Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Timtofly]

Calm down--I'm not saying you're a bad guy! You can believe what you want--I'm just giving you my opinion, and explaining what I meant.

The AoD was the Roman Army standing in the holy place of the environs of Jerusalem. The entire area in and around Jerusalem was a "holy place."

In the OT the "holy place" is often a technical term applied to the Holy Place of the temple, an inner room of the temple. But "holy place" generically referred, in the OT, to any area deemed holy.

THE holy place would be any specified holy place that Jesus knew his listeners would associate with the term. In this case, the context was the desolation of the city and the sanctuary, meaning Jerusalem and the temple. So the "holy place" would be the area in and around Jerusalem, where the Roman Army would lay siege to the city.

I pointed out that the Roman army was constantly hanging out in the Roman garrison. It was to keep the peace and ensure Roman subjugation. A besieged city is no different except now there was full scale rebellion, not peace. So your one time army does not count.

Now back when Pilate first took charge, he hung the eagle banners and the army did act under a stance of an AoD, but you reject that, even though the Jews complained to Pilate, he was indeed setting up an AoD. Pilate backed down and removed the ensigns. Now to me, Josephus, and the first century Jews that was an AoD. Obviously you don't agree with them nor that historical fact.

You literally have a very low threshold of what an AoD is. A single army in 70AD as part of your eschatology stance.

 

[covenantee]

No.

So you did it yourself. When?

 

[covenantee]

I pointed out that the Roman army was constantly hanging out in the Roman garrison.

Explain how soldiers "hanging out" is the equivalent of a massed army in full battle mode advancing upon Jerusalem with the singular objective of destroying it.

The former is not an AoD.

The latter is, as Scripture and history and common sense testify.

 

[Timtofly]

So you did it yourself. When?

Never had to.

Explain how soldiers "hanging out" is the equivalent of a massed army in full battle mode advancing upon Jerusalem with the singular objective of destroying it.

The former is not an AoD.

The latter is, as Scripture and history and common sense testify.

I think you need to recheck your facts. They did not come to destroy Jerusalem. Obviously you misinterpret the historical record as much as you do God's Word.

Titus never intended to destroy Jerusalem. He only was going to remove all the rebels. He only leveled Jersuslaem, because he was disgusted at how the Jews had literally desecrated the Temple and the city. Beside the Temple was burned down in opposition to Titus' command. He wanted it left alone, and in usable condition. But it was set on fire, and it was gutted by all sides. Go back and actually read the record. You seem to just be grasping for proof.

 

[covenantee]

Never had to.


I think you need to recheck your facts. They did not come to destroy Jerusalem. Obviously you misinterpret the historical record as much as you do God's Word.

Titus never intended to destroy Jerusalem. He only was going to remove all the rebels. He only leveled Jersuslaem, because he was disgusted at how the Jews had literally desecrated the Temple and the city. Beside the Temple was burned down in opposition to Titus' command. He wanted it left alone, and in usable condition. But it was set on fire, and it was gutted by all sides. Go back and actually read the record. You seem to just be grasping for proof.

But God's intention was to destroy Jerusalem.

And He did.

Using Titus and the Roman armies as His agents of judgment and destruction.

Go back and read Scripture and history.

And the proof which they contain.

Not your own delusions.

 

[Timtofly]

But God's intention was to destroy Jerusalem.

And He did.

Using Titus and the Roman armies as His agents of judgment and destruction.

Go back and read Scripture and history.

And the proof which they contain.

Not your own delusions.

Now you are just changing the argument. Now God is your AoD?

 

[covenantee]

Now you are just changing the argument. Now God is your AoD?

I'm changing your argument.

Under Whose control was the AoD?

Hint: Note the capital "W".

 

[Timtofly]

I'm changing your argument.

Under Whose control was the AoD?

Hint: Note the capital "W".

You said God.

 

[covenantee]

You said God.

Yes.

Whom do you say?

 

[Timtofly]

Yes.

Whom do you say?

The AoD is a future event. Matthew 24 in all points, Israel becoming a nation, the Second Coming, the GT, and perhaps an AoD is still future since the first century, and one generation will see all events unfold in that order.

Of course Israel became a Nation in 1948. So until all that generation has died, those words of Jesus still hold true. You can point out we were wrong in 200 years, just to make sure. I mean you are wrong about an event that happened 1952 years ago. I figure waiting 200 years is more generous than having to wait 1952 years.

