Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Timtofly]

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.

I just accept Luke was talking about 66AD and that is the historical record given by Josephus.

 

[Timtofly]

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

You like he just make up stuff I never said. Kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation with a person who just post personal attacks and no substance at all.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

1) Josephus was subject to human error.
2) Josephus was not concerned about Christian "truth."

It is one thing to record history and be a witness to that history, and another thing entirely to speculate about what happened from tainted evidence.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You like he just make up stuff I never said. Kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation with a person who just post personal attacks and no substance at all.

Listen, brother. I showed you 3 passages that supposedly give the same record of the same Discourse of Jesus on the Mount of Olives. I supplied sections of the Discourse from all 3 passages and showed that they represented the same part of the Discourse.

I showed you where Jesus said people should "stand firm," where a "desolation" took place, and where people were to "flee to the mountains." In the words of one, an abomination creates a desolation. And in another, armies prepare to desolate Jerusalem, the "holy place."

And yet you expect me to believe that Luke pulled a switch and inserted in the place of the "desolation" in Matthew and Mark something completely different in Luke? Who is adding to the text here? One can argue anything, but what is likely when you have the same Discourse, the same section, and virtually the same words? Will a change in a couple of words smack in the middle of the same passage mean that Jesus said something different there? Doubtful!

No, in the *same place* in the Discourse Jesus told his Disciples something would be "seen." Would he tell through Matthew and Mark to "see" one thing, and in Luke tell people to "see" something completely different? Wouldn't he be telling people to "see" the same thing, since it is *the same Discourse being recounted?"

Luke 21.19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desloation 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.

 

[Timtofly]

1) Josephus was subject to human error.
2) Josephus was not concerned about Christian "truth."

It is one thing to record history and be a witness to that history, and another thing entirely to speculate about what happened from tainted evidence.

What truth is that? Josephus was still a Jew and still knew all of the OT prophets and did historical commentaries on the OT. I trust him knowing what is fulfilled and not, more than a poster just doing guess work in 2022AD because they think it makes logical sense.

I would say you are the one speculating from tainted evidence who is placing himself above one who knew more about his own time in history.

If it was not for Josephus, you would have never even heard of 70AD or the detailed events.

Listen, brother. I showed you 3 passages that supposedly give the same record of the same Discourse of Jesus on the Mount of Olives. I supplied sections of the Discourse from all 3 passages and showed that they represented the same part of the Discourse.

I showed you where Jesus said people should "stand firm," where a "desolation" took place, and where people were to "flee to the mountains." In the words of one, an abomination creates a desolation. And in another, armies prepare to desolate Jerusalem, the "holy place."

Why not? Luke pointed out that the OD went on for a few days and nights.

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

Certainly there was way more spoken than what was recorded. Yet you want to condense it down even more.

 

[covenantee]

Listen, brother. I showed you 3 passages that supposedly give the same record of the same Discourse of Jesus on the Mount of Olives. I supplied sections of the Discourse from all 3 passages and showed that they represented the same part of the Discourse.

I showed you where Jesus said people should "stand firm," where a "desolation" took place, and where people were to "flee to the mountains." In the words of one, an abomination creates a desolation. And in another, armies prepare to desolate Jerusalem, the "holy place."

And yet you expect me to believe that Luke pulled a switch and inserted in the place of the "desolation" in Matthew and Mark something completely different in Luke? Who is adding to the text here? One can argue anything, but what is likely when you have the same Discourse, the same section, and virtually the same words? Will a change in a couple of words smack in the middle of the same passage mean that Jesus said something different there? Doubtful!

No, in the *same place* in the Discourse Jesus told his Disciples something would be "seen." Would he tell through Matthew and Mark to "see" one thing, and in Luke tell people to "see" something completely different? Wouldn't he be telling people to "see" the same thing, since it is *the same Discourse being recounted?"

Luke 21.19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desloation 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.

The success of Scofield dispensational futurism's brainwashing and indoctrination is nothing short of astonishing.

It is a truly pathological phenomenon.

Josef Goebbels would have been jealous.

Thanks for your unwavering defense of the truth.

 

[Timtofly]

The success of Scofield dispensational futurism's brainwashing and indoctrination is nothing short of astonishing.

It is a truly pathological phenomenon.

Josef Goebbels would have been jealous.

Sounds like you know more about futurist than they themselves know.

Try reading Scripture instead of all that human garbage.

 

[covenantee]

Sounds like you know more about futurist than they themselves know.

Try reading Scripture instead of all that human garbage.

They have passed the point of being so indoctrinated that they are no longer capable of recognizing that they're indoctrinated.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What truth is that? Josephus was still a Jew and still knew all of the OT prophets and did historical commentaries on the OT. I trust him knowing what is fulfilled and not, more than a poster just doing guess work in 2022AD because they think it makes logical sense.

