into the Old? The Old Testament prophecies came first, and they don't bend for anything. They do, however, shed light on the New Testament. This is why, when Jesus spent his last 40 days or so with the disciples, it was all spent going through the Old Testament and explaining the prophecies related to Him. It shed light on the New Testament in that it shed light on all the disciples saw and experienced, which they recorded in the first four books of the New Testametn.

Either way, looking forward or looking back; it doesn't matter because it's all still one cohesive book.

Why are you leaving out the most important part. To finish the transgression. What is that about? What is the transgression that is to end, that is to be finished? Transgression is a much stronger word than sin, and it is in the singular, so it is one specific transgression. I can only think of one transgression that is, like, really bad. Rejection of the Messiah. However, Israel is still full on into rejection of the Messiah, which means the prophecy is over yet. 70 sets of 7 to make an end of sins. (Also translated, to seal up sin). This speaks to daily sins, so... no more sin. Is Israel without sin right now? Is sin visibly sealed in Israel? What about reconciliation for iniquity? Just what does that mean? One author I read says that means the sin nature is sealed. So, no sin nature stirring up sin. Do you see that today, showing that the 70 sets of 7 reached its end, and the results are visible? Age-enduring righteousness within Israel. Do you see that? Remember, this prophecy is specifically, as stated by God Himself through Gabriel, for theJews/Hebrews, and for their holy city Jerusalem.

I think the New Testament answers this question. What was the unpardonable sin. (Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.) Which was what? (To proclaim Christ performed his miracles by the power of Satan.)

Now, look at Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin and he says to Jesus. "We know you are a teacher come from God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him." Right here Nic is acknowledging that the leaders of the nation KNOW Jesus is the Messiah!

Which brings up the next question. Who actually is Israel? Paul answers that. The Israel of God are the children of the promise, not the children of the flesh.

Then when we get to Galatians 3:16 Abraham has one seed and "thy seed is Christ".

It is Jesus. And, someone took the 69 weeks of days, and calculated it so that it landed on what would have been the day of the triumphal entry in 30AD. Right down to the exact day. So, apparently, it is Jesus. And what happens after this? THe Messiah is cut off, which is basically saying, they killed Him. So His crucifixion.

We agree here. Christ being the Messiah and the central figure of the prophetic fulfillment. Where do all these other pieces (information about kings and "the little horn" etc. fit into Scripture). It's all there. It's in the gospels. It's in the Book of Acts.

The Bereans searched the Scriptures to know whether or not these things were so. It's all there. Jump in and dig.

 

[Arial]

But the fact that you were unwilling (or unable) to step back and hear the theory out; demonstrates that you hold a belief somewhere that I'm wrong. (Even if you didn't articulate your own view.)

That is actually beside the point.

You didn't point out any fallacies and internal inconsistencies, because you flat out would not consider what I was saying as the counter to your objections.

Then maybe you didn't read my post #18?

In any case, you have not dealt with anything I said in it head-on, to show that anything I DID say was incorrect. Instead, you have made it a personal defense as though I had attacked you. And have responded with nothing more than personal remarks against me (read the rules) which are off topic, and more of the assertions which I already told you is a topic I am not particularly interested in because it gets heated and digresses (case in point) into irrelevancies.

There are many who this topic is a favorite @TMSO being one of them. But no matter who is posting or on what subject, one has to expect disagreement and be prepared to deal with it. Hopefully, calmly in the firmness, and respectfully. No easy task I readily admit, but good learning experience should we yield to it for the glory of God and seek that grace we need to do so. I have come to realize that when a Christian joins a forum it is the beginning of an epic battle between our flesh and spirit. By the grace and power of God, our spirit will gain the victory.

 

[The Righterzpen]

That is actually beside the point.

Then maybe you didn't read my post #18?

In any case, you have not dealt with anything I said in it head-on, to show that anything I DID say was incorrect. Instead, you have made it a personal defense as though I had attacked you. And have responded with nothing more than personal remarks against me (read the rules) which are off topic, and more of the assertions which I already told you is a topic I am not particularly interested in because it gets heated and digresses (case in point) into irrelevancies.

There are many who this topic is a favorite @TMSO being one of them. But no matter who is posting or on what subject, one has to expect disagreement and be prepared to deal with it. Hopefully, calmly in the firmness, and respectfully. No easy task I readily admit, but good learning experience should we yield to it for the glory of God and seek that grace we need to do so. I have come to realize that when a Christian joins a forum it is the beginning of an epic battle between our flesh and spirit. By the grace and power of God, our spirit will gain the victory.

I did address everything you posted from #18
See #19, #20, #23, #24, #25, & #29

My main premise still remains: Who is the fulfillment of Scripture?

 

[Arial]

I did address everything you posted from #18
See #19, #20, #23, #24, #25, & #29

My main premise still remains: Who is the fulfillment of Scripture?

I will try to never disagree with you on anything in the future if this is going to be the result.

Your main premise according to the OP and your own first post was to identify what/who the "abomination of desolation" is/was. You could have done that without all that superfluous meandering.