Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Please see post #959 above for a more detailed answer. Thanks!

But there is no basis for conflating the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Jesus' generation with the events connected to the Reign of Antichrist. Antichrist is not even mentioned in the Olivet Discourse!

 

[Timtofly]

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.

I already said Luke was fulfilled in 66AD. Matthew and Mark are future. Revelation is future.

You can interpret Scripture however you feel. Everyone else does.

But there is no basis for conflating the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Jesus' generation with the events connected to the Reign of Antichrist. Antichrist is not even mentioned in the Olivet Discourse!

The AC is a man made invention as well. It is not mentioned any where in Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I already said Luke was fulfilled in 66AD. Matthew and Mark are future. Revelation is future.

You can interpret Scripture however you feel. Everyone else does.

The AC is a man made invention as well. It is not mentioned any where in Scripture.

The Little Horn was foretold by Divine inspiration in Dan 7. In that prophecy, the Little Horn was a man presiding over an empire consisting of 7 other leaders and 10 nations. His object was to blaspheme God, and to oppose His Kingdom.

The Apostle John, therefore, called him the Antichrist. That's the name John assigned to him.

In the book of Revelation he is called the Beast. That's because the Little Horn, according to Dan 7, is to preside over 10 states that emerge from a 4th Beast.

All of these are the Antichrist, called that as inspired by God. You can believe what you want.

 

[Timtofly]

The Little Horn was foretold by Divine inspiration in Dan 7. In that prophecy, the Little Horn was a man presiding over an empire consisting of 7 other leaders and 10 nations. His object was to blaspheme God, and to oppose His Kingdom.

The Apostle John, therefore, called him the Antichrist. That's the name John assigned to him.

In the book of Revelation he is called the Beast. That's because the Little Horn, according to Dan 7, is to preside over 10 states that emerge from a 4th Beast.

All of these are the Antichrist, called that as inspired by God. You can believe what you want.

Sorry, but John never called a human this so called Antichrist.

 

[covenantee]

John described antichrists, of which there were already many when he wrote. 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7.

The Reformers accurately recognized and declared the apostasized papacy, with which they were engaged in spiritual battle, as the prevailing antichrist of their time, not a df-style singular antichrist of all time. That counterfeit would be spawned in the futurism of the apostasized papacy's 16th century counter-reformation, and embraced and proclaimed by the deceived minions of dispensational futurism.

The Reformers also accurately recognized the ten horns of Daniel 7 as the ten kings who emerged from the dissolution of the Roman empire; and the little horn as the papacy which also emerged in the same era, and apostasized over the centuries leading up to the Reformation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry, but John never called a human this so called Antichrist.

You can choose to believe what you want. When Daniel predicted 10 rulers presided over by a single ruler, the "Little Horn," he was predicting a "human." John referred to him as the Antichrist. That's my argument, and how many Christians have viewed it down through the centuries. You don't have to believe it, but your argument seems weak to me.

 

[Timtofly]

You can choose to believe what you want. When Daniel predicted 10 rulers presided over by a single ruler, the "Little Horn," he was predicting a "human." John referred to him as the Antichrist. That's my argument, and how many Christians have viewed it down through the centuries. You don't have to believe it, but your argument seems weak to me.

Where? Daniel is not John. If you are referring to Revelation 13, that is the FP. The FP does not rule, Satan does.

 

[Keraz]

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 then; Paul was mistaken?
2 Thessalonians 2:4 He is the adversary who raises himself up against every other god and even enthrones himself in God's Temple, claiming to be God.
In no way does this Prophecy fit the Roman army in the first Century.

If this is rejected because there is no Temple now, there are many Prophesies that do confirm a new Temple in the end times and during the Millennium; which Jesus will rule from.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So then; Paul was mistaken?
2 Thessalonians 2:4 He is the adversary who raises himself up against every other god and even enthrones himself in God's Temple, claiming to be God.
In no way does this Prophecy fit the Roman army in the first Century.

I said, "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."

And then you switch to 2 Thes 2.4, which has *nothing to do with the "abomination of desolation." So we are talking about two different passages, which mean two different things. And you are trying to compare them, even though they mean different things, and there is nothing linking them.

If this is rejected because there is no Temple now, there are many Prophesies that do confirm a new Temple in the end times and during the Millennium; which Jesus will rule from.

I don't think the temple Antichrist will take his seat in is the same temple that is destroyed in Jesus' time. And so, it is even questionable what kind of temple Antichrist will sit in, being that Herod's temple was destroyed?

So I think it may just be a figure of speech, depicting Antichrist's claim to sit in God's heavenly temple.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where? Daniel is not John. If you are referring to Revelation 13, that is the FP. The FP does not rule, Satan does.

Maybe you need to reread what I said? I'm saying that Daniel 7 set the standard doctrine of Antichrist, describing him as a "Little Horn," an individual human ruler who will appropriate 10 states under his control and pursue a policy opposing Christianity. And so, the Apostle John refers to him as "the Antichrist," being the ruler who will oppose Christianity in the endtimes. John was showing that the endtimes had already started in his own time, being that Jesus had already died, and had begun to accumulate members for the coming Kingdom. We are to watch out for a variety of Antichrists not just in the Last Days but all throughout the endtimes, because this entire age is characterized as anti-Christian.

