What is the "abomination of desolation"?

[The Righterzpen]

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.

MOD EDIT: Some text removed. Violation of several Rules, and in particular 2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace, and 2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person

..................................
Short synopsis of my points below:

The "abomination that made (them) desolate" was "set in motion" by Herod the Great who when he knew the Messiah had been born; his reaction was to try and kill him. Herod was the one who rebuilt the temple. (That's why they called it "Herod's Temple".) And look at the system that ran it. It wasn't God's temple / (though it was supposed to be). Jesus tells them "My Father's House is to be a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves!"

Messiah comes to point of baptism and John is telling the nation to repent. (Same language in Daniel = make the street strait...)

Messiah starts preaching.
Nicodemus conveys to Jesus that the leaders of the nation (the Sanhedrin) know that Jesus is the Messiah.
So, in their failure to acknowledge their Messiah; once the atonement is procured; and they refuse to obey God; their temple sacrifices are "the abomination that makes desolate".

The apostles didn't see this at the point Jesus was about to be crucified; but eventually they understood. Despite Paul still disobeyed God even when brethren directed by the Holy Spirit told him to stay away from Jerusalem. (Acts 21)

Herod too, had "a dog in this fight" because he wanted to be "crowned" "King of the Jews." (All the Herods wanted that title though.) We see this in the book of Acts when God strikes down Herod Agrippa I. (Acts 12:20-24) This is all prophesied in the Book of Daniel.

Then two places in Scripture we see the phrase "son of perdition". Gospel of John tells us that's Judas Iscariot. And Paul talks about "son of perdition" and "man of sin" both being connected to "the abomination of desolation". Assuming the "son of perdition" and "man of sin" are two different people?

Judas as "son of perdition" connected to the "abomination of desolation": (The system was taken out by 70 AD)
"Man of sin" and "abomination of desolation": in the "end end" does this reemerge?

For anyone who wants to go down an interesting (modern political) rabbit hole; start researching the history of Zionism.
And compare that to the history of the modern pentecostal movement.
(They closely parallel each other.)

So... tying together some of these threads and pointing to all these correlating Bible passages....

People can get mad at me; or they can be Bereans, search the Scriptures and engage the conversation.

I'm open to people showing me Bible passages that will steer all of us to truth. "Iron sharpens iron".

 

[TMSO]

Well, here's my "two cents" I've found out of the Bible: (please excuse my initial not posting references as well as how long this is!)

Can I get my money back?

70 Weeks of Daniel 9:
Appears to me to be 70 weeks between the death of John the Baptist and Pentecost. The clincher here being "62 weeks" followed by "one week" and then "7 weeks" (50 days from resurrection to Pentecost is 7.14 weeks.) The week of "the Great Tribulation" runs from the Friday before the crucifixion to the day of Christ's death. The "Sabbath" is one day. And start counting again from day of resurrection. Pentecost is on a Sunday.

First of all, properly translated, it is not the prophecy of 70 weeks. The word is not properly translated as "weeks". The proper translation is that it is 70 sets of 7. Since the context of Daniel is Daniel dealing with the 70 year exile that would be ending shortly, it is understood that it is 70 sets of 7 years. So, just from this point, your argument has no foundation.

What major event would come 62 weeks before the week of the atonement? (The end of the last prophet of the Old Testament would be the death of John the Baptist.)

Again, it isn't weeks. It is years, and 70 sets of 7 years. That comes from a proper understanding of the context of Daniel 9.

"One week" The Messiah is "cut off" in the "midst of the week".

That too is incorrect. "26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [aa]Messiah will be cut off and have [ab]nothing" It doesn't say "midst of the week". Please stop adding to scripture. What else happened after the sixty-two "weeks"? " and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." That happens 37 years later... You are so far off. I mean, from the moment that you find out you have mishandled Daniel 2, you should be reconsidering all you believe. Preterism is a HERESY. It changes the gospel. It changes who Christ is.

Jesus feet are annoited on Friday before crucifixion

Saturday - is the sabbath.
Sunday i- s triumphant entery into Jerusalem
Monday
Tuesday - heals and casts out demons in the temple

(Sundown) goes to the house of Simon the (former) leper; has dinner with disciples and Lazarus (whom just recently came back from the dead). Anomyous woman pours oil over Jesus's head. He says "She's done this for my burial." (John 12) Thus commences his "burial" / "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth". Exactly 3 / 24 hour periods later Jesus is dead!