I would say you are the one speculating from tainted evidence who is placing himself above one who knew more about his own time in history.

If it was not for Josephus, you would have never even heard of 70AD or the detailed events.

I didn't say Josephus didn't have anything to offer. I'm saying that as an unbeliever he had a spiritual sickness and showed no special understanding or respect for spiritual realities that Christians appreciate.

I've enjoyed and benefited from many non-Christian historians, but I also recognize that they have no interest in recognizing the truths evident in Christianity. There is often fairness in approaching the truths of history. But at the same time there is a resistance to recognizing truths that favor Christian truth. Anybody who has read non-Christian historians will recognize this if they are Christians.

On the other hand, it appears you favor the speculations of renowned non-Christian historians over truths discovered by Christian historians? Many facts of history are obscured with time, and have to be speculated about. I would not countenance something that attempts to subvert biblical truth when it is purely the product of speculation!

Why not? Luke pointed out that the OD went on for a few days and nights.

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

Certainly there was way more spoken than what was recorded. Yet you want to condense it down even more.

You are quoting from a verse that *followed* the Olivet Discourse! You are really reaching now, in order to avoid the point I made.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The success of Scofield dispensational futurism's brainwashing and indoctrination is nothing short of astonishing.

It is a truly pathological phenomenon.

Josef Goebbels would have been jealous.

Thanks for your unwavering defense of the truth.

Yes, it's been a battle, challenging Dispensationalists where I've lived. I used to live in Orange County, CA back in the 70s where Chuck Smith, at the time, daily proclaimed his imminent Coming claims. I understand, after I left to return to WA State, that Smith began to encourage fellow Christians to sell their possessions because Christ was coming within a few years! Chuck Smith Says the End is Near – AGAIN! - The American Vision

Today, I live here in WA State and go to a Dispensationalist church. I don't hate these brothers and sisters, knowing that they were brainwashed in the teaching throughout their lives. The denomination is dogmatic about holding to its position, and won't answer my letters. The pastors have said they were willing to discuss it with me, but never do. They visit, and are utterly unable to debate the issue.

I must thank you, too, my brother, because our aims are the same. We wish to get back to true biblical teaching, and not be distracted by the errors in this theology. Errant schools of theology do have a very negative effect, even if it isn't fully understood from the start. It isn't just arguing for the sake of arguing, but the need to let the Holy Spirit teach us the way *He wants* to teach us. We understand the importance of it all later--I already do.

Thanks again!

 

[Timtofly]

I didn't say Josephus didn't have anything to offer. I'm saying that as an unbeliever he had a spiritual sickness and showed no special understanding or respect for spiritual realities that Christians appreciate.

I've enjoyed and benefited from many non-Christian historians, but I also recognize that they have no interest in recognizing the truths evident in Christianity. There is often fairness in approaching the truths of history. But at the same time there is a resistance to recognizing truths that favor Christian truth. Anybody who has read non-Christian historians will recognize this if they are Christians.

On the other hand, it appears you favor the speculations of renowned non-Christian historians over truths discovered by Christian historians? Many facts of history are obscured with time, and have to be speculated about. I would not countenance something that attempts to subvert biblical truth when it is purely the product of speculation!

You are quoting from a verse that *followed* the Olivet Discourse! You are really reaching now, in order to avoid the point I made.

Your point is not even about Christianity but the Jewish OT economy. You are the one reaching for any excuse to believe your own opinion over Scripture and history. Have you quoted any Christian historians?

The Olivet Discourse is about Israel after the Second Coming. Yet Jesus said Christians would also suffer persecution and a great tribulation which has lasted 1992 years. Many have died over this time period, and many Christians still die today in many countries around the world.

Yet you are arguing over ideology directed at the Jews themselves, not Christians. The Romans did not desolate Christianity. They did try to stop it, because it changed their pagan lifestyle. Judaism on the other hand just produced a lot of rebellion and actual fighters who killed Roman soldiers in battle. The Jews literally brought about their own demise, just like Gabriel told Daniel.

I am just pointing out the facts. It is you who explain those facts with your personal opinion. What you claim is that Luke after 70AD, changed what Mark and Matthew wrote prior to 70AD, as a direct attempt to incorporate 70AD into the Olivet Discourse. That is your argument.

That still does not mean that 70AD was an AoD. What it means in your view, is that Luke wanted to show some historical value to what he wrote. I pointed out that Jesus could have mentioned both points because the OD had Jesus speaking more over the course of several days, than was ever written down. Yet you keep rejecting that point.

So you are saying that Luke was intentional, but you left out the part it was after the event itself. So no one is calling the armies an AoD, Luke would have clearly pointed that out.

