Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Ronald D Milam]

Except the parable of the fig tree, is about Israel becoming a nation. So it was that generation.

No it isn't. Why do you have such a hard time putting scriptures together?

The parable SPECIFICALLY SAYS...........

Matt. 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

ALL WHAT THINGS?

Read Matt. 24 again, Jesus gave us 10-12 SIGNS to look for thus ALL THESE THINGS refer to the Matt. 24:4-31 Prophetic Utterings Jesus made.

Pre 70 AD
1.) Many will come in my name deceiving many (pre 70 AD)
2.) You will hear Wars & Rumors of wars. (Pre 70 AD)...BUT the End (70th week) is not yet.

POST 70 AD
3.) Nations vs. nations, Kingdoms vs. kingdoms,
4.) Earthquakes, Famine and Pestilence.
5.) The "world" will kill the Disciples, except for John of course.
6.) False Prophets shall arise (those who got the Disciples killed, a la false god worshipers)
7.) Sin abounds and the love of people waxes cold.
8.) The Rapture via the Gospel being preached unto the ends of the World.
9.) The AoD
10.) The Times of Troubles like never before seen.
11.) The Anti-Christ and False Prophet performing miracles.
12.) The Sun and Moon goes DARK (the Rev. 8 Asteroid Impact).

So what ENDS all of THISE SIGNS?

The Last Sign, of course, which is the Sun and Moon going dark via the Rev. 8 Asteroid Impact.

So, THAT GENERATION (which sees the Sun and Moon go dark because of this Asteroid Impact or in reality God's Wrath, will not pass until Jesus returns. Well, OF COURSE that is true.

So, you have to understand what it means in ore to understand the passage.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No I am not. I said a generation is every time a firstborn happens, on average every 20 years.

You apparently don't realize it, but that definition is based upon current social applications of the term. For example, those who graduate in the same year and thereabouts would constitute a single generation.

Perhaps you've heard of the "Millennialists," or "Generation X?" This definition tends to group together a range that extends between those concurrent with a single period of female fertility. A woman's period of fertility is about 30 years. If a woman gives birth to 12 or 13 consecutive children, it might range somewhere between a 20 and 30 year period.

But that's not the biblical definition of "generation" as it is used in the examples I provided. Hebrews who died in the Wilderness were described as being a single generation and ranged from 20 to 80 or more years. This indicates a period of 60 or more years.

Those who were alive, even infants, at the time Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, were concurrent with Jesus and with the experience of sinful Israel at the time. Therefore they would *all* experience the punishment Jesus said was coming, namely the flal of Jerusalem and its religion.

You don't think any one over the age of 40 left Egypt? Moses and Aaron were around 80 years old. 3 generations if not more left Egypt as one group. 2 generations had to die, before those 20 and under could enter. In those 40 years, two more generations were born. Those 20 year olds had children and grandchildren. That is just common sense.

That is based on *your definition* of generation--not the Bible's use of the term "generation."

Num 32.13 The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

Consider the following ways the Bible uses the word "generation."

Gen 7.1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

Gen 15.16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

This was a period of about 440 years! One generation=approx. 110 years!

I doubt John ever physically died. He was an eyewitness to the future and is not a third witness. He is one of the two witnesses killed by the beast. How many times does he have to die? Time travel is hard to unravel. Technically John already died in the future at some point returning to Patmos. Like Elijah we are never told when Elijah literally died on earth if ever. Unless he is the other witness besides John.

I doubt all of the disciples were 10 years younger than Jesus. Still they all would be dead, Peter was. Peter was said to live between 1 and 68AD. About 5 years younger than Jesus.

You're diverting and sidestepping the issues I raised. If you want to believe what you want to believe, why even discuss it?

 

[Timtofly]

What a ridiculous argument! You're saying that the Greeks, because they were somehow associated with the Syrian, Antiochus 4, that they knew about AoDs? Or am I misreading you here?

Clearly, assigning the term to hostile enemies does not force them to acknowledge the derogatory term! They would certainly not feel they were an "abomination," since they didn't subscribe to Israel's worship under the Law. Nor were the Syrians Greeks--they just tried to force Hellenism upon the Jews to force them to commit sacrilege against their own religion.