 

[Timtofly]

Maybe you need to reread what I said? I'm saying that Daniel 7 set the standard doctrine of Antichrist, describing him as a "Little Horn," an individual human ruler who will appropriate 10 states under his control and pursue a policy opposing Christianity. And so, the Apostle John refers to him as "the Antichrist," being the ruler who will oppose Christianity in the endtimes. John was showing that the endtimes had already started in his own time, being that Jesus had already died, and had begun to accumulate members for the coming Kingdom. We are to watch out for a variety of Antichrists not just in the Last Days but all throughout the endtimes, because this entire age is characterized as anti-Christian.

How can John be saying stuff in the book of Daniel? I asked where is John declaring an AC, and you keep saying in the book of Daniel.

How many little horns can you conjure up throughout history? John said there are many antichrists. Are you talking about all the popes?

 

[Randy Kluth]

How can John be saying stuff in the book of Daniel? I asked where is John declaring an AC, and you keep saying in the book of Daniel.

John referred to Daniel's prophecies the same way that you and I do today. We simply refer back to the book of Daniel. It must've been well known that Daniel predicted the coming of the "Little Horn," who will oppose the coming of God's Kingdom, just prior to the coming from heaven of the Son of Man. Since it was well known, both John and Paul taught on this "Man of Sin" without needless explanation as to where the idea came from--every Christian knew it.

How many little horns can you conjure up throughout history? John said there are many antichrists. Are you talking about all the popes?

John tried to get his readers to not just focus on Futurism, but to instead apply it to their own time. The entire age would be an age of false Christs and false Prophets, just as Jesus said it would be before the fall of Jerusalem. The Jews were deceived and led astray, except those who looked to Jesus were kept safe from this judgment.

We are to watch out for the Antichrists of our own time, and not be unduly concerned about future events, including the coming of THE Antichrist. We have our own Antichrists in our own time and place.

For example, in the time of the Reformation, some of the popes (not all) were corrupt and had good Christians executed, simply because they wanted to reform corrupt Catholic practices. This was indeed a form of Antichrist.

In our day, here in America I face every day on the Political Left an effort to normalize homosexuality and Islamic practices and all efforts as devaluing Christianity. This also is a form of Antichrist. Jesus said that the times and seasons are in the Father's hands. We should focus on how God is guiding us today, instead of indulging in too much speculation about the future.

There is an Antichrist coming, according to Dan 7. But we can't speed this process up nor slow it down. We just need to know that the course of this age will be a negative experience for us, and we need to become hardened for that.

 

[Timtofly]

John referred to Daniel's prophecies that same we that you and I do today. We simply refer back to the book of Daniel. It must've been well known that Daniel predicted the coming of the "Little Horn," who will oppose the coming of God's Kingdom, just prior to the coming from heaven of the Son of Man. Since it was well known, both John and Paul taught on this "Man of Sin" without needless explanation as to where the idea came from--every Christian knew it.



John tried to get his readers to not just focus on Futurism, but to instead apply it to their own time. The entire age would be an age of false Christs and false Prophets, just as Jesus said it would be before the fall of Jerusalem. The Jews were deceived and led astray, except those who looked to Jesus were kept safe from this judgment.

We are to watch out for the Antichrists of our own time, and not be unduly concerned about future events, including the coming of THE Antichrist. We have our own Antichrists in our own time and place.

For example, in the time of the Reformation, some of the popes (not all) were corrupt and had good Christians executed, simply because they wanted to reform corrupt Catholic practices. This was indeed a form of Antichrist.

In our day, here in America I face every day on the Political Left an effort to normalize homosexuality and Islamic practices and all efforts as devaluing Christianity. This also is a form of Antichrist. Jesus said that the times and seasons are in the Father's hands. We should focus on how God is guiding us today, instead of indulging in too much speculation about the future.

There is an Antichrist coming, according to Dan 7. But we can't speed this process up nor slow it down. We just need to know that the course of this age will be a negative experience for us, and we need to become hardened for that.

So after so many words, John never mentioned THE AC once. Thanks for clearing that up.

"A beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

One of the 7 heads was wounded. Not one mention of a little horn.


"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast."

Not one little horn mentioned.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So after so many words, John never mentioned THE AC once. Thanks for clearing that up.

So you're happy that you don't understand me? John did mention the Antichrist. Look it up in 1 John.

One of the 7 heads was wounded. Not one mention of a little horn.

The Little Horn is understood to exist when John referred to the Beast with 10 horns. It is a reference back to Dan 7.

Not one little horn mentioned.

"Little Horn" is not a technical name given to the Antichrist, but only a descriptive name. The same entity is referred to by John in 1 John as "the Antichrist"--again a descriptive title, and not a technical name.

Finally, the book of Revelation describes the same entity as the "Beast." It identifies this individual king with the 4th Kingdom of Daniel, also called a "beast."

 

[Marty fox]

So you're happy that you don't understand me? John did mention the Antichrist. Look it up in 1 John.



