Abomination of Desolation?

[Krusader]

I've been kicking around the idea that the abomination of desolation is possibly the Dome of the Rock situated on the Temple Mount. Now, I know this will raise some eyebrows, but I'm just kicking it around. Could I have some input?

[rogero]

I've been kicking around the idea that the abomination of desolation is possibly the Dome of the Rock situated on the Temple Mount. Now, I know this will raise some eyebrows, but I'm just kicking it around. Could I have some input?

Interesting. On what do you base this hypothesis?

R

[James Peter]

Interesting. On what do you base this hypothesis?

R

You mean other than the fact that it is an idol within the temple?

[Terral]

Crusader:
Crusader >> I've been kicking around the idea that the abomination of desolation is possibly the Dome of the Rock situated on the Temple Mount. Now, I know this will raise some eyebrows, but I'm just kicking it around. Could I have some input?
No sir. The Dome of the Rock has nothing to do with the ‘abomination of desolation’ to be ‘set up’ (Dan. 11:31, 12:11) very near the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3, 15). Your hypothesis is disproved by simply reading the final verses of the Book of Daniel:
"From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." Daniel 12:11-13.
Try to substitute your “Dome of the Rock” in the place of “Abomination of Desolation” and add up the number of days to the ‘end of the age.’ No sir. The Temple must be restored, according to the prophecies of Ezekiel so that the regular sacrifice can be started up. Only then can that regular sacrifice be abolished to fulfill the prophecy above, which Christ references in Matthew 24:15. The ‘allotted portion at the end of the age’ is a reference to the rewards handed out at the judgment of Matthew 25:31-33, which also occurs when Christ returns with His angels in glory (Matt. 24:30+31, 25:31-33). That marks the time when the Mount of Olives shall be split in two (Zechariah 14:3+4), and half the mountain moves north and the other half to the south. The Preterist notion that these ‘end of the age’ events happened in 70 AD is nonsense. Have heaven and earth passed away (Matt. 24:35, 2Pet. 3:7-12, Rev. 20:11)? No. We are still living in the same ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) that began way back in Genesis 1:2, and that shall continue to the judgment of Rev. 20:11-15.
Roger >> Interesting. On what do you base this hypothesis?

James Peter >> You mean other than the fact that it is an idol within the temple?
No sir. There is no idol in the Temple, because it has yet to be restored. The Dome of the Rock is sitting on the Temple site where the Temple of God shall be built, when Elijah comes to restore ‘all things.’ Matt. 17:10+11. Only then can the ‘tabernacle of David’ be restored and rebuilt (Acts 15:16-18), and the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) shall again become ‘the one gospel’ of that day.

The 'abomination of desolation' is a reference to the 'man of sin' and the 'son of destruction' (2Thes. 2:3) coming to take his seat in that restored Temple of God and displaying himself as being God. 2Thes. 2:4. That is when the whole world shall be deceived into worshipping him as God. Rev. 13:8. Those who are deceived shall receive his mark (Rev. 13:16+17) to also be made desolate by accepting his abomination. This deception of the whole world is done by this 'son of destruction' in the Temple of God very near the 'end of the age.' This has nothing to do with the destruction of the Temple, but everything to do with the destruction of all those who worship him. That Temple is then destroyed, when the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4). That is what Christ is talking about in Matthew 24. The Romans have nothing whatsoever to do with His Olivet Discourse. The answer is right here in the Word of God.

In Christ,

Terral

[James Peter]

Well if you run the dates 1335 years (days being symbolic of years is hardly uncommon) from the building of the dome puts us at the mid 2020s.

If you want to date from the destruction of the temple in 70AD you end up with a date in the 15th century which I can't really think of any significance for.

That leaves us either with a very long wait, unfulfilled prophecy or literally 3 and 2/3 years from some restoration of the temple and then its subsequent desecration. Of the three options the unfulfilled prophecy is probably the most likely - there is absolutely no reason for literal burnt offerings to be reinstituted.

[Amazing Rando]

No sir.

Dude, you really need to check people's genders befre you post. Crusader is a female. :rock:

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]Dude, you really need to check people's genders befre you post. Crusader is a female. :rock:

Everyone confuses my logo with a man. Maybe I should change it to Crusaderette.

It would appear to me that the references to the abomination that makes desolate are to a thing or an it, but not to a person.

Inscribed on the outside walls of the Dome of the Rock is a verse from the Quran which states that God does not have a Son......and this over the holy of holies!

[Sheepdog]

It's important to remember that the abomination of desolation is not unique to Jesus... he is actually alluding to something in Daniel.

one possibility is that since Jesus died as a sacrifice to atone for our sins, and yet the temple practices still went on for 40 or so years, the abomination maybe the continuation of the sacrifices. they cause desolation by leading people to falsely believe they are saved under the sacrificial system.

or, sometime a few years before the destruction of the Temple, some zealots rushed the Temple and had a grand old massacre.

or, since Jesus was ambiguous about the "holy place" the abomination was to stand in, it could refer to the area of Jerusalem, and thus the abomination was the Roman armies surrounding the city prior to its destruction.

all of these have significant weaknesses. however, the last one is particularly interesting in that the Luke version of the Olivet discourse doesn't have the "abomination that causes desolation standing in the hole place." in its place, we read "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." Luke 22:20. one way to account for this is that while Mark and Matthew expected their audiences to understand the abomination allusion (since, IIRC, both were addressed to Jews), the Gospel of Luke was addressed to a Gentile who probably wouldn't have, and so he opted to elaborate what Jesus was talking about.