But again, I'll go back to the same argument you keep failing to acknowledge. Between "stand firm" and "flee to the mountains" is something Jesus told his disciples to "see."

In all versions this is true. Why would Jesus be telling his disciples to see one thing in Matthew and Mark's version, and another thing entirely in Luke's version? Doesn't make any sense at all.

And yet that is what you're claiming, that because the words used are slightly different in these versions they must be talking about something else! Do you understand what "paraphrasing" means? Describing an Abomination of Desolation is the same thing as describing pagan armies desolating! What Matthew and Mark described as the thing to be "seen" is exactly the same thing Luke described was to be "seen!"

Antiochus Epiphanes was ruler over the 4 separate Greek sections of the empire. He was a ruler over the Greeks. You can figure out the 4 different parts of the Greek empire, no? It was their history, no?

The words used are not slightly different. They do not even mean the same thing, except in some people's minds. An army is a group of humans trained to kill other humans. An AoD is an object set up in a holy place to subjugate one religion by means of another religion.

An army being set up for a siege is a stretch of one's imagination.

It would be like saying the rapture happened at 11am one Sunday morning, and a few people came to church with the intention of walking up to the alter at noon at the end of the service. Close, but will they be raptured an hour before or does their intention count?

I think Titus had every intention of making the temple an example of subjugating Judaism with Roman paganism. And that still is only a close proximity to an AoD. The temple had been useless for over 40 years. Anything would have been an AoD since the Cross. That is one reason why the Jews themselves went berserk after the Cross. They were already paying the price: Matthew 27:25

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

God left the temple in 30AD. There could never be a legitimate AoD after that point. Back in Antiochus Epiphanes' time, the temple was still God's temple.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Antiochus Epiphanes was ruler over the 4 separate Greek sections of the empire. He was a ruler over the Greeks. You can figure out the 4 different parts of the Greek empire, no? It was their history, no?

My point was, Antiochus was not a Greek. He was a Syrian. And more important to the point was, he didn't care what the Bible or the Jews called him. He couldn't care less what AoD meant. Do you have any real evidence that Antiochus and the Greeks in general knew what an "AoD" was?

The words used are not slightly different. They do not even mean the same thing, except in some people's minds. An army is a group of humans trained to kill other humans. An AoD is an object set up in a holy place to subjugate one religion by means of another religion.

Your trouble is, you deny things make sense *after* you assign the wrong meaning to words! You define an "abomination" as an object when it is an Army. Certainly it would not make sense as an object!

God left the temple in 30AD. There could never be a legitimate AoD after that point. Back in Antiochus Epiphanes' time, the temple was still God's temple.

The trouble with this is, Jesus was identifying it while he was still under the Law. It described a "holy place," namely the city, that would still be identified as "the holy place" by both the Jews and Jesus' disciples when the Romans arrived. They would all know what Jesus meant.

 

[Timtofly]

Then why didn't Jesus say that generation?

He did say that day.

Explain, using the Greek, please.

Because this generation is this generation. Not that generation in the first century.

Why do you claim it was that generation? Don't you have to change "this" to "that" to make your point? Why do you call the first century generation "this generation", when it has been dead for hundreds of generations? It has been "that generation" for a very long time.

If Greek is your native language, then why not stick with Greek online forums? I post in English not Greek.

 

[covenantee]

Because this generation is this generation. Not that generation in the first century.

Why do you claim it was that generation? Don't you have to change "this" to "that" to make your point? Why do you call the first century generation "this generation", when it has been dead for hundreds of generations? It has been "that generation" for a very long time.

If Greek is your native language, then why not stick with Greek online forums? I post in English not Greek.

Then why didn't Jesus say "this day" instead of "that day"?

Do you think that Jesus didn't know the difference between this and that?

He did, and does.

You don't.

 

[Timtofly]

No it isn't. Why do you have such a hard time putting scriptures together?

The parable SPECIFICALLY SAYS...........

Matt. 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

ALL WHAT THINGS?

Read Matt. 24 again, Jesus gave us 10-12 SIGNS to look for thus ALL THESE THINGS refer to the Matt. 24:4-31 Prophetic Utterings Jesus made.