The Little Horn is understood to exist when John referred to the Beast with 10 horns. It is a reference back to Dan 7.



"Little Horn" is not a technical name given to the Antichrist, but only a descriptive name. The same entity is referred to by John in 1 John as "the Antichrist"--again a descriptive title, and not a technical name.

Finally, the book of Revelation describes the same entity as the "Beast." It identifies this individual king with the 4th Kingdom of Daniel, also called a "beast."

John is the one writer in the bible to use the term antichrist he mentions it 4 times in his epistles

 

[Timtofly]

So you're happy that you don't understand me? John did mention the Antichrist. Look it up in 1 John.



The Little Horn is understood to exist when John referred to the Beast with 10 horns. It is a reference back to Dan 7.



"Little Horn" is not a technical name given to the Antichrist, but only a descriptive name. The same entity is referred to by John in 1 John as "the Antichrist"--again a descriptive title, and not a technical name.

Finally, the book of Revelation describes the same entity as the "Beast." It identifies this individual king with the 4th Kingdom of Daniel, also called a "beast."

Still cannot give me chapter and verse. Oh well....

No, John does not talk about a little horn, nor even a head, as some future great leader as your AC.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Still cannot give me chapter and verse. Oh well....

You're either extremely ignorant or extremely lazy. My thought is that you're simply being sly? Or maybe you're just confused?
Here John mentions the Antichrist:

1 John 2.18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
1 John 4.3 This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As I've told you repeatedly, John mentions the Antichrist! And you continue to harp on about how I never prove *with Scripture* that John mentions the Antichrist!

No, John does not talk about a little horn, nor even a head, as some future great leader as your AC.

John talks about the Antichrist in 1 John, assuming his readers know what he is talking about. The only Antichrist he could be talking about is in Dan 7, where the Little Horn is mentioned, who opposes Christ's Kingdom.

In the book of Revelation John talks about the Beast. Again, his readers know the Beast originates in Dan 7 where the 4th Beast is the last Beast to appear in the present age among the 4 listed. Since that Beast breaks down into 10 horns, with the Little Horn representing an individual ruling over them, John's mention of the "Beast" in Revelation refers to the same Little Horn who presides over the 10 horns that John also mentions.

 

[Randy Kluth]

John is the one writer in the bible to use the term antichrist he mentions it 4 times in his epistles

Yes, my only thought is that Timothy either is thinking only of John's writing in Revelation, or he is trying to argue that John's reference to Antichrist is not to a specific individual. Thanks for confirming that John does mention the Antichrist.

 

[Timtofly]

You're either extremely ignorant or extremely lazy. My thought is that you're simply being sly? Or maybe you're just confused?
Here John mentions the Antichrist:

1 John 2.18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
1 John 4.3 This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As I've told you repeatedly, John mentions the Antichrist! And you continue to harp on about how I never prove *with Scripture* that John mentions the Antichrist!



John talks about the Antichrist in 1 John, assuming his readers know what he is talking about. The only Antichrist he could be talking about is in Dan 7, where the Little Horn is mentioned, who opposes Christ's Kingdom.

In the book of Revelation John talks about the Beast. Again, his readers know the Beast originates in Dan 7 where the 4th Beast is the last Beast to appear in the present age among the 4 listed. Since that Beast breaks down into 10 horns, with the Little Horn representing an individual ruling over them, John's mention of the "Beast" in Revelation refers to the same Little Horn who presides over the 10 horns that John also mentions.

I agree with John that each antichrist was the antichrist. There have been many. Obviously you seek what has already happened throughout history. At the last 42 months, John does not mention any Antichrist. Because there are none in the last 42 months. Only in the past 1992 years.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree with John that each antichrist was the antichrist. There have been many. Obviously you seek what has already happened throughout history. At the last 42 months, John does not mention any Antichrist. Because there are none in the last 42 months. Only in the past 1992 years.

Why then do you ridicule me for not presenting evidence of John speaking of the Antichrist? You know full well that you're just arguing a different interpretation. Clearly, John mentions the Antichrist.

In referencing the Antichrist my argument is that John is referring to a commonly understood passage in Daniel in which the Little Horn is mentioned ruling over 10 other Horns. In that passage, this Little Horn opposes God right before the Son of Man comes in God's Kingdom. And that rules lasts for a time, times and half a time, traditionally understood as 3.5 years. This is the equivalent of 42 months.

So John does not *need* to mention the Antichrist in association with 42 months, since it is already understood. And John, in the Revelation, identifies the 3.5 years as "time, times and half a time," correlating with the Dan 7 passage. And he also correlates this with 42 months and 1260 days. They are clearly all the same period of time, in which the "Antichrist" opposes God and rules over 10 Horns.

In mentioning this in the book of Revelation, John calls him the Beast, instead of the "Little Horn," since he is now dealing only with the last of 4 Beasts, the other 3 Beasts having been fulfilled already. So this Little Horn is now identified as "the Beast." He rules over 10 Horns, just as he is seen in Dan 7.

This is my interpretation, and you don't have to accept it. I'm just sharing what I believe--not demanding anybody accept it.