Stop adding to scripture, and coming up with totally crazy ideas. Jesus is prophecying His death and burial here. Don't take that away from Him with your, I know better than y'all.

Wednesday - Spends that entire night explaing to the disciples what is about to happen. Prays for them. I believe the "washing of their feet" was this night. As one was suppose to "gird their loins" and have "their sandles on their feet" to eat the Passover. (Thus Jesus would not be removeing his clothing in the context of obeying this OT injunction.

The cleaning of the feet is something that was done because guests coming to the Passover would have dirty feet. The servants were supposed to do this, however, Jesus did this. It is because the host isn't supposed to do something like this, that the disciples reacted. Peter the most because, here is the Son of God washing His feet like a lowly servant.

Thursday - Preparation for the Passover. Disciples spend the day getting things ready. They meet in the upper room. Shared the house with a family (who would probalby have been down stairs). Another reason why Jesus would not be undressing himself on the Passover - as all who shared the Passover in a singular house would have shared the same sacrificial animal.

Where is this undressing stuff coming from? Feet were going to be washed by someone. It is normally the servants.

They leave the upper room after dark; go to the "winter garden" 1st attempt to arrest Jesus happens. Also where those who come to arrest him all fall over backwards when he says "I am" (he).

John 18 has them there and it is where Jesus is arrested.

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the [a]ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. 2 Now Judas also, who was [c]betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. 3 Judas then, having received the Roman [d]cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, *came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He *said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,” 9 to fulfill the word which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” 10 Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”"

They leave this garden and go into a Gesthemane. A "Gesthemane" is simply a cave (in the Mt. of Olives) with a olive press in it. (These presses were used to supply the temple with oil.) Jesus is praying; they all fall asleep.

This is where you have some issues. The aarden by the Brook of Kidron and the Mount of Olives, is the Garden of Gethsemane. John just doesn't go over the Garden of Gethsemane incident because that isn't part of his purpose in writing the book of John. So John just says they went to the Garden of Gethsemane, a spot that Jesus and the disciples frequented, as it says in verse 2, and then just skips to Jesus' arrest.

Midnight - an angel visits Jesus. (Compare Luke to Exodus) This angel is "the angel of the Lord" who "Passed over" at midnight. This is where I believe "the great tribulation" was "cut short" "or no flesh would be saved". (When was the atoment completed (i.e. "flesh saved") it was completed at the cross. Jesus "descends into hell" ("preaches to the spirits in prison") He physically doesn't die though because the Son (2nd person of the Godhead) is still in possession of his body.

"43 Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground." If it was the Angel of the Lord, it would say it. Besides, the Angel of the Lord was a theophany, the preincarnate Christ.

As for the atonement being flesh saved... no. That is not what Jesus was talking about. Jesus was telling the disciples that the great tribulation coming to the whole world (again, note Jesus says that it will be the worst event in the history of the world, while in the Old Testament the times of Jacob's Trouble is the worst time in the history of Israel, not the world), would not go one moment longer than it is set. If it lasted longer, there would be no life left on Earth. I say it is because the tribulation ends with the beast and his armies about to wipe out all of Israel. If he does, then Jesus shows up and wipes out the beast and all his armies, and there is no life left on Earth. It is usually best to go with a straight reading, then forcing your own interpretations on the text. Jesus shows up before Israel is wiped and, and wipes out the enemies of Israel, and then enters Israel as King.

He stands before Pilate morally and psychologically "intact" and in his right mind. (The Romans would not have crucififed him if Pilate deemed he was insane. It was against Roman law to execute the insane; as they were seen as "touched by the gods". Besides it was not against Roman law to claim you were God. Believe it's Jeremiah 24? that states that the judgement of God causes the nations to "go mad". (Jesus is being judged for the sins of the elect.)

Jesus answers some of Pilate's quesitons. Jesus is condemned by the crowed. Barabas is released. Pilate "picks on" the Jewish leaders by refusing to change the phrasing of what Jesus's alleged crime is "King of the Jews". And tells the people who've declaired "Let his blood be upon our heads and the heads of our children". Pilate says: "Understand what this means to you." (Pretty ominus when you know "what was coming" in history.) The generation that was to come was actually never born. Thus why Jesus says to the women: "don't cry for me; cry for yourselves...."

It didn't matter. Pilate was still guilty. He try to push it off by washing his hands, but it didn't matter. The only people (I believe) Jesus forgave were the Roman Soldiers at Golgatha who were just doing their job. They had no part in having Jesus crucified. Their job was to do what they were told, which was to oversee the crucifixion of those so sentenced. They were clueless as to why.