 

[covenantee]

The AoD is a future event. Matthew 24 in all points, Israel becoming a nation, the Second Coming, the GT, and perhaps an AoD is still future since the first century, and one generation will see all events unfold in that order.

Of course Israel became a Nation in 1948. So until all that generation has died, those words of Jesus still hold true. You can point out we were wrong in 200 years, just to make sure. I mean you are wrong about an event that happened 1952 years ago. I figure waiting 200 years is more generous than having to wait 1952 years.

The Judean Christians saw and fled from the AoD.

Saving their lives.

Disproving df fallacies.

 

[Timtofly]

The Judean Christians saw and fled from the AoD.

Disproving df fallacies.

So your AoD was in 66AD? The other poster thought it was in 70AD. I pointed out you both are jumping to conclusions. Luke never called the armies an AoD. It was just written as approaching armies. You are trying to call an apple an orange.

 

[covenantee]

So your AoD was in 66AD? The other poster thought it was in 70AD. I pointed out you both are jumping to conclusions. Luke never called the armies an AoD. It was just written as approaching armies. You are trying to call an apple an orange.

The Judean Christians saw and fled from the AoD in 66 AD.

The AoD wrought its destruction up to and including 70 AD.

Luke called the armies the desolation.

Matthew and Daniel furnished the abomination.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think you need to recheck your facts. They did not come to destroy Jerusalem. Obviously you misinterpret the historical record as much as you do God's Word.

Titus never intended to destroy Jerusalem. He only was going to remove all the rebels. He only leveled Jersuslaem, because he was disgusted at how the Jews had literally desecrated the Temple and the city. Beside the Temple was burned down in opposition to Titus' command. He wanted it left alone, and in usable condition. But it was set on fire, and it was gutted by all sides. Go back and actually read the record. You seem to just be grasping for proof.

You are not recognizing that what happened back then was God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. It doesn't matter what Titus's intentions might have been. It was God's intention to punish the Jews who rejected His Son and He did.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I pointed out that the Roman army was constantly hanging out in the Roman garrison. It was to keep the peace and ensure Roman subjugation. A besieged city is no different except now there was full scale rebellion, not peace. So your one time army does not count.

Now back when Pilate first took charge, he hung the eagle banners and the army did act under a stance of an AoD, but you reject that, even though the Jews complained to Pilate, he was indeed setting up an AoD. Pilate backed down and removed the ensigns. Now to me, Josephus, and the first century Jews that was an AoD. Obviously you don't agree with them nor that historical fact.

You literally have a very low threshold of what an AoD is. A single army in 70AD as part of your eschatology stance.

I don't have a "low threshold" when I'm pointing out exactly what I think the AoD is. I understand all of the arguments surrounding this. I've chosen to believe what I think the text actually means, and don't choose based on what seems popular in today's eschatological schemes.

Why you discount my claim that the AoD is the Roman Army I can't fathom! Who cares where the Roman army "hung out?" You are treating the AoD as an *object,* when the AoD is really an *event.* And an event takes place in a certain time and in a certain place. That place was Jerusalem, and the time was when the Roman Army laid siege to Jerusalem, preparing to desolate it and the temple.

The other AoD took place in the time of Antiochus 4, and the event was the forced Hellenization of the Jews, along with the destruction of those who chose to remain orthodox in their worship.

You choose to see the AoD as an object, like an idol or offering. And so, you treat my view that the AoD is the Roman Army in the same way, as if it is an idolatrous object. In that case, the Roman Army would've been the AoD in the time of Jesus, as well.

But that's not what I think the AoDs are. They're not objects, but rather, events. So even though the Roman Army was idolatrous and abominable in the time of Jesus, it is not just an AoD because it is a pagan army. No, it becomes the AoD when the Roman Army actually strikes out at Jerusalem to desolate it. It is the "Abomination of Desolation," and not just an abominable object or entity.

 

[Timtofly]

The Judean Christians saw and fled from the AoD in 66 AD.

The AoD wrought its destruction up to and including 70 AD.

Luke called the armies the desolation.

Matthew and Daniel furnished the abomination.

Sounds like something you concocted with no one from the historical record to back you up.