[Sheepdog]

It would appear to me that the references to the abomination that makes desolate are to a thing or an it, but not to a person.

could be. the language of the text itself isn't clear. it could also be a veiled reference to a group of people as an entity.

Inscribed on the outside walls of the Dome of the Rock is a verse from the Quran which states that God does not have a Son......and this over the holy of holies!

in my mind, that begs a key question. is the Temple mount still a holy place in any sense? after all, the Temple itself was destroyed, and not the Holy Place is in us... and indeed it is us. we are now the Temple of the Holy Spirit. we, the church as a community, is now God's temple. and so on.

[James Peter]

In that case Sheepdog when would you suggest that the 1290/1335 days commences from and when did it end?

[Krusader]

In that case Sheepdog when would you suggest that the 1290/1335 days commences from and when did it end?


In one source I read, it stated that there are 1260 years between the start of the construction of the Dome of the Rock to the establishment of the state of Israel, 1948. Kind of intersting!

[James Peter]

Interesting but 1260 isn't 1290...

And the question was aimed at Sheepdog who was arguing that it has nothing to do with the Dome of the Rock.

[Krusader]

Interesting but 1260 isn't 1290...

And the question was aimed at Sheepdog who was arguing that it has nothing to do with the Dome of the Rock.

I know - I was just giving some input.

[Ted]

Holiness of a place exists only because God is there. The burning bush was holy because God was there. As soon as God left, it wasn't holy anymore. And the "Holy Place" in the temple was only holy because God was there. Once Jesus died, the veil was torn (Matt 27:51), allowing common people to look into the inner apartment and see that God wasn't there. It wasn't holy anymore.

Any construct for the AoD based on a "holy" location without God's presence there is unbiblical.

Ted

[James Peter]

So you're arguing that the Abomination must have been set up before 30AD? That the daily sacrifice ceased and the abomination was set up at some point before the curtain was torn? When, then, did these events occur? Under Maccabeus in 165BC? If that is the case then it follows that all the events Daniel has described have already occured - including the resurrection of the dead in 12:2 which is described as having happened 1335 days after the abomination is set up. I agree that there is some merit in your argument that the Temple is no longer Holy once God has left it but the alternative is that Daniel is wrong. Unless somebody can produce a timeline of the events which demonstrates that everything Daniel predicted has taken place at the correct time in relation to each other.

[Sheepdog]

In that case Sheepdog when would you suggest that the 1290/1335 days commences from and when did it end?

to be honest, i don't know a great deal of history regarding the whole Jewish War stuff.

however, the Romans did have the city under seige for a while, but then they drew back. The unbelieving Jews saw this as God delivering them; however, the Christians in Jerusalem saw it as the opportunity they needed to flee the city. One reports says that there were no known Christians to have died when the Romans later returned, seiged the city again, and finally destroyed it.

my guess (and this is just a guess since i don't have the precise chronology handy) is that the 1290/1335 days represents either the time inbetween when the seige started until they withdrew, or else form when the first seige started until the city fell.

[Sheepdog]

hmm interesting. i hadn't thought about how Dan. 12:2 fit in this. :demure:

[kofh2u]

Dan 12:2?

What's it significance?

Dan. 12:1 And at that time, shall Michael (in the manifestation of HST) stand up, the great prince (the psychic entity of archetypal Harmony) which standeth for the children of (Israel,) thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble (in 1942), such as never was since there was a nation (of Israel) even to that same time, (a holocaust of "Ethnic Cleansing"): and at that time, (1948 AD), thy people shall be delivered (back to the land of Israel), every one that shall be found written in the book (of the eternally phylogenetic, ever resurrecting, Collective Unconscious Mind of the new creatures in God).

Dan. 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust, (the human gene pool), of the earth shall awake, (genetically reconstructed and in Total Consciousness), some to everlasting life (in remembered Collective Consciousness), and some to shame (in their past memories) and everlasting (self) contempt.









Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!! Unfair interpretive technique!!!

[Krusader]

At the time that Jesus was speaking of the abomination of desolation in the holy place, He certainly was referring to the holy place of the Temple. The Temple had not yet been destroyed, and his listeners would have understood Him to be referring to the Jewish holy place.

[GhostontheNet]

Holiness of a place exists only because God is there. The burning bush was holy because God was there. As soon as God left, it wasn't holy anymore. And the "Holy Place" in the temple was only holy because God was there. Once Jesus died, the veil was torn (Matt 27:51), allowing common people to look into the inner apartment and see that God wasn't there. It wasn't holy anymore.

Any construct for the AoD based on a "holy" location without God's presence there is unbiblical.

Ted Never is this line of reason justified, the commentary Matthew gives is that it means tht the dwelling of YHWH is among men, but He never says YHWH has abandoned the Temple, and it does not follow from the one that the other is true. Besides, why not any scenes like one reported by Josephus (reporting of the A.D. 60's, 66 I believe) where a loud cry in the Temple is heard saying "Let us depart hence"? Why had so little before this Yeshua Christ complained about the Temple authorities making "My Father's House a "den of robbers"" and highlights a woman who gave all that she had (although that it was little) to the Temple as someone who gave more to YHWH than the rich who gave much?