Yet you seem not to have went with that as Luke was the first writer to ever have made that assumption. But was Luke only substituting the point, because there was no AoD? Luke gave us the historical record. Luke also left out the fact that he thought those armies was the AoD. You just assume that since Luke never mentioned an AoD.

It is just as reasonable to state that Luke was convinced no AoD had occurred, but Luke pointed out it was armies that brought about Jerusalem's desolation. Matthew and Mark as stated is still a future event, even to us. Luke was fulfilled because Luke wrote after 70AD, and Luke agrees with Josephus, that such a warning was fulfilled, when Christians fled in 66AD. That is why Luke was different, because it was more of a historical account, than a future prophecy. When do you think the warning to flee was actually given?

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Luke was not an eyewitness to the Olivet Discourse. He was alive after 70AD, and he mentioned the armies of 66AD. Luke never mentioned an AoD in his record, so the armies were not the AoD. Luke would have verified that point, not left it out.

 

[covenantee]

Your point is not even about Christianity but the Jewish OT economy. You are the one reaching for any excuse to believe your own opinion over Scripture and history. Have you quoted any Christian historians?

The Olivet Discourse is about Israel after the Second Coming. Yet Jesus said Christians would also suffer persecution and a great tribulation which has lasted 1992 years. Many have died over this time period, and many Christians still die today in many countries around the world.

Yet you are arguing over ideology directed at the Jews themselves, not Christians. The Romans did not desolate Christianity. They did try to stop it, because it changed their pagan lifestyle. Judaism on the other hand just produced a lot of rebellion and actual fighters who killed Roman soldiers in battle. The Jews literally brought about their own demise, just like Gabriel told Daniel.

I am just pointing out the facts. It is you who explain those facts with your personal opinion. What you claim is that Luke after 70AD, changed what Mark and Matthew wrote prior to 70AD, as a direct attempt to incorporate 70AD into the Olivet Discourse. That is your argument.

That still does not mean that 70AD was an AoD. What it means in your view, is that Luke wanted to show some historical value to what he wrote. I pointed out that Jesus could have mentioned both points because the OD had Jesus speaking more over the course of several days, than was ever written down. Yet you keep rejecting that point.

So you are saying that Luke was intentional, but you left out the part it was after the event itself. So no one is calling the armies an AoD, Luke would have clearly pointed that out.

Yet you seem not to have went with that as Luke was the first writer to ever have made that assumption. But was Luke only substituting the point, because there was no AoD? Luke gave us the historical record. Luke also left out the fact that he thought those armies was the AoD. You just assume that since Luke never mentioned an AoD.

It is just as reasonable to state that Luke was convinced no AoD had occurred, but Luke pointed out it was armies that brought about Jerusalem's desolation. Matthew and Mark as stated is still a future event, even to us. Luke was fulfilled because Luke wrote after 70AD, and Luke agrees with Josephus, that such a warning was fulfilled, when Christians fled in 66AD. That is why Luke was different, because it was more of a historical account, than a future prophecy. When do you think the warning to flee was actually given?

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

One very simple question that I don't recall you answering, or have forgotten your answer:

Who were "ye" and "you" in Matthew 24:2,4?

 

[Timtofly]

One very simple question that I don't recall you answering, or have forgotten your answer:

Who were "ye" and "you" in Matthew 24:2,4?

"and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple."

 

[covenantee]

"and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple."

So those verses do not refer to events which are future to us?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your point is not even about Christianity but the Jewish OT economy. You are the one reaching for any excuse to believe your own opinion over Scripture and history. Have you quoted any Christian historians?

;) Luke is a Christian historian! I'm quoting Luke, and taking his word over the word of non-Christian Josephus! My point is exactly about Christianity, which began with Jesus under the OT Law. Christianity began with God the Creator and with God the Law-giver. Christianity began with Jesus.

The Olivet Discourse is about Israel after the Second Coming. Yet Jesus said Christians would also suffer persecution and a great tribulation which has lasted 1992 years. Many have died over this time period, and many Christians still die today in many countries around the world.

Nobody is saying Christians haven't been martyred for centuries! The Olivet Discourse is not just about the 2nd Coming--it is also about the fall of the temple. Jesus explicitly said that. You are imbalanced when you constantly harp on the notion that the O.D. is about the 2nd Coming. That Discourse began with the proclamation that the temple would be destroyed.

Why people then go on to try to separate Jesus' statement about the fall of the temple from the rest of the Discourse is amazing to me! They are all saying the same thing, that before the temple falls there would be signs, aka "birth pangs."

All those signs were present in Jesus' generation, the rumors of coming war and even present battles being fought by the Romans elsewhere. They were "rumors of wars," as well as divine signs in the heavens that God was displeased with Israel and about to judge them.

There were perhaps storms, earthquakes, famines, and various troubles in the economy. They were an indication that God was unhappy with the Jews who were persecuting Christians and treating the Law with contempt.