Pre 70 AD
1.) Many will come in my name deceiving many (pre 70 AD)
2.) You will hear Wars & Rumors of wars. (Pre 70 AD)...BUT the End (70th week) is not yet.

POST 70 AD
3.) Nations vs. nations, Kingdoms vs. kingdoms,
4.) Earthquakes, Famine and Pestilence.
5.) The "world" will kill the Disciples, except for John of course.
6.) False Prophets shall arise (those who got the Disciples killed, a la false god worshipers)
7.) Sin abounds and the love of people waxes cold.
8.) The Rapture via the Gospel being preached unto the ends of the World.
9.) The AoD
10.) The Times of Troubles like never before seen.
11.) The Anti-Christ and False Prophet performing miracles.
12.) The Sun and Moon goes DARK (the Rev. 8 Asteroid Impact).

So what ENDS all of THISE SIGNS?

The Last Sign, of course, which is the Sun and Moon going dark via the Rev. 8 Asteroid Impact.

So, THAT GENERATION (which sees the Sun and Moon go dark because of this Asteroid Impact or in reality God's Wrath, will not pass until Jesus returns. Well, OF COURSE that is true.

So, you have to understand what it means in ore to understand the passage.

Sorry but the parable of the fig tree has a specific meaning. That is what a parable is for.

All you are doing is this:

Jesus gave them a science lesson on fig trees, and it was not a parable at all.


Except the word parable is there for a reason. All of Jesus' parables had another meaning beside obvious science lessons.

 

[Timtofly]

You apparently don't realize it, but that definition is based upon current social applications of the term. For example, those who graduate in the same year and thereabouts would constitute a single generation.

Since that is not what I am saying, then that must be your reasoning, not mine.

The trouble with this is, Jesus was identifying it while he was still under the Law. It described a "holy place," namely the city, that would still be identified as "the holy place" by both the Jews and Jesus' disciples when the Romans arrived. They would all know what Jesus meant.

That is the point. There will be a future holy place where an AoD will be set up.

In 70AD there was no holy place. Jesus did not extend the temple after the Cross. Jesus was talking about a future temple and holy place.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Since that is not what I am saying, then that must be your reasoning, not mine.

That is the point. There will be a future holy place where an AoD will be set up.

In 70AD there was no holy place. Jesus did not extend the temple after the Cross. Jesus was talking about a future temple and holy place.

Sorry, the Jews still considered it "the holy place" after it was rendered null and void. Jesus was therefore speaking of its destruction, even while the temple Law was still in effect. Calling it "the holy place" is no different than calling it "Jerusalem, the holy city." It is still called that. Jesus was showing that what once was a holy place would still be called that but would be shown to have been rejected by God.

And yes, you are using a contemporary, popular use of "generation." You completely ignored the biblical applications of "generation" as I quoted them to you.

It completely shoots down your "exclusive use" of "generation" argument. On the contrary, "generation" was used in the Bible for much more than a 20 year period. It was used for people who lived contemporaneously experiencing a common matter.

The generation that saw the Flood, the generation in the Wilderness, the generation that would see the fall of Jerusalem--these all had to do with people living at the same time and having a common experience without being restricted to "school age," or "X Generation," etc.

Furthermore, I showed you a generation can represent a period as long as Moses' life, over a 100 years!
But you just ignored it.

Even worse, you fail to understand that "this generation," to Jesus, meant *his own generation!* He was not speaking of a future generation, which Futurists wish to be so. I know you're not open, or at least don't think you are. So my arguments really are directed to others who may read.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So what Paul said in 2 Thess 2:4 was mistaken?

No, your understanding of what he said is mistaken. Don't ask foolish questions like that. I, of course, would never suggest that Paul was ever mistaken. You are the one who has chosen to ignore how Paul described the temple of God in other verses. You should allow other things he wrote to aid your understanding of 2 Thess 2:4, but you don't bother doing that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just private opinion. Luke did not spell out the AoD. Luke told his readers exactly why they fled. There was no AoD in the first century. It is still future.