Try to substitute your “Dome of the Rock” in the place of “Abomination of Desolation” and add up the number of days to the ‘end of the age.’ No sir. The Temple must be restored, according to the prophecies of Ezekiel so that the regular sacrifice can be started up. Only then can that regular sacrifice be abolished to fulfill the prophecy above, which Christ references in Matthew 24:15. Swell, Christ's blood shed in vain and ignoring the fact that they were abolished for a reason in A.D. 70. The ‘allotted portion at the end of the age’ is a reference to the rewards handed out at the judgment of Matthew 25:31-33, which also occurs when Christ returns with His angels in glory (Matt. 24:30+31, 25:31-33). One major difficulty with this interpetation is this passage; Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Also notable is Revelation 14:13, which so soon after declaring that " “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great [Jerusalem], which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” (Revelation 14:8 ESV) writes that Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”

“Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.” In light of this, I think it would be fair game that even if we are dealing with judgment and blessings, that interpreting these as being post-mortem is fair game, although I will note that as demonstrated in one thread here some time ago, there is a spectrum of views on Matthew 25:31 through the end. My interpretation is that the seperation of the sheep and the goats is a continual process beginning at A.D. 70, where the world's true Lord, the King of King and Lord of Lords, Yeshua Christ, exercises His now formally recieved kingly powers to isolate the saved and the damned in Heaven and Sheol respectively, awaiting the coming Final Judgment described later on. That marks the time when the Mount of Olives shall be split in two (Zechariah 14:3+4), and half the mountain moves north and the other half to the south. This overly literalistic reading is refuted by Gary DeMar at http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarzechariah14.html . The Preterist notion that these ‘end of the age’ events happened in 70 AD is nonsense. Have heaven and earth passed away (Matt. 24:35, 2Pet. 3:7-12, Rev. 20:11)? A notable comment on Matthew 24:35 comes from N.T. Wright, The prediction which follows, that this generation will see the end (Mark 13.30-2), is both thoroughly comprehensible in terms of the whole mindset of Jesus, and thoroughly coherent with the emphasis of the discourse as a whole. This is how the story must end. If Jesus is not the last prophet, he is a false prophet. The reference to heaven and earth passing away must not, of course, be taken as an indication that the discourse has after all been about the end of the space-time universe, but as another typical Jewish metaphor such as those in Isaiah or Jeremiah: even though heaven and earth, the things which YHWH created in the beginning, should pass away, unmaking the very word of creation of the sovereign god, yet these words would remain true. This is like saying ‘Truly, truly, I say to you’, only magnified to the furthest degree. There can be no more emphatic statement than this. Thus, Yeshua is quite emphatic that "this generation shall not pass away untill all is fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34) Likewise, the problem with using 2 Peter in this way is that, as N.T. Wright notes, The translation 'will be burned up' depends in fact on the variant readings of a few manuscripts. Most of the witnesses have heurethesetai, 'will be found'. The Revelation 20 cite doesn't help either, because its not terribly hard to spot that the sky and earth fleeing from Christ is a metaphor. No. We are still living in the same ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) that began way back in Genesis 1:2, and that shall continue to the judgment of Rev. 20:11-15. I will not even attempt to reply to this until I know we are on the same page by noting my suggestions in the other thread. Likewise I will refer you to p. 28-35 of my True or False Prophet? Perilous Times, the Last Days, and the Abomination of Desolation at http://www.preteristsite.com/authorindex.html#ghost before relplying to your take on the abomination of desolation before replying to it so that we aren't talking past each other.

P.S. Any plans on a reply to me in the other thread?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

my guess (and this is just a guess since i don't have the precise chronology handy) is that the 1290/1335 days represents either the time inbetween when the seige started until they withdrew, or else form when the first seige started until the city fell.

:yeahthat:

I read (Philip Mauro, I think) that it was 1290 days from the time the Roman army left the first time, and the time they returned in AD 70 and 45 days from the beginning of the siege until the city was totally leveled (1290+45=1335).

Not sure I agree that that is the proper interpretation of Dan. 12, but it is certainly intersting.

[James Peter]

I read (Philip Mauro, I think) that it was 1290 days from the time the Roman army left the first time, and the time they returned in AD 70 and 45 days from the beginning of the siege until the city was totally leveled (1290+45=1335).

Not sure I agree that that is the proper interpretation of Dan. 12, but it is certainly intersting.

So you'd suggest the the abomination of the desolation was set up in the temple on the day that the seige began and that as the seige fell a resurrection of many of some form occured?

[Sheepdog]

Swell, Christ's blood shed in vain and ignoring the fact that they were abolished for a reason in A.D. 70.

excellent point. i'm actually reading through Galatians now, and Paul really drives this home: there is no sense, after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, in going back to the law which cannot save. why would God set the Temple back up if the law it represented only had the power to condemn sin? Hebrews also makes the same point. the blood of bulls and rams never really saved.

one way out, i suppose, is for the Jews to rebuild the Temple but in blatant disobediance to God, but i don't think that is favorable to the dispensational position. i don't think that, even if the Temple was rebuilt, that it could qualify as "the holy place" being spoken of, for this reason.

