Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Timtofly]

You don't know in what century Clement knew that the fulfillment occurred?

I and our discerning readers thank you for the guffaws.

I will take it that your invisible clothes look quite nice, if you say so.

No, Clement did not mention the first century in that quote you provided. Can you are least quote the sentence that states the first century was mentioned?

 

[Truth7t7]

I will take it that your invisible clothes look quite nice, if you say so.

No, Clement did not mention the first century in that quote you provided. Can you are least quote the sentence that states the first century was mentioned?

I Agree, a long quote of Clement, no mention of 70AD Jerusalem, or a 1st century

The poster appears to allude away in distraction from this fact

 

[covenantee]

I will take it that your invisible clothes look quite nice, if you say so.

No, Clement did not mention the first century in that quote you provided. Can you are least quote the sentence that states the first century was mentioned?

Of course he didn't mention it. He didn't need to.

He knew that there was only one historical fulfilled event that matched Daniel 9:26b, 27b within Daniel 9:24-27 which he cited.

The destruction of Jerusalem.

Clement wasn't a df.

Neither were his readers for the next 16 centuries.

 

[Truth7t7]

Of course he didn't mention it. He didn't need to.

He knew that there was only one historical fulfilled event that matched Daniel 9:26b, 27b within Daniel 9:24-27 which he cited.

The destruction of Jerusalem.

Clement wasn't a df.

Neither were his readers for the next 16 centuries.

Not one word in your post #876 of Clement mentions "Jerusalem and destruction" as you claim, looks like your on a triple down on something not seen as claimed

Original Quote Clement:

160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "160 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."

 

[Timtofly]

I know some of this is debatable. But none of you have shown an ounce of understanding of the point I've made. That isn't true discussion. And I don't think it's honorable debate.

Yes, most claim preterism as a fact just like you insist 70AD was an AoD. The temple being destroyed is not an AoD. That is the problem here. Plus Jesus' generation died in 40AD. You cannot even put a 40 year generation together with the OD. Jesus was already 33 when He was placed on a Cross. No one in the first century witnessed Israel becoming a nation, the Second Coming, the GT, and an AoD.

But if you keep insisting that only an AoD happened and nothing else, then the other 3 events are a future generation. Most of us will continue to point out 1 generation may see all 4 events.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I will take it that your invisible clothes look quite nice, if you say so.

No, Clement did not mention the first century in that quote you provided. Can you are least quote the sentence that states the first century was mentioned?

I don't know why you insult the brother? I already quoted Clement for you.

“Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in reference to Daniel’s seventy weeks. And as I've already said, to reference the events of the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem one does not need to use the words "70 AD." The same event can be referenced in several different ways, and in particular we know that it is being referenced when those who read him understood him to be saying that.

We know that most of the Church Fathers saw this thing the same way, as the end product of the 70 Weeks, which ended with the "cutting off" of Messiah, and the termination of the legal system offering sacrifices at the temple. What the Church Fathers understood that to mean is that after Christ was "cut off," then as a judgment God would remove their temple and along with it their temple worship.

This meant the end of the OT system of sacrifice was the judgment proclaimed in the prophecy. It would be similar to what the Babylonian Judgment had done in destroying the temple in the 1st place. This restored temple would again be devastated.

What is indicated to the Church Fathers is that Eternal Salvation would not rest on what Jewish priests could offer for the people. Instead Salvation would rest on Christ's mercy alone, determined by repentance in his name.

That is how virtually all of the Church Fathers viewed this, and understood this. Your claim that the words "1st century" have to be included is therefore ludicrous. Maybe you're sincere, but this is the reality.

 

[covenantee]

Not one word in your post #876 of Clement mentions "Jerusalem and destruction" as you claim, looks like your on a triple down on something not seen as claimed

Original Quote Clement:

160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "160 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."

But this does:

Further on in "160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "160 AD Clement of Alexandria":

"And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem..."

Do you also enjoy embarrassing yourself?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, most claim preterism as a fact just like you insist 70AD was an AoD.

"Let all things be done for edification," is sort of what Paul taught Christians to do among other believers. Deliberately insulting me, when you know I deny being a Preterist, is not edifying, and shows your spirituality and love to be weak, or shallow. But you'll be who you will be.

A Preterist believes traditionally future prophecies to have already been fulfilled in the past. All Christians believe *some* prophecies were fulfilled in the past. Those who believe the 70 AD event was a fulfillment of prophecy is an "historical interpreter," and not necessarily a "preterist." I am *not* a Preterist!

This has gone far beyond Christian decency, since you don't even recognize or deny the point. You flatly claim that anybody who believes the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD is a "Preterist." That is untrue. And the fact you go on declaring it without justifying your stance speaks a lot about your character--not good.