The "king" in the Book of Daniel is the line of the Herodian dynasty. After Herod the Great died; four of his son's took his place (kingdom divided) which Alexander the Great's empire was divided up into 8 sections not four. And follow the Herods through from the birth of Christ to the destruction of the temple. The 7 heads on the beast in Revelation 13. Well.... there's too many Roman emperors; but there's EXACTLY 7 Herods who rule Judea between the completion of the 2nd Temple in 9 BC to it's destruciton in 70 AD.

Which king? Also, Alexander the Great's Empire was divided into four. The four were:
Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt), Seleucid Empire (Asia/Near East), Antigonid Kingdom (Macedon/Greece), and the Kingdom of Pergamon (Asia Minor).

This is in keeping with the statue of Daniel 2, and the prophecy of Daniel 7. The Empire was quickly formed, and then divided into four.

John the Baptist appears in the wilderness in the summer of 29 AD (EXACT time and year that Tiberius commences the 15th year of his reign.) Jesus starts his ministry and by 33 AD he's crucified. (33 AD is the only year where Passover fell between Thursday sundown to Friday sundown.

Jesus was crucified in 30 AD, in keeping with the earthquake that occurred in 30 AD. "The most accepted scholarly view is that 14 Nisan, the day of preparation, was Friday, April 7, 30 AD, making it a "High Sabbath" or "Friday Sabbath". With this we have "In 33 AD, Passover (Nisan 14) fell on Friday, April 3."

Friday - Jesus says to the theif: "Surely I tell you; today, you will be with me in pardise" then says "It is finished" and dies. Veil of the temple is rent. His soul ascends to heaven and we pick this up in Revelation 5 when Christ appears "as the lamb slain" and opens the scrolls.

From the point that Christ dies; any animal sacrifice they perform from then on is "the abomination that makes (them) desolate).

No. That is not how it works. Perhaps you should read the prophecies where God speaks of the Levites, and then the one that says that only if you could break His covenant of day and His covenant of night, so that there is no season of day and night, then He could break His covenant.

This abomination is "set up" from the point Herod the Great tries to kill Jesus when he was about 2 years old. (They flee into Egypt.) Herod dies in 4 BC and his 4 sons get the divided kingdom. Revelation says "5 kings fallen; 6 now reigns and 7 is yet to come." (Revelation 17:10) The last Herod to reign is Agrippa 2; he began his reign in approximately 48 AD. Which means if I'm correct; this puts the writing of the book of Revelation before 48 AD.

The abominaton is an idol. That is how it appears in Daniel, and in other Old Testament passages. As for the divided kingdom, this means nothing, because it actually is Alexander the Great, so some time prior to all of this. Were there 10 kings of 10 nations ruling at the same time as any of the Herod's? (The 10 horns, which are the 10 toes of the statue of Daniel 2.) It can't be priests in Israel because NO PRIEST IN ISRAEL CAN BE A KING, just as no king in Israel can be a priest. Jesus is different, and is prophesied as such in Zechariah, and other places in the Old Testament.

Thus Jesus statement to the disciples "When you see the abomination..." (They didnt' recognize it was already "standing" at the point Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 24.

The aorist tense disagrees.

Saturday - Sabbath
Sunday - Resurrection

7 weeks later is Pentecost
(70 weeks of Daniel 9)

Why are you still talking about weeks? That is a improper translation of the word in Danile 9.

2 Thessolonians 2:3 uses the term "son of perdition"
We see that phrase also in John 17:12. It's a reference to Judas.

Do you even care about context?
"3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."

Does that at all sound like Judas? Did he oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship? To the point that he took his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God? REALLY? The gospel writers really messed up recording the gospels I guess.

 

[TMSO]

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 believe it is better to discuss the prophecies, and consider them thoughtfully, especially in the light of what has happened and is going on. I don't push to say someone is wrong (unless they really are -- glaring at you preterists). I push for consideration. I also push when crazy interpretations of prophecy show up. The one's I have seen GO TOO FAR. (Not from you...)

It is give and take. I push for treating all prophecy the same. I mean, that is how it has worked with all prophecy so far, so why change it? Revelation is apocalyptic in writing, but... so is Daniel. And in Daniel we have predictive prophecy in apocalyptic writing, that has come to pass as written. Plenty that has yet to be fulfilled, but if the rest as been fulfilled as written, shouldn't we treat the rest... as written? (Given as a thought question.)