So you'd suggest the the abomination of the desolation was set up in the temple on the day that the seige began and that as the seige fell a resurrection of many of some form occured?

this begs the question that it is the Temple being referenced. this is a response as well to Crusader: Jesus could have easily just said, "when you see the A. of D. standing in the Temple," rather than "...in the holy place." for some reason, He chose a more cryptic, ambiguous thing to say. i don't think it has to be the Temple being referenced here. there was a good reason for Jesus do use the words He used, though i'll humbly admit i don't know why, exactly.

Faramir, that is cool. i'll have to look that up, because if it is true, i think it will drive the stake once and for all into the heart of predominatly futuristic interpretations of eschatology.

[eschaton]

Faramir, that is cool. i'll have to look that up, because if it is true, i think it will drive the stake once and for all into the heart of predominatly futuristic interpretations of eschatology.

One problem with this is that the city wasn't literally leveled in 70AD. Josephus reported several walls and towers were left standing. My opinion of Mauro is that he didn't know his temple from a hole in the ground.

[eschaton]

excellent point. i'm actually reading through Galatians now, and Paul really drives this home: there is no sense, after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, in going back to the law which cannot save. why would God set the Temple back up if the law it represented only had the power to condemn sin? Hebrews also makes the same point. the blood of bulls and rams never really saved.

one way out, i suppose, is for the Jews to rebuild the Temple but in blatant disobediance to God, but i don't think that is favorable to the dispensational position. i don't think that, even if the Temple was rebuilt, that it could qualify as "the holy place" being spoken of, for this reason.



this begs the question that it is the Temple being referenced. this is a response as well to Crusader: Jesus could have easily just said, "when you see the A. of D. standing in the Temple," rather than "...in the holy place." for some reason, He chose a more cryptic, ambiguous thing to say. i don't think it has to be the Temple being referenced here. there was a good reason for Jesus do use the words He used, though i'll humbly admit i don't know why, exactly.

.

Sheepdog, if you would read Augustine's City of God Bood XX, chapter 19, where he discusses the temple of 2nd Thessalonians 2, and then see how Barnabus discusses wether the temple will be rebuilt in his epistle, it might shed some light on these things. By the way, I think you would consider both Barnabus and Augustine futurists. They just weren't the garden variety of premills we see today.

[GhostontheNet]

One problem with this is that the city wasn't literally leveled in 70AD. Josephus reported several walls and towers were left standing. My opinion of Mauro is that he didn't know his temple from a hole in the ground.

I do not like to reiterate myself in brief periods of time, but as I had mentioned in another thread;

I've done some research on this passage as part of my project on Yeshua Christ's prophecies (so for some pieces are hosted at DeeDeeWarren's The Preterist List and upcoming at Kyle's The Skeptical Christian in my sig), although on one level I still balk on the full interpretation of this part of the passage (in fact, I will admit that it has single-handedly hexed one part of the project. Two things are noteworthy though.

1. The referent is obviously Yeshua Christ's own generation, for He gives the accusative rationale that "you did not know the time of your visitation".
2. It is notable that Josephus, himself also a Jew of the period, uses dramatic hyperbole in his account of the depth of the destruction, for although he says only the towers remained, and that "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" [So much for your insults on Mauro], while as my edition of Josephus notes, this is "an exaggeration" because there were a few other parts of structures left partially standing.
3. It's not fair game to play the "than the way it should have happened" card being anal-retentive about a very small number of stones standing upon stones unless you can demonstrate a first century Jew would not have used hyperbole in this type of situation, and Josephus even from the get-go offers a counter to this.

[kofh2u]

:yeahthat:

I read (Philip Mauro, I think) that it was 1290 days from the time the Roman army left the first time, and the time they returned in AD 70 and 45 days from the beginning of the siege until the city was totally leveled (1290+45=1335).

Not sure I agree that that is the proper interpretation of Dan. 12, but it is certainly intersting.

?
"Blessed he is he waits"... the 45 days?

45 days from the beginning of the siege until the city was totally leveled...

Daniel is saying something important? A blessing comes when the city is leveled according to this speculation? Who was blessed then, the gentiles with victory?

[GhostontheNet]

?
"Blessed he is he waits"... the 45 days?

45 days from the beginning of the siege until the city was totally leveled...

Daniel is saying something important? A blessing comes when the city is leveled according to this speculation? Who was blessed then, the gentiles with victory? You are misreading him. I believe he means from the time when Vespasian withdrew from the Judean campaign at the death of Nero until the city began to be besieged by Titus (1290 days) and then leveled (1335 days). Perhaps it is an inverted blessing of restraint, not least from taking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for religious festivals, as I recall, according to Josephus, the seige of Titus actually began on the Passover, trapping a number of those who went there for the Passover feast, and he also mentions elsewhere that there was a vast number of foreign casualties as a result.

[eschaton]

I do not like to reiterate myself in brief periods of time, but as I had mentioned in another thread;

I've done some research on this passage as part of my project on Yeshua Christ's prophecies (so for some pieces are hosted at DeeDeeWarren's The Preterist List and upcoming at Kyle's The Skeptical Christian in my sig), although on one level I still balk on the full interpretation of this part of the passage (in fact, I will admit that it has single-handedly hexed one part of the project. Two things are noteworthy though.