Do you deny that Luke was writing primarily to a Gentile audience while Matthew and Mark wrote primarily to Jews? Why would Luke tell Gentiles about "‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" when he would know full well that they would not be familiar with and would not understand the prophecy made by Daniel? It makes a lot more sense that he would spell it out what it was that people would see that would let them know it was time to flee instead of referencing the prophecy from Daniel and saying "let the reader understand". There's no way his Gentile audience would understand that prophecy from Daniel since they were not even familiar with it.

 

[Timtofly]

Sorry, the Jews still considered it "the holy place" after it was rendered null and void. Jesus was therefore speaking of its destruction, even while the temple Law was still in effect. Calling it "the holy place" is no different than calling it "Jerusalem, the holy city." It is still called that. Jesus was showing that what once was a holy place, and would still be called that, but would be shown to have been rejected by God.

And yes, you are using a contemporary, popular use of "generation." You completely ignored the biblical applications of "generation" as I quoted them to you.

It completely shoots down your "exclusive use" of "generation" argument. On the contrary, "generation" was used in the Bible for much more than a 20 year period. It was used for people who lived contemporaneously experiencing a common matter.

The generation that saw the Flood, the generation in the Wilderness, the generation that would see the fall of Jerusalem--these all had to do with people living at the same time and having a common experience without being restricted to "school age," or "X Generation," etc.

Furthermore, I showed you a generation can represent a period as long as Moses' life, over a 100 years!
But you just ignored it.

Even worse, you fail to understand that "this generation," to Jesus, meant *his own generation!* He was not speaking of a future generation, which Futurists wish to be so. I know you're not open, or at least don't think you are. So my arguments really are directed to others who may read.

No, you are using the standard definition of a generation in all forms.


I am saying at least a few are still alive even if they are 130 years old.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you deny that Luke was writing primarily to a Gentile audience while Matthew and Mark wrote primarily to Jews? Why would Luke tell Gentiles about "‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" when he would know full well that they would not be familiar with and would not understand the prophecy made by Daniel? It makes a lot more sense that he would spell it out what it was that people would see that would let them know it was time to flee instead of referencing the prophecy from Daniel and saying "let the reader understand". There's no way his Gentile audience would understand that prophecy from Daniel since they were not even familiar with it.

Luke was written after 70AD, but still not the AoD you all think happened in 70AD. The armies that they fled from happened in 66AD. That is a literal historical fact. That is why Luke wrote what he did.

If you are not Preterist why do you claim all of the OD was fulfilled in 70AD? I have no trouble stating Luke was fulfilled in 66AD. Not sure why you are arguing against history itself?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So what Paul said in 2 Thess 2:4 was mistaken?
Far from any of Paul's writings as placed in the Holy Bible, to be wrong, the proper answer is that you are wrong.

Paul knew the OT Prophesies about a new Temple before Jesus Returns, you obviously don't. I suggest you read and inwardly digest: Haggai 2:20, Zechariah 1:16 & 8:9-10, Isaiah 2:2-3 and many others.

Haggai 2.20 20 The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month...
Zech 1.16 16 “Therefore this is what the Lord says: ‘I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and there my house will be rebuilt. And the measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem,’ declares the Lord Almighty.
8.9 This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Now hear these words, ‘Let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.’ This is also what the prophets said who were present when the foundation was laid for the house of the Lord Almighty. 10 Before that time there were no wages for people or hire for animals. No one could go about their business safely because of their enemies, since I had turned everyone against their neighbor.
Isa 2.2 In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3 Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

I fail to see where any of this is relevant to the claim there will be a rebuilt OT temple, if that's what you're saying? It isn't even saying a literal NT temple will be built. Most of these passages had to do with the OT temple built in OT times! Haggai and Zechariah were specifically focused upon that.

Isaiah's prophecy comes closest to speaking of a NT kind of temple, although I can easily be interpreted in NT terms to be symbolic of a NT kind of temple representing the Christian religion. All nations will flow to the Law of God as fulfilled in Christ. It will become the dominant religion on earth during the Millennium.

The OT Prophets used OT terms to speak of NT truths. That's because while they lived under the OT Law they were obliged to advocate on behalf of the system currently in place, and not appear to appeal to the more liberated NT system.