You do realize that those Roman armies in 66AD retreated and were ambushed on their route back to Rome. There was not a 3 year seige of Jerusalem. Jersuslaem was taken by surprise 3 years later, again. The majority of the Jews killed in 70AD were from all over the empire. The Romans would not let them return to their homelands. They were caught between the rebels and the Romans. They were not Christians. No matter how you try to spin history, it will not work out for whatever you are pushing.

 

[Timtofly]

You are not recognizing that what happened back then was God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. It doesn't matter what Titus's intentions might have been. It was God's intention to punish the Jews who rejected His Son and He did.

That is one opinion.

Still does not prove any army is an AoD. The point is not about God's wrath or will.

The point is a bad interpretation of God's Word.

God could have used a giant earthquake for that matter. Would they have called the earthquake the AoD?

 

[Timtofly]

Why you discount my claim that the AoD is the Roman Army I can't fathom! Who cares where the Roman army "hung out?" You are treating the AoD as an *object,* when the AoD is really an *event.* And an event takes place in a certain time and in a certain place. That place was Jerusalem, and the time was when the Roman Army laid siege to Jerusalem, preparing to desolate it and the temple.

I will take that then as not being the army itself. It was only the event. Still not an AoD though. Satan will set up the AoD as Jesus described in the OD. It will last for 42 months. Then God will declare it over when He pours out the 7 vials on Satan's kingdom.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sounds like something you concocted with no one from the historical record to back you up.

You do realize that those Roman armies in 66AD retreated and were ambushed on their route back to Rome. There was not a 3 year seige of Jerusalem. Jersuslaem was taken by surprise 3 years later, again. The majority of the Jews killed in 70AD were from all over the empire. The Romans would not let them return to their homelands. They were caught between the rebels and the Romans. They were not Christians. No matter how you try to spin history, it will not work out for whatever you are pushing.

None of this is relevant. The coming of Cestius Gallus in 66 AD, and his retreat, afforded Jewish believers the opportunity to escape, paying heed to Jesus' warning to "flee to the mountains" when they see this thing happening.

The fact is, it did happen! I wouldn't say that Luke called the Roman Army "the desolation," but that is how he described what Jesus said with respect to the Roman Army--they would "desolate" Jerusalem and the temple. So it is accurate to say that Luke's version used "desolation" in place of "abomination of desolation" in Matthew and Mark's versions. It goes without saying that the Army coming to destroy the temple was to the Jews an "abomination!"

So the full term, "abomination of desolation," was a reference back to the same in Dan 9.27. In Dan 9.26-27 you can see that the AoD had to do with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which I believe could only refer to the 66-70 AD event, which led up to the destruction of these. And since Dan 9 placed this event in the time of Christ's death, and since Jesus placed this event in his own generation, I don't think there can be any mistaking that Jesus was referring to the Roman Army as the "abomination" that would "desolate" Jerusalem and the temple.

So most of this consists of the confusion between Luke's version and Matthew and Mark's version. So let's just get honest and look at the versions together. Please note that in the *exact same spot* where Matthew and Mark mention the AoD, Luke describes the Roman Army desolating Jerusalem! Sandwiched in between "stand firm" and "flee to the mountains" looms large the necessary conclusion that the Roman Army of Luke 21 is, in fact, the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

Even if you don't agree with this conclusion, you should at least give it consideration...

Luke 21.19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Matt 24.13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Mark 13.13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the "holy place" is Jerusalem, and it is Jerusalem being desolated by the abominable Roman Army.

 

[covenantee]

Sounds like something you concocted with no one from the historical record to back you up.

You do realize that those Roman armies in 66AD retreated and were ambushed on their route back to Rome. There was not a 3 year seige of Jerusalem. Jersuslaem was taken by surprise 3 years later, again. The majority of the Jews killed in 70AD were from all over the empire. The Romans would not let them return to their homelands. They were caught between the rebels and the Romans. They were not Christians. No matter how you try to spin history, it will not work out for whatever you are pushing.

You cannot begin to argue the futurization of Matthew 24 until you can explain the historical Scriptural flight of the Judean Christians, in fulfillment of Matthew 24:16, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:21.

It was unanimously recognized by the historical true Christian Church for 17 centuries until the 19th century.

You cannot begin.

Which is why you are unable to.