1. The referent is obviously Yeshua Christ's own generation, for He gives the accusative rationale that "you did not know the time of your visitation".
2. It is notable that Josephus, himself also a Jew of the period, uses dramatic hyperbole in his account of the depth of the destruction, for although he says only the towers remained, and that "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" [So much for your insults on Mauro], while as my edition of Josephus notes, this is "an exaggeration" because there were a few other parts of structures left partially standing.
3. It's not fair game to play the "than the way it should have happened" card being anal-retentive about a very small number of stones standing upon stones unless you can demonstrate a first century Jew would not have used hyperbole in this type of situation, and Josephus even from the get-go offers a counter to this.

1Pet2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

So when is the day of visitation Ghost?

Some scholars identify the siege in 135 as the one that most closely resembles what Jesus spoke of.

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app53.html

Barnabas was a first century Jew. You should read the reference I gave. That's proof enough.

[kofh2u]

You are misreading him. I believe he means from the time when Vespasian withdrew from the Judean campaign at the death of Nero until the city began to be besieged by Titus (1290 days) and then leveled (1335 days). Perhaps it is an inverted blessing of restraint, not least from taking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for religious festivals, as I recall, according to Josephus, the seige of Titus actually began on the Passover, trapping a number of those who went there for the Passover feast, and he also mentions elsewhere that there was a vast number of foreign casualties as a result.

Yes, that was my understanding of his point, too.

He may have found a set of "boundary conditions" which fit the Form of the puzzle, but the Content of the possiblity is insignificant enough to dismiss the substance of what he says, i.e.; his observation is not worthy of the great prophet, Daniel.

To this, I added the contradiction that the warning "to flee without hesitation" seems to indicate little room for any "blessing" whether or not a mere 45 days later the desolation of the whole city will have ended or not.

Dan. 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

(AND... even more lessed was he who had run away long ago.)


It would be like saying after Hiroshima, the last bombat Nagisaki would be a blessing, would it not?

IMO, this attempt to meet every element of prediction with an corresponding event is necessary, but not sufficient to the "proof."

IMO, the long range overview availble to us today makes "hindsight" closer to 20-20. Every "orthodox" and traditional guess of the past ought be more suspect than the next.

Failed "theological hypothesis" seems rational related directly proportional to the duration of time it has been "enjoyed."

These ideas are all at least a century old, and 1948 is an important foundation for reviewing Daniel... IMHO...

Matt. 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination (the Roman soldiers in the sack) of (the coming total) desolation (of Jerusalem, 69-70 AD: [Mark 13:14]), spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (appropriating the memorah and), stand (in where they ought not) in the (very) holy place (where entrance has been permitted only to the High Priest), (whoso readeth, let him understand: (God ordained death to violators of this trespass):

Matt. 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

[eschaton]

I see the Bible as a book with design and purpose. The preterist interpretation of the Bible doesn't seem to advance that idea in my opinion. Preterists such as Mauro will treat the Bible like a grocery store tabloid. They totally disregard any chronology found in the scripture. They search through history to pick and choose fulfillments, much like a psychic will ignore any predictions that don't come true, but will claim any events that come close as a fulfillment. That's why there's so many different ideas about the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies. Skeptics laugh at Christian attempts to claim fulfillment.

The preterist attitude is that the Bible was written a couple of hundred years ago, and they're the only ones that can understand its true meaning. They are unaware that all of the questions they discuss have been thoroughly examined hundreds of years before. They interpret the scripture in a way that fits their preconceived notions. If something doesn't fit their ideas they call it hyperbole. They refuse to examine what writers such as Origen and Augustine said about these things. Why? Is it because ancients were ignorant because they didn't have television and automobiles? If that's the case then maybe we shouldn't accept what Jesus and the apostles said either. Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on preterists, since premills use pretty much the same methods.

When Jesus speaks of Daniel's abomination of desolation maybe we should take Him at His word and see what Daniel had to say. Jeusus didn't speak of "one" of Daniel's abominations of desolation, He spoke as if there is only one. If we see what Daniel had to say about that, and compare the similar language, it appears there is only one.

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app89.html

By the way, just because I use tables from the Companion Bible doesn't mean I support everything it teaches. I just use things that I believe support my ideas.

I don't believe Daniel or Jesus spoke in a vaccum. Support for what the say is based on the Torah. What is the abomination or transgression that causes desolation?

Deu13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

These are not instructions for Roman soldiers, but instructions for the people of God. The children of Belial are the disobedient.

Preterists believe that most of the Bibles's prophecys are about the first century. That includes the book of Revelation. The Babylon of Revelation is first century Jerusalem.

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Jerusalem would be found no more? If that is true then why are there so many sieges of Jerusalem after 70AD? (Refer to the link I gave earlier.) Compare to the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel 26. Paul spent seven days in Tyre after his third missionary journey (Acts 21:3-4).

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

OK. To all who quoted my first post in this thread, please note that I said I do not necessarily agree with Mauro (nor do I necessarily disagree). I have not yet formed a solid opinion one way or the other. I just gave an FYI so do not expect me to debate the merits of Mauro.

Make up your own mind. Here is a link to the article I read about the 1290/1335 days.

http://www.historicism.com/mauro/mauroI-10.htm

[James Peter]

Likewise I haven't settled on any individual model, I'm more interested in working out which one is right than pretending that I know all the answers already (give me a few years for that :wink:)

So far every theory advanced seems to have weaknesses. I should probably sit down and outline each of the arguments and my objections to them and then we could look at dealing with them. If somebody else has a desire to do it and save me the hassle whilst I should be revising though, feel free.