The passage in 2 Thes 2 speaking of Antichrist's sitting in the temple of God is a phrase apparently intended by Paul to reflect upon what Antiochus 4 did in accordance with the book of Daniel. Antiochus literally positioned himself in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be a god. In the same way Paul is saying the Little Horn of Dan 7 will position himself in God's temple in heaven, proclaiming himself also to be God.

Paul certainly is *not* saying that a temple will be built for Antichrist. Nothing in the passage remotely suggests that. The emphasis is not at all on the temple, but rather, on Antichrist's proclamation of himself as God. The emphasis is on the apostasy of Christian Civilization, which must precede Christ's return to save us from the tribulations of the present time.

2 Thes 1.5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Luke was written after 70AD, but still not the AoD you all think happened in 70AD. The armies that they fled from happened in 66AD. That is a literal historical fact. That is why Luke wrote what he did.

If you are not Preterist why do you claim all of the OD was fulfilled in 70AD? I have no trouble stating Luke was fulfilled in 66AD. Not sure why you are arguing against history itself?

The question is, why don't you believe the Bible the same way the Church Fathers did? They weren't Preterists, and yet they believed that prophecy in the Bible could actually be fulfilled in history. Don't you believe that biblical prophecy about the virgin birth was fulfilled in history? Don't you believe prophecy about Messiah's suffering was fulfilled in history?

Does that then make you a Preterist? All Christians should believe that some biblical prophecies were fulfilled in history! Why do you berate people for believing the Olivet Discourse had some historical fulfillment?

That doesn't mean you're a Preterist. You can be Preterist or not a Preterist to believe this! Calling people names and assigning false designations is simply a diversion away from the topic.

So if the Church Fathers lived closer, in history, to the time we're talking about, why don't *you* believe in history? Why don't you believe what the Church Fathers believed was the actual historical fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse?

None of this means the Olivet Discourse is entirely about the generation of Jesus. As people here repeatedly say, and you ignore: the Olivet Discourse consisted of 2--not just 1--questions: when will be the fall of the temple? And, when will be the Coming of Messiah?

You don't have to just talk about what happened in Jesus' generation. You can also talk about how the entire age will end. And Jesus did both.

 

[Timtofly]

The question is, why don't you believe the Bible the same way the Church Fathers did? They weren't Preterists, and yet they believed that prophecy in the Bible could actually be fulfilled in history. Don't you believe that biblical prophecy about the virgin birth was fulfilled in history? Don't you believe prophecy about Messiah's suffering was fulfilled in history?

Does that then make you a Preterist? All Christians should believe that some biblical prophecies were fulfilled in history! Why do you berate people for believing the Olivet Discourse had some historical fulfillment?

That doesn't mean you're a Preterist. You can be Preterist or not a Preterist to believe this! Calling people names and assigning false designations is simply a diversion away from the topic.

So if the Church Fathers lived closer, in history, to the time we're talking about, why don't *you* believe in history? Why don't you believe what the Church Fathers believed was the actual historical fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse?

None of this means the Olivet Discourse is entirely about the generation of Jesus. As people here repeatedly say, and you ignore: the Olivet Discourse consisted of 2--not just 1--questions: when will be the fall of the temple? And, when will be the Coming of Messiah?

You don't have to just talk about what happened in Jesus' generation. You can also talk about how the entire age will end. And Jesus did both.

How many AoD's will happen? 3? 4?

 

[Randy Kluth]

How many AoD's will happen? 3? 4?

As I've said before, my personal belief is that only 2 were mentioned in the Bible. Daniel 9 referred to the AoD that was the Roman Army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Specifically, you can see that in Dan 9.26-27. And that is the AoD that I believe Jesus referenced in his Olivet Discourse.

The only other AoD was Antiochus 4 in the time around 168 BC. You can find that in Dan 8, Dan 11, and Dan 12.11. He does seem to be a kind of Antichrist-figure, a foreshadowing that Paul seemed to draw upon when he described the Antichrist as "sitting in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Not 3 or 4 AoDs--just 2 in the book of Daniel. Only one of these was mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Since Jesus was mentioning a *future* AoD, he could not have been referring to Antiochus--he had to have been referring to Dan 9.27, I think.

