Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Timtofly]

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.

Because John in Revelation calls "that man" a false prophet, FP. John calls your antichrist being a beast. The beast is the humanoid image, not even a human . You call the AoD: armies from 66AD. I call the beast, image come to life an AoD. You call my AoD your Antichrist.

I am not being vague like you. I am just sticking to the facts. Every Antichrist in history has been that Antichrist for the people living in those generations. When it comes to the AoD, you are the one combining totally separate thoughts into a vague general description you claim as historical, when they are not recorded that way by those actually alive at the time. You are just looking back on history and putting your own spin on things.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Because John in Revelation calls "that man" a false prophet, FP. John calls your antichrist being a beast. The beast is the humanoid image, not even a human . You call the AoD: armies from 66AD. I call the beast, image come to life an AoD. You call my AoD your Antichrist.

I am not being vague like you. I am just sticking to the facts. Every Antichrist in history has been that Antichrist for the people living in those generations. When it comes to the AoD, you are the one combining totally separate thoughts into a vague general description you claim as historical, when they are not recorded that way by those actually alive at the time. You are just looking back on history and putting your own spin on things.

You couldn't be more judgmental and wrong about what I was doing. I was just expressing my honest opinion about who and what the Antichrist is, based on what I've read in Scriptures for decades! And what I believe is not "my own spin," since I get virtually all of my beliefs from others who have gone before me.

It is a very common view that the 1st Beast is the Antichrist. It is also a common belief that the 2nd Beast is the Antichrist. It is also a common belief that the Antichrist is not an individual man, but rather, many different men throughout history.

What is not common is the combination of these as you put them, that the Antichrist is not an individual but is the False Prophet. Those who believe the Antichrist is the False Prophet generally think of him as an individual, and not as many individuals down through history. At least, that has been my experience.

Today's Futurist interpreters tend to view the 1st Beast as the Antichrist and an individual, as I do. So nothing I've been saying is sly, or confusing, or my own random thoughts.

But I do understand where you're coming from, and hope you now understand where I'm coming from? I just hope you come to understand that my position is *very common* and not the product of my own "spin!"

 

[Timtofly]

You couldn't be more judgmental and wrong about what I was doing. I was just expressing my honest opinion about who and what the Antichrist is, based on what I've read in Scriptures for decades! And what I believe is not "my own spin," since I get virtually all of my beliefs from others who have gone before me.

It is a very common view that the 1st Beast is the Antichrist. It is also a common belief that the 2nd Beast is the Antichrist. It is also a common belief that the Antichrist is not an individual man, but rather, many different men throughout history.

What is not common is the combination of these as you put them, that the Antichrist is not an individual but is the False Prophet. Those who believe the Antichrist is the False Prophet generally think of him as an individual, and not as many individuals down through history. At least, that has been my experience.

Today's Futurist interpreters tend to view the 1st Beast as the Antichrist and an individual, as I do. So nothing I've been saying is sly, or confusing, or my own random thoughts.

But I do understand where you're coming from, and hope you now understand where I'm coming from? I just hope you come to understand that my position is *very common* and not the product of my own "spin!"

Close. The first beast is the FP. The second beast is Satan. The AoD is the image, that becomes the beast. John never gives us an AC in Revelation. There is the dragon, the FP, and the beast. The only antichrist would be the image, the AoD, the beast as given in Revelation from chapter 13 until 19. The FP and the beast are cast into the LOF. Satan is bound, and cast into the LOF 1,000 years later.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Close. The first beast is the FP. The second beast is Satan. The AoD is the image, that becomes the beast. John never gives us an AC in Revelation. There is the dragon, the FP, and the beast. The only antichrist would be the image, the AoD, the beast as given in Revelation from chapter 13 until 19. The FP and the beast are cast into the LOF. Satan is bound, and cast into the LOF 1,000 years later.

You seem to have an odd assortment of beliefs--are you establishing these set of beliefs on your own, or deriving them from a particular school of eschatology? I think if we try to fasten our own independent thoughts upon the book of Revelation, and separate from letting the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures, you'll end up without any basis for proving anything. You will be teaching your own doctrines, rather than let God's word speak for God.

 

[Timtofly]

You seem to have an odd assortment of beliefs--are you establishing these set of beliefs on your own, or deriving them from a particular school of eschatology? I think if we try to fasten our own independent thoughts upon the book of Revelation, and separate from letting the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures, you'll end up without any basis for proving anything. You will be teaching your own doctrines, rather than let God's word speak for God.