The temple being destroyed is not an AoD. That is the problem here.

It is only a problem for you. In fact, Jesus declared that Daniel's prophecy of the AoD was in fact the destruction of the temple in his own generation.

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel."

Plus Jesus' generation died in 40AD. You cannot even put a 40 year generation together with the OD. Jesus was already 33 when He was placed on a Cross. No one in the first century witnessed Israel becoming a nation, the Second Coming, the GT, and an AoD.

That is not true. Babies born while Jesus was alive were still alive in 70 AD. The idea is that those committing sin in Jesus' time would pass on that practice to their children such that those children born in Jesus' time would still be alive in 70 AD. That means children born in 30 AD would only be 40 when the Romans destroyed the temple.

So clearly, you're trying to define words to make them incapable of being fulfilled. But I'm using a perfectly acceptable biblical definition of "generation."

But if you keep insisting that only an AoD happened and nothing else, then the other 3 events are a future generation. Most of us will continue to point out 1 generation may see all 4 events.

Most of "you" may be Dispensationalists who wish *all* of these prophecies to do with our future so that you can enjoy coming up with hypothetical scenarios. In other words, you enjoy guessing and hypothesizing, and creating a spirit of sensatioinalism and excitement--something that both Jesus and Paul discouraged.

Acts 1.7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Our job is to model Christ and declare his truth everywhere that someone is open to it. But you're more interested in calling me a "Preterist" to incite ill will than you are to preach the Gospel or to live the Gospel. I find that unfortunate.

 

[Truth7t7]

I don't know why you insult the brother? I already quoted Clement for you.

“Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in reference to Daniel’s seventy weeks. And as I've already said, to reference the events of the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem one does not need to use the words "70 AD." The same event can be referenced in several different ways, and in particular we know that it is being referenced when those who read him understood him to be saying that.

We know that most of the Church Fathers saw this thing the same way, as the end product of the 70 Weeks, which ended with the "cutting off" of Messiah, and the termination of the legal system offering sacrifices at the temple. What the Church Fathers understood that to mean is that after Christ was "cut off," then as a judgment God would remove their temple and along with it their temple worship.

This meant the end of the OT system of sacrifice was the judgment proclaimed in the prophecy. It would be similar to what the Babylonian Judgment had done in destroying the temple in the 1st place. This restored temple would again be devastated.

What is indicated to the Church Fathers is that Eternal Salvation would not rest on what Jewish priests could offer for the people. Instead Salvation would rest on Christ's mercy alone, determined by repentance in his name.

That is how virtually all of the Church Fathers viewed this, and understood this. Your claim that the words "1st century" have to be included is therefore ludicrous. Maybe you're sincere, but this is the reality.

Clement of Alexandria was the teacher of Origen, both were heretics in their teachings and beliefs in Arianism and Gnosticism, in the Alexandrian philosophical school

You might as well quote (Charles Taze Russel) founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, same difference

 

[ewq1938]

And I've exhausted my arguments over what a Preterist is with you, Truth, and ewq.

And countless others over the years. Obviously you are in denial.

I also believe in a future 3.5 year reign of Antichrist, which is rarely accepted by some Preterists, apparently. Obviously, I have a hybrid view that
incorporates some elements of Dispensationalism, as well as some elements of Preterism. But it does not make me a Preterist, because I interpret the book of Revelation in a futurist way, and I also see the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse as being the NT Jewish Diaspora.

I hope this puts to rest the "name-calling?" I'm *not* a Preterist, but I do have Preterist-like views.

I'm not a Preterist, but I have benefited from their emphasis on the fact Jesus was addressing Israel at that time, when he was giving the Olivet Discourse.

I do owe a debt to Preterists who have helped me focus on this missing piece I had in my eschatology.

To be fair, I understand, if you disagree with my position, how you could think I'm a preterist. I hold to positions in common with Preterism, though I'm not a true Preterist.

 

[covenantee]

Clement of Alexandria was the teacher of Origen, both were heretics in their teachings and beliefs in Arianism and Gnosticism, in the Alexandrian philosophical school

You might as well quote (Charles Taze Russel) founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, same difference

Thanks for the guffaws.

Clement and Origen are both recognized across the entire Christian Church as Early Church Fathers. While not infallible, their contributions to the historical Christian faith far outweigh any of their doctrinal failings. There would be no Christian Church today without them.

By contrast, the blasphemous denials and delusions of modernist df situate it squarely within the camp of the cults.

It is an abomination of desecration within the Church of God.