A couple of church fathers believed that the AoD of Dan 9.27 was Antichrist, but most of the Church Fathers believed the AoD to be the Romans, if I'm not mistaken. There was some confusion over whether the "abomination" referred to an idolatrous object or the Roman Army, but I believe it has to be the latter, since that is what Jesus explicitly described in Luke 21.

 

[Timtofly]

As I've said before, my personal belief is that only 2 were mentioned in the Bible. Daniel 9 referred to the AoD that was the Roman Army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Specifically, you can see that in Dan 9.26-27. And that is the AoD that I believe Jesus referenced in his Olivet Discourse.

The only other AoD was Antiochus 4 in the time around 168 BC. You can find that in Dan 8, Dan 11, and Dan 12.11. He does seem to be a kind of Antichrist-figure, a foreshadowing that Paul seemed to draw upon when he described the Antichrist as "sitting in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Not 3 or 4 AoDs--just 2 in the book of Daniel. Only one of these was mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Since Jesus was mentioning a *future* AoD, he could not have been referring to Antiochus--he had to have been referring to Dan 9.27, I think.

A couple of church fathers believed that the AoD of Dan 9.27 was Antichrist, but most of the Church Fathers believed the AoD to be the Romans, if I'm not mistaken. There was some confusion over whether the "abomination" referred to an idolatrous object or the Roman Army, but I believe it has to be the latter, since that is what Jesus explicitly described in Luke 21.

Since you have Daniel 9 totally out of context, the AoD is still future. Daniel 9:27 is the week of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Revelation 10:5-7 is when Daniel 9:27 will be figured out.

Jesus is the only Messiah and Prince that Gabriel told Daniel in that chapter. No Roman armies mentioned once. In fact the word "army" is not mentioned nor implied.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Since you have Daniel 9 totally out of context, the AoD is still future. Daniel 9:27 is the week of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Revelation 10:5-7 is when Daniel 9:27 will be figured out.

Jesus is the only Messiah and Prince that Gabriel told Daniel in that chapter. No Roman armies mentioned once. In fact the word "army" is not mentioned nor implied.

You seem to be unable to discuss things in a social way with fellow Christians. Everything you say fails to acknowledge the weakness or strength of an opposing position. Instead, you just assert, dogmatically, your own position, expecting everybody else to just accept your claims on the basis of your own chosen interpretations. That shouldn't sit well with anybody--it's not particularly social.

Here is where I disagree with you. One, Dan 9 is not being taken out of context when you look at it from my perspective--it is only viewed as such when you begin with your own assumptions, which could be false.

For example, you assume that the "prince" is always talking about Christ. Well, the passage is clearly Messianic, but each statement about a "prince" must be viewed in context, and therefore, is not automatically the Messiah. So dogma doesn't sit well with me in this regard.

It isn't necessarily the Messiah. On the contrary, the prince to come has people who destroy the city and the sanctuary. That suggests it is an "army." It does not have to use the word "army" to mean this, when it is said that these people, under a certain ruler, or prince, devastates the city and the sanctuary.

Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Furthermore, Jesus refers to this passage, most likely, in his Olivet Discourse. He identifies this as armies who surround Jerusalem, like eagles surrounding a corpse, which would be Jerusalem.

And two, you say that Dan 9.27 is about the future. That is a time-honored theory, since Irenaeus and Hippolytus both believed that the AoD in Dan 9.27 was the Antichrist.

However, most of the Church Fathers did not believe that, and instead felt the AoD was the collapse of Jerusalem and the temple under the Roman Army, if I understand it correctly. I'm open to correction on that.

So if I'm correct, then instead of trying to shame me into conformity with your minority position, and instead of dogmatizing, you should show a little humility, and tolerate different points of view, particularly when those positions were held by such noble characters in the Early Church.

 

[covenantee]

Since you have Daniel 9 totally out of context, the AoD is still future. Daniel 9:27 is the week of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Revelation 10:5-7 is when Daniel 9:27 will be figured out.

Jesus is the only Messiah and Prince that Gabriel told Daniel in that chapter. No Roman armies mentioned once. In fact the word "army" is not mentioned nor implied.

In Daniel 9:27, no trumpet mentioned once. In fact the word "trumpet" is not mentioned nor implied.