Then let God's Word interpret God's Word. Also you cannot turn apples into oranges. Luke is not saying the same thing as Matthew. Luke is giving additional information, not the exact same information. John gives us a totally different account of the OD. Instead of Jesus' Words, John was an actual eyewitness to the future.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Then let God's Word interpret God's Word. Also you cannot turn apples into oranges. Luke is not saying the same thing as Matthew. Luke is giving additional information, not the exact same information. John gives us a totally different account of the OD. Instead of Jesus' Words, John was an actual eyewitness to the future.

I stand by what I said in #959. That is letting what Scripture says for itself...

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.

 

[Timtofly]

I stand by what I said in #959. That is letting what Scripture says for itself...

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.

It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD than the few chapters given in Luke and the other Gospels does not mention the Roman armies at all.

What is reasonable is that Luke was fulfilled in 66AD, and Josephus the "on the scene" historian confirmed that in the historical record.

Only later after a couple hundred years, people got history confused. Like saying, did George Washington actually cut down some fruit tree.

Now 1900 years later, some people just want to rewrite history because they would rather base it on confusion hundreds of years after the fact, than any first century documentation. No one can even settle on who wrote Luke. The one attributed did not even live in the relative time frame. History says Luke lived from 65 to 150. How could he be a toddler when Paul was martyred around 65?

Luke was definitely written later than 70AD. So that is a reasonable explanation that Luke was referring to 66AD. Luke did not mention 70AD, because it was not relatve to the OD one bit. Luke may seem to have the same order, but definitely not the same form.

 

[covenantee]

It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD than the few chapters given in Luke and the other Gospels does not mention the Roman armies at all.

Neither does Revelation 13 refer to an "abomination of desolation" or a "holy place" or fleeing Judea.

So it is not a "broader OD".

 

[Timtofly]

Neither does Revelation 13 refer to an "abomination of desolation" or a "holy place" or fleeing Judea.

So it is not a "broader OD".

Never said chapter 13 is a broader OD. The book of Revelation is a broader OD.

I put 13, if any one wanted to click and verify that Roman armies were indeed not mentioned. I never mentioned the "abomination of desolation" or a "holy place". I am the one saying the armies are not the AoD. So you refuted your own claim. As you claim none of the above are mentioned in chapter 13. You can look through the whole book of Revelation though and declare where the Roman armies are called the AoD. Don't stop just at chapter 13.

 

[covenantee]

Never said chapter 13 is a broader OD. The book of Revelation is a broader OD.

You said:

"It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD"

 

[covenantee]

The book of Revelation is a broader OD.

If so, then the "abomination of desolation" must appear somewhere within the book of Revelation.

Where would that be?

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Timtofly]

You said:

"It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD"

I did not say THE broader OD. I said A broader OD. Seems all you can do is pick apart the English language.

 

[Timtofly]

If so, then the "abomination of desolation" must appear somewhere within the book of Revelation.

Where would that be?

Chapter and verse, please.

Once again, I said Roman Armies. Do you read and understand English? The Roman armies are not the AoD. I keep saying that and you keep saying they are. So according to you the Roman armies nor the Aod is in Revelation. Do you not question why the Roman Armies can not be found in the entire book of Revelation? Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse. John left the OD out of His Gospel. His version was too big, and took up a separate book. Stop acting like a 5 year old, trying to win a word guessing game.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD than the few chapters given in Luke and the other Gospels does not mention the Roman armies at all.

A reasonable view is what I described with respect to the 3 versions of the same Discourse of Jesus. They are all virtually the same wording, with some words omitted or paraphrased slightly. They all say the same thing as Luke 21.

To say it is unreasonable that the AoD is the Roman Army is to be inflexible and stubborn. Whether you're right or wrong is not as important as maintaining a certain "flexibility" and a certain "teachableness." Without that you'll never be corrected, unless you think you *never* need to be corrected?

Rev 13 has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. This is a diversion away from the subject of interpreting the O.D.

What is reasonable is that Luke was fulfilled in 66AD, and Josephus the "on the scene" historian confirmed that in the historical record.

Luke included the entire time from 66-70 AD, and both Roman invasions. The Roman Army was the AoD in both cases, even if they were different armies under different generals. They were both Roman armies. And Jesus mentioned "armies" plural.