 

[Truth7t7]

Thanks for the guffaws.

Clement and Origen are both recognized across the entire Christian Church as Early Church Fathers. While not infallible, their contributions to the historical Christian faith far outweigh any of their doctrinal failings. There would be no Christian Church today without them.

By contrast, the blasphemous denials and delusions of modernist df situate it squarely within the camp of the cults.

It is an abomination of desecration with the Church of God.

Clement and Origen were heritics, they changed the words of God, and led many astray into their non-biblical teachings

Many consider the Pope's to be early church fathers, they persecuted the true church, and were heretical in their teachings also

 

[covenantee]

Clement and Origen were heritics, they changed the words of God, and led many astray into their non-biblical teachings

"Heritics" does not exist in the English vocabulary.

Modernist df purveyors are the quintessence of heresy.

I'll take the contributions of Clement and Origen over the malignant scourge of modernist df.

Every time.

 

[covenantee]

Many consider the Pope's to be early church fathers, they persecuted the true church, and were heretical in their teachings also

More guffaws.

Clement and Origen were from Alexandria, not Rome. They were not popes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Clement of Alexandria was the teacher of Origen, both were heretics in their teachings and beliefs in Arianism and Gnosticism, in the Alexandrian philosophical school

You might as well quote (Charles Taze Russel) founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, same difference

On that basis I can't quote you either, because you teach error? You see where that goes? Not all Christian errors are the same. The JWs denounce Christianity and teach a form of Arianism, which was condemned by the Church. Origen was an exemplary Christian who held to the cardinal doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, along with redemption through Christ, and not by the Law.

So no, it is *not* the "same difference." History calls Origen a "Church Father." The same cannot be said for CT Russell. Russell was hardly of theologian of any reputation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And countless others over the years. Obviously you are in denial.

Really, I don't care how many on these pop forums are in bed with Dispensationalism. I agree--it's very popular and has been for a long time. True historical eschatology is mostly lost on them.

But what is damning about your use of "numbers" of adherents is your inability to address the definition of Preterism. An historical interpretation of a prophecy that others view as future is not Preterism. It is an historical interpretation.

Your failure to understand Preterism as a "theological system" is what condemns your approach to this, and I have zero respect for it. You don't even touch upon it--perhaps because you can't.

I make no apology for benefiting from Christians whose eschatology I otherwise disagree with. It would be the same as disagreeing with you on the AoD and still benefiting from other Christian statements you make. Agreeing with you in one area does not make me a member of your preferred theological school, eg Dispensationalism.

In fact I do agree with some elements of Dispensationalism. And so I've been called a Dispensationalist also, when I'm really not. You see how easy it is to get into name-calling, and not dealing with more recognized definition of these various schools? If you are not precise enough, you are in error--you and any number of people who repeat the same group error.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't know why you insult the brother? I already quoted Clement for you.

“Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in reference to Daniel’s seventy weeks. And as I've already said, to reference the events of the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem one does not need to use the words "70 AD." The same event can be referenced in several different ways, and in particular we know that it is being referenced when those who read him understood him to be saying that.

We know that most of the Church Fathers saw this thing the same way, as the end product of the 70 Weeks, which ended with the "cutting off" of Messiah, and the termination of the legal system offering sacrifices at the temple. What the Church Fathers understood that to mean is that after Christ was "cut off," then as a judgment God would remove their temple and along with it their temple worship.

This meant the end of the OT system of sacrifice was the judgment proclaimed in the prophecy. It would be similar to what the Babylonian Judgment had done in destroying the temple in the 1st place. This restored temple would again be devastated.

What is indicated to the Church Fathers is that Eternal Salvation would not rest on what Jewish priests could offer for the people. Instead Salvation would rest on Christ's mercy alone, determined by repentance in his name.

That is how virtually all of the Church Fathers viewed this, and understood this. Your claim that the words "1st century" have to be included is therefore ludicrous. Maybe you're sincere, but this is the reality.

I already said Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled in 70AD.

Daniel 9:27 is still future.

You are wrong. Preterist ( Not you ) are wrong. Tertullian and Clement are wrong if interpreted as Preterist. And neither of the two church fathers linked the OD and AoD with 70AD. They do link Daniel 9:26 just as I do. But they do not back up your point. As you clearly stated, the word desolate does not indicate an AoD. Even though you insist it does only when you want it to. You refuse to see the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem and Solomon's temple the same way.

Messiah being cut off was not the end of the week. Jesus was a Prince equal to being a Messiah. You are avoiding the point Jesus is both the Messiah and Prince in both 26 and 27.

 

[covenantee]

I already said Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled in 70AD.