[Sheepdog]

http://www.historicism.com/mauro/mauroI-10.htm

bookmarked in my queue for things to read :smile:

[eschaton]

Here is an excerpt from:
http://askelm.com/prophecy/p971103.htm

It is time to abandon the nonsense of most prophetic interpreters that there is a historical basis to at least the first seven kings of Daniel’s "Scripture of Truth," and that the eighth king is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (who is described up to verse 34).

Such interpretation is pure and utter tomfoolery of the highest order and I do not care what the rank happens to be of the scholar, theologian or preacher who says such absurdity. Why, even a superficial study of Persian history from the time of Cyrus (when Daniel received the vision of the "Scripture of Truth") shows there were not four more kings of Persia up to the arrival of Alexander the Great. Indeed, there were four kings up to Darius I the Great, and then followed six more kings to Darius III and there were three more kings in the ruling line of Artaxerxes II (Mnemnon). See the New Bible Dictionary, page 915, for a table showing these fourteen kings of Persia (not simply the four kings that the "Scripture of Truth" states). Daniel is not even referring to any of those fourteen kings of history that governed Persia! He is speaking about four future Persian kings who will reign as the first four kings in a series of eight kings who will altogether represent the last prophetic kings of importance until the Kingdom of God is established on earth. Clearly, the fifth king of the "Scripture of Truth" is NOT Alexander the Great! He is a future king of Javan who will succeed the four Persian kings of the prophecy.

I'm not saying I agree with everything at the sight, but it gives an alternative to Mauro.

[kofh2u]

I see the Bible as a book with design and purpose. The preterist interpretation of the Bible doesn't seem to advance that idea in my opinion. Preterists such as Mauro will treat the Bible like a grocery store tabloid. They totally disregard any chronology found in the scripture. They search through history to pick and choose fulfillments, much like a psychic will ignore any predictions that don't come true, but will claim any events that come close as a fulfillment. That's why there's so many different ideas about the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies. Skeptics laugh at Christian attempts to claim fulfillment.

The preterist attitude is that the Bible was written a couple of hundred years ago, and they're the only ones that can understand its true meaning. They are unaware that all of the questions they discuss have been thoroughly examined hundreds of years before. They interpret the scripture in a way that fits their preconceived notions. If something doesn't fit their ideas they call it hyperbole. They refuse to examine what writers such as Origen and Augustine said about these things. Why? Is it because ancients were ignorant because they didn't have television and automobiles? If that's the case then maybe we shouldn't accept what Jesus and the apostles said either. Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on preterists, since premills use pretty much the same methods.

When Jesus speaks of Daniel's abomination of desolation maybe we should take Him at His word and see what Daniel had to say. Jeusus didn't speak of "one" of Daniel's abominations of desolation, He spoke as if there is only one. If we see what Daniel had to say about that, and compare the similar language, it appears there is only one.

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app89.html

By the way, just because I use tables from the Companion Bible doesn't mean I support everything it teaches. I just use things that I believe support my ideas.

I don't believe Daniel or Jesus spoke in a vaccum. Support for what the say is based on the Torah. What is the abomination or transgression that causes desolation?

Deu13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

These are not instructions for Roman soldiers, but instructions for the people of God. The children of Belial are the disobedient.

Preterists believe that most of the Bibles's prophecys are about the first century. That includes the book of Revelation. The Babylon of Revelation is first century Jerusalem.

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Jerusalem would be found no more? If that is true then why are there so many sieges of Jerusalem after 70AD? (Refer to the link I gave earlier.) Compare to the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel 26. Paul spent seven days in Tyre after his third missionary journey (Acts 21:3-4).

1) First, it is no cishonor nor indictment concerning anyone's spiritual commitment to say that they are wrong about interpretation here.

2) The value of the matter of who has the best guesses seems inconsequental, in terms of leading people to understand the message of Christ and to appropriate His way in living their life..

3) This ought be fun. Itought identify that body of people posting here as serious Gospel readers, all. It should proclaim that spiritual matters are high priority in thdir ves, much to their credit in this day and these times when so many could care less.

4) Holding stubbornly to eroding and evermore difficult to defend interpretations xhould give way to common sense, i.e.; we really don;t know. These are instant replays of past generational debates. But, much good scripture comes to us all as we try to check mate one another.

5) Many interpretations have begun with the pre-gone conclusion that some particular group or another is the basic enemy of Christ and his church. Be it the Pope, a oarticular Pope, the RCC, or the Jews, most of these intial premises ultimately lead to the truth, that they are dead wrong.

6) The true enemy, sadly, is us. It is no cncidence that we, Modern Homo sapiens, number 6.66 billion today. Let us remember that "tnree days" ago, in the time of Moses, we c]Christians have are roots in the very first group of Homos NOT to be the Abomination that did and continues to make much in the world Desolation. We WERE the body of the church of False Gods.

Deu13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods

7) In 475 AD the death of Rome began. This was the beginning of the end for those "dirty feet" which were the Abomination of God, Caesar. These that had stood where they ought not, in the Holy of Holies which God himself reserved ONLY for His meeting with Aaron, like all other intruders, were subject to the death that was delivered as a mortal blow to The Beast with Seven Heads.

IMHO... of course...