No one can even settle on who wrote Luke. The one attributed did not even live in the relative time frame. History says Luke lived from 65 to 150. How could he be a toddler when Paul was martyred around 65?

I believe Luke was a friend of Paul, and therefore could not have lived from 65 to 150!

Luke was definitely written later than 70AD. So that is a reasonable explanation that Luke was referring to 66AD. Luke did not mention 70AD, because it was not relatve to the OD one bit. Luke may seem to have the same order, but definitely not the same form.

Luke mentioned 70 AD when he had Jesus talk about the complete demolition of the Jewish temple, stone by stone. That did *not* happen in 66 AD! Whoever is teaching you needs to retire. And you need to get a new teacher!

 

[covenantee]

Once again, I said Roman Armies. Do you read and understand English? The Roman armies are not the AoD. I keep saying that and you keep saying they are. So according to you the Roman armies nor the Aod is in Revelation. Do you not question why the Roman Armies can not be found in the entire book of Revelation? Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse. John left the OD out of His Gospel. His version was too big, and took up a separate book. Stop acting like a 5 year old, trying to win a word guessing game.

You're spouting your usual nonsense.

"Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse" (you said, remember?), but Revelation fails to mention at least three (in post 988) of the most salient events and descriptions found in the Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse??

Thanks for the guffaws.

 

[covenantee]

you think you *never* need to be corrected

A df trademark.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Never said chapter 13 is a broader OD. The book of Revelation is a broader OD.

I put 13, if any one wanted to click and verify that Roman armies were indeed not mentioned. I never mentioned the "abomination of desolation" or a "holy place". I am the one saying the armies are not the AoD.

I'll give you that the Bible does not say: "the AoD is the Roman armies." On the other hand, it does not need to be said, since Luke implies that very thing. What Matthew and Mark call the "AoD" Luke refers to as "armies surrounding Jerusalem," aka the Roman armies in 66 AD and 70 AD. Sandwiched in between "standing firm" and "fleeing to the mountains" is something that is "seen," whether the AoD or armies surrounding Jerusalem. In either case, the material in between "a" and "c" is "b," something being desolated. It is common sense to understand that the thing Jesus referred to in both cases is the desolation of Jerusalem, which is the same as the desolation of the "holy place."

Your complaint has no warrant. The best I can say about it is an argument. If I gave you 2 lists....
1) a,b,c
2) a,x(b),c

...You would be right to assume the 2 lists are different and *could be* meaning something different.

But it is even more likely that the 2 lists refer to the same thing. In both lists "b" is listed. "X," then, becomes a variable that means the same as "b." "X" is the abominable Roman armies, and "b" is the "desolation" being referred to in both cases.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You said:

"It is not reasonable, because Revelation 13, which is a much broader OD"

There is no point in trying to reason with someone who is completely unreasonable.

 

[Timtofly]

A reasonable view is what I described with respect to the 3 versions of the same Discourse of Jesus. They are all virtually the same wording, with some words omitted or paraphrased slightly. They all say the same thing as Luke 21.

To say it is unreasonable that the AoD is the Roman Army is to be inflexible and stubborn. Whether you're right or wrong is not as important as maintaining a certain "flexibility" and a certain "teachableness." Without that you'll never be corrected, unless you think you *never* need to be corrected?

Rev 13 has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. This is a diversion away from the subject of interpreting the O.D.



Luke included the entire time from 66-70 AD, and both Roman invasions. The Roman Army was the AoD in both cases, even if they were different armies under different generals. They were both Roman armies. And Jesus mentioned "armies" plural.



I believe Luke was a friend of Paul, and therefore could not have lived from 65 to 150!



Luke mentioned 70 AD when he had Jesus talk about the complete demolition of the Jewish temple, stone by stone. That did *not* happen in 66 AD! Whoever is teaching you needs to retire. And you need to get a new teacher!

I am only going by the historical account of Josephus, so you are the stubborn one writing your own history.

 

[Timtofly]

You're spouting your usual nonsense.

"Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse" (you said, remember?), but Revelation fails to mention at least three (in post 988) of the most salient events and descriptions found in the Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse??

Thanks for the guffaws.

Thanks for having no knowledge of Revelation whatsoever. Obviously the book is off limits to your biased opinion.