Daniel 9:27 is still future.

You are wrong. Preterist ( Not you ) are wrong. Tertullian and Clement are wrong if interpreted as Preterist. And neither of the two church fathers linked the OD and AoD with 70AD. They do link Daniel 9:26 just as I do. But they do not back up your point. As you clearly stated, the word desolate does not indicate an AoD. Even though you insist it does only when you want it to. You refuse to see the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem and Solomon's temple the same way.

Messiah being cut off was not the end of the week. Jesus was a Prince equal to being a Messiah. You are avoiding the point Jesus is both the Messiah and Prince in both 26 and 27.

So there's no antichrist in Daniel 9:26-27?

When did you recant?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I already said Daniel 9:26 was fulfilled in 70AD.
Daniel 9:27 is still future.

Okay.

You are wrong. Preterist ( Not you ) are wrong. Tertullian and Clement are wrong if interpreted as Preterist.

They *cannot* be interpreted as Preterists! Preterism as a system did not yet exist! No such system existed at that time that I know of?

I will repeat and inform you what Preterism requires. It requires a systematic approach towards prophetic interpretation. It requires that *most* prophecies in the Bible that many interpret as future be viewed as previously fulfilled. It is a *system* that views most all prophecy as based in the past, rather than predictive for the future.

I think it's a system designed to base Christin belief and practice on past precedent, such as on the cross of Christ. It seems to discourage prognostications about the future, which are largely reserved to God alone. Our focus is to be on ministry, rather than on "crystal ball reading."

Well, I don't agree with that, but I do understand it. I think a lot of future prophecies still have to be be fulfilled in the future, and not just the 2nd Coming of Christ! But I've already covered all that. My point here is that Tertullian and Clement had no such *system* of prophetic interpretation. They were categorizing prophecies of Scripture as either "historical" or "future." They believed in both of these, and had to decide which prophecies were historically fulfilled and which had yet to be fulfilled in the future.

And neither of the two church fathers linked the OD and AoD with 70AD. They do link Daniel 9:26 just as I do. But they do not back up your point. As you clearly stated, the word desolate does not indicate an AoD. Even though you insist it does only when you want it to. You refuse to see the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem and Solomon's temple the same way.

That is not what I said. I said "desolation" does not stand in isolation, but is part of a technical term (or the equivalent) that is applied in distinct ways. One, they are directed as a certain event in history. And two, they are directed at certain parties in history. Dan 9 applies the term to the "ruler to come," whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary. Dan 8, 11, and 12.11 apply the term to Antiochus 4.

The two Church Fathers do link the Olivet Discourse and the AoD with 70 AD. I can say this not just because of what their quotations suggest, but also because of the way the Church Fathers generally agreed with this perspective. Nearly all of them saw a relationship between Dan 9/the AoD and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse. And they saw both the AoD of Dan 9 and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 70 AD desolation of Jerusalem, or thereabouts. There was, I admit, some confusion over whether the AoD was an idol or the Roman Army itself, or something akin to a sacrilege committed in this time period.

Messiah being cut off was not the end of the week. Jesus was a Prince equal to being a Messiah. You are avoiding the point Jesus is both the Messiah and Prince in both 26 and 27.

No, not by my interpretation--obviously it is in your interpretation. I see the "ruler to come" as generic Roman princes. The Messiah who was "cut off" indeed finished the 70 Week prophecy in half of the last week, thus completing the prophecy of the 70 Weeks.

But beyond that, after Messiah is "cut off," the AoD would desolate the temple and the city in the generation of the Messiah. That's how I read it. The "ruler to come" confirmed the covenant of Christ by standing by and allowing Christ to finish his ministry. And then they cut off Christ, and desolated the temple.

 

[Truth7t7]

On that basis I can't quote you either, because you teach error? You see where that goes? Not all Christian errors are the same. The JWs denounce Christianity and teach a form of Arianism, which was condemned by the Church. Origen was an exemplary Christian who held to the cardinal doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, along with redemption through Christ, and not by the Law.

So no, it is *not* the "same difference." History calls Origen a "Church Father." The same cannot be said for CT Russell. Russell was hardly of theologian of any reputation.

Origen taught in the pre-existence of souls, a popular teaching in Mormonism

Origen taught Jesus was a created being maintaining a human soul, denying the eternal existence of Jesus Christ, a popular teaching in the Jehovah's Witnesses

Origen taught universalism, in that all souls would eventually be saved

Origen butchered God's words in removing and adding to scripture to meet his Arian beliefs, the Sianaticus manuscript is his prodigy, that supports modern translations through the (Novum Testamentum Graece)

Origen was a "Heretic"