Yet you are arguing over ideology directed at the Jews themselves, not Christians. The Romans did not desolate Christianity. They did try to stop it, because it changed their pagan lifestyle. Judaism on the other hand just produced a lot of rebellion and actual fighters who killed Roman soldiers in battle. The Jews literally brought about their own demise, just like Gabriel told Daniel.

In the spirit of Jeremiah, Jesus proclaimed God's judgment upon Israel for all of their sins. The O.D. was indeed aimed at the Jews. But it is *not true* that Jesus avoided talking about Christians.

At that time he was talking about Jewish believers, as well. He was talking about how most of the Jews would apostacize from their faith and begin to attack believers.

I am just pointing out the facts. It is you who explain those facts with your personal opinion. What you claim is that Luke after 70AD, changed what Mark and Matthew wrote prior to 70AD, as a direct attempt to incorporate 70AD into the Olivet Discourse. That is your argument.

No, I'm pointing out how Luke used different but similar words to explain the same thing. He spoke of armies surrounding the "holy place," or Jerusalem. In the same place in the same Discourse Matthew and Mark used the word "abomination of desolation." They were obviously a reference to the same thing. Paraphrasing is not changing the meaning of words--just using slightly different words.

On the other hand, you completely ignore this, and don't seem to care about the truth. I've illustrated this for you--you don't have to agree, but you should certainly recognize the legitimacy of the argument.

That still does not mean that 70AD was an AoD. What it means in your view, is that Luke wanted to show some historical value to what he wrote. I pointed out that Jesus could have mentioned both points because the OD had Jesus speaking more over the course of several days, than was ever written down. Yet you keep rejecting that point.

I reject that point because it appears not to be true. The "several days" part follows report of the Discourse. It does not say that Jesus gave the O.D. over several days--that is your spin, without any basis for stating that dogmatically.

Jesus may or may not have used different words to describe the AoD and the "armies surrounding Jerusalem." But the point I made was that both statements were sandwiched in between two identifiable sentences. And the statement made was preceded by "when you see," as well as including the concept of "desolation." I seriously doubt Jesus would have this many connections and be talking about two entirely different subjects!

Since you refuse to even acknowledge the strength of my argument, I have to assume you're not open to any honest discussion. Even if you wish to disagree with me, you should at least recognize the arguments I'm mentioning.

So you are saying that Luke was intentional, but you left out the part it was after the event itself. So no one is calling the armies an AoD, Luke would have clearly pointed that out.

Yet you seem not to have went with that as Luke was the first writer to ever have made that assumption. But was Luke only substituting the point, because there was no AoD? Luke gave us the historical record. Luke also left out the fact that he thought those armies was the AoD. You just assume that since Luke never mentioned an AoD.

I already answered this. These may have been paraphrasing. But the similarity is so detailed that all of the versions match. Luke does not have to say verbatim: "the AoD are the Roman armies." All he has to do is produce enough likeness to correlate the verses. Both accounts mention the "desolation." When you have an original painting and lots of copies, the copies are not exact, but similar enough to recognize they are copies of the same painting.

It is just as reasonable to state that Luke was convinced no AoD had occurred, but Luke pointed out it was armies that brought about Jerusalem's desolation. Matthew and Mark as stated is still a future event, even to us. Luke was fulfilled because Luke wrote after 70AD, and Luke agrees with Josephus, that such a warning was fulfilled, when Christians fled in 66AD. That is why Luke was different, because it was more of a historical account, than a future prophecy. When do you think the warning to flee was actually given?

We already discussed this. Josephus is not my authority even if he is yours. I rely on Luke, who seems to have quoted Jesus about a future event.

You're beginning to repeat yourself...

 

[Timtofly]

So those verses do not refer to events which are future to us?

The temple was destroyed sometime in the first century. That was the topic, not the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You like he just make up stuff I never said. Kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation with a person who just post personal attacks and no substance at all.

You are the expert on creating posts with no substance.

 

[Timtofly]

We already discussed this. Josephus is not my authority even if he is yours. I rely on Luke, who seems to have quoted Jesus about a future event.

Luke was written after 70AD. How is 70AD future from the writing of Luke?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke was written after 70AD. How is 70AD future from the writing of Luke?

What did Randy say that would lead you to believe that he was claiming that Luke was written before 70 AD? I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said.

 

[covenantee]

The temple was destroyed sometime in the first century. That was the topic, not the Olivet Discourse.

Jesus referred to His disciples as "ye" and "you" in verses two and four.

But Jesus also referred to "ye" and "you" throughout the entire Discourse.

If "ye" and "you" referred to Jesus' disciples in verses two and four,
Why wouldn't "ye" and "you" refer to Jesus' disciples throughout the entire Discourse?