[eschaton]

1) First, it is no cishonor nor indictment concerning anyone's spiritual commitment to say that they are wrong about interpretation here.

2) The value of the matter of who has the best guesses seems inconsequental, in terms of leading people to understand the message of Christ and to appropriate His way in living their life..

3) This ought be fun. Itought identify that body of people posting here as serious Gospel readers, all. It should proclaim that spiritual matters are high priority in thdir ves, much to their credit in this day and these times when so many could care less.

4) Holding stubbornly to eroding and evermore difficult to defend interpretations xhould give way to common sense, i.e.; we really don;t know. These are instant replays of past generational debates. But, much good scripture comes to us all as we try to check mate one another.

5) Many interpretations have begun with the pre-gone conclusion that some particular group or another is the basic enemy of Christ and his church. Be it the Pope, a oarticular Pope, the RCC, or the Jews, most of these intial premises ultimately lead to the truth, that they are dead wrong.

6) The true enemy, sadly, is us. It is no cncidence that we, Modern Homo sapiens, number 6.66 billion today. Let us remember that "tnree days" ago, in the time of Moses, we c]Christians have are roots in the very first group of Homos NOT to be the Abomination that did and continues to make much in the world Desolation. We WERE the body of the church of False Gods.

Deu13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods

7) In 475 AD the death of Rome began. This was the beginning of the end for those "dirty feet" which were the Abomination of God, Caesar. These that had stood where they ought not, in the Holy of Holies which God himself reserved ONLY for His meeting with Aaron, like all other intruders, were subject to the death that was delivered as a mortal blow to The Beast with Seven Heads.

IMHO... of course...

I think I agree with most of what you're saying here. It is fun. At least some of the time it is.

God bless,
AF

[kofh2u]

I think I agree with most of what you're saying here. It is fun. At least some of the time it is.

God bless,
AF


I just read the www reference posted by sheep dog, above.

There were a number of the ideas mentioned in that article that I differ with, and/or which I have a different "take" on.

1) For instance, the idea is very, very weak that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD qualifies for such extreme language as: "if those days had not been shortened."

For one thing, "all (Jewish) flesh was not in the city proper. And, accordi to Daniel, this calamity seems clearly directed at the whole of the Children of Israel.

And, we know that ten whole tribes disappeared in another case. So, how bad, BAD, must this Great Tribulation be/been?

2) The unexplicable idea of angels is a problem, too.
I'm not saying that Daniel's reference to Michael can be overlooked, but herein is the dilemma for a historical interpretation.
The vague reference, by Sheepy's article, suggested to a whole unstated complex of "Angelogy." This takes us outside the historical analysis. Here, we see everyone's interpretation fall down.

The erudite pronouncements and esteemed academics which are being used so meticulously to argue and sell us suddenly interject surrealism and irrationality.

What I'm saying is, if an analysis has NO CLUE concerning how to understand this archangel, Michael, and the complications involved with his Persian adversary, then the whole of the passages remains a cryptic code and more an unsolved mystery.

I mean, maybe the Abomination is some other world creature, and perhaps this whole story told by Daniel is sort of a mythology, an Epic twist, one that makes Israel ultimately victorious, you know.

3) Though I understand Daniel quite to the contrary, these problems do not go away, trying to mix rationality with the supernatural allows for the overcoming of any obstacle by side-stepping it and inventing mystical or magical possiblities.

There wre a few examples of this in that article.

4) I believe you have already sort of stated this additional problem confronting would be interpretors, that either tney can explain all or nothing really merits agreement with them. That is, like you said, there was only One Abomination, for instance, so explain it everywhere or nowhere.

[Dcn_Athanasius]

Well if you run the dates 1335 years (days being symbolic of years is hardly uncommon) from the building of the dome puts us at the mid 2020s.


Peace and grace to you James peter.

Have you considered that the 1290 days of daniel might mean days, that is 3 1/2 years?

There were a couple of important events that lasted three and a half years, one was our Lord's ministry on the earth, another was the time till St Stephen's martyrdom another, and I believe it may have some reference to this discussion, was that the Roman armies were in Judea for three and a half years leading up to 70 AD, if my memory serves me right from reading Josephus???

The latter matter seems to be even spoken of by our Lord in one of the accounts of this discourse.

Some loose and disconnected thoughts.

Peace and grace

[James Peter]

If you look back through the thread you'll see that I've dealt with that possibility. The question then becomes when does the 1290 days (which isn't three and a half years) start and end. If you are going to take a futurist stance then its possible for it to be literally days but then there are other questions that you have to answer. If you're going to argue that it was 1290 days at some period in the past you have to explain how elements such as Michael's victory and the resurrection have already happened.

In all honesty I think that the end of the 1335 days cannot have come yet and that the idea of a reestablishment of the temple and the daily sacrifice is implausible. Even if it was to occur God would not be there and you could justifiably described the sacrifices that occured as an abomination. The problem is that the daily sacrifices have ceased (on more than one occassion seemingly), more than one thing which can be considered an abomination has been entered into the temple...and there is the whole point that maybe it wasn't even the temple which was being spoken of. I believe that prophecies concerning thee schaton were given for a reason and that understanding them is critically important. I also believe, however, that I am very confused.

[eschaton]

If you look back through the thread you'll see that I've dealt with that possibility. The question then becomes when does the 1290 days (which isn't three and a half years) start and end. If you are going to take a futurist stance then its possible for it to be literally days but then there are other questions that you have to answer. If you're going to argue that it was 1290 days at some period in the past you have to explain how elements such as Michael's victory and the resurrection have already happened.

In all honesty I think that the end of the 1335 days cannot have come yet and that the idea of a reestablishment of the temple and the daily sacrifice is implausible. Even if it was to occur God would not be there and you could justifiably described the sacrifices that occured as an abomination. The problem is that the daily sacrifices have ceased (on more than one occassion seemingly), more than one thing which can be considered an abomination has been entered into the temple...and there is the whole point that maybe it wasn't even the temple which was being spoken of. I believe that prophecies concerning thee schaton were given for a reason and that understanding them is critically important. I also believe, however, that I am very confused.

I think I could explain it, but I don't want you to take my word for it, since you probably wouldn't anyway. So let me paste some useful information from the Holman Bible Dictionary. You may still be confused after reading it, but think about it.

What is important for understanding the biblical view of time is the fact that days were not just counted, but were identified by their most significant event. Throughout the Scriptures we read of "day of rejoicing," "day of trouble," "day of salvation," expressions that commemorate a given day's experiential quality. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew word yom, meaning "day," is the fifth most frequently used word in the Old Testament. Though used for all sorts of common experiences, it came to be used for marking special days of God's revelatory appearance, whether to individual persons or to the nation. Most notably, there was a "day" of Israel's election (Deut. 9:24; compare Ezek. 16:4-5), a "day" when God brought His people out of Egypt (Judg. 19:30; 1 Sam. 8:8; 2 Sam. 7:6; Isa. 11:16; Jer. 7:22,25), but also a "day" of restoration (Zech. 8:9-12). There was also a "day" of judgment ( Lam. 1:12). A final day when God would judge the world was "the day of the Lord" (Amos 5:18-19; Isa. 13:6; Zeph. 1:7).

[James Peter]

Whats your point? That there may have been 1290 non-consequtive days?

[eschaton]

Whats your point? That there may have been 1290 non-consequtive days?

My point is that we should seek to understand the events of prophecy before we start trying to apply literal time periods. I doubt that the time periods are literal anyway. It's a waste of time looking for these things in history IMO.

[eschaton]

I do not like to reiterate myself in brief periods of time, but as I had mentioned in another thread;

I've done some research on this passage as part of my project on Yeshua Christ's prophecies (so for some pieces are hosted at DeeDeeWarren's The Preterist List and upcoming at Kyle's The Skeptical Christian in my sig), although on one level I still balk on the full interpretation of this part of the passage (in fact, I will admit that it has single-handedly hexed one part of the project. Two things are noteworthy though.

1. The referent is obviously Yeshua Christ's own generation, for He gives the accusative rationale that "you did not know the time of your visitation".
2. It is notable that Josephus, himself also a Jew of the period, uses dramatic hyperbole in his account of the depth of the destruction, for although he says only the towers remained, and that "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" [So much for your insults on Mauro], while as my edition of Josephus notes, this is "an exaggeration" because there were a few other parts of structures left partially standing.
3. It's not fair game to play the "than the way it should have happened" card being anal-retentive about a very small number of stones standing upon stones unless you can demonstrate a first century Jew would not have used hyperbole in this type of situation, and Josephus even from the get-go offers a counter to this.

You haven't responded to the earlier post, so I thought I would take another look at the "this generation" in relation to the "time of thy visitation."

Here's the verses you referred to.

Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Considering the proximity of these verses to Jesus' description of the future in Luke, and it's close resemblance to the Olivet discourse in Matthew and Mark, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at the similar verse in Matthew.

Mat23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Jesus had also made another similar statement earlier in Luke.

Luke13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Jesus said the house was left desolate and He would not be seen until He was greeted with "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It seems He had already received that greeting in Matthew, Mark, and John.

Mark11:8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strowed them in the way.
9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:

Mat21:8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strowed them in the way.
9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

John12:12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

He had received the blessing in Luke just before He made the statement about the destruction.

Luke19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

If the "visitation" Jesus spoke of was His entry into Jerusalem, then He seems to contradict Himself. He says He won't be seen again until they say something they just said. Consider what Zacharias prophesied earlier in Luke.

Luke1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

He makes it sound like the visitation happened for all of Israel when Christ was born.

My point in all of this is that there is a spiritual qualification on who is being visited and who is accepting. This is the same point I was making about Luke 12:41, and the same thing John Chirsostym was getting at. You can't limit generations and visitations in scripture to specific ranges of earthly time. There is a spiritual quality to all of these things, which I think is what Augustine was referring to when he spoke of Christ's "continual coming in the church."

[eschaton]

My point in all of this is that there is a spiritual qualification on who is being visited and who is accepting. This is the same point I was making about Luke 12:41, and the same thing John Chirsostym was getting at. You can't limit generations and visitations in scripture to specific ranges of earthly time. There is a spiritual quality to all of these things, which I think is what Augustine was referring to when he spoke of Christ's "continual coming in the church."

I'm getting threads mixed up. This line of thought fits better in the "this generation" thread, but it's a response to a post in this A of B thread.

[Krusader]

There seem to be quite a few sites out there claiming that the Ab. of Des. is the Dome of the Rock. Some see the "little horn" of Daniel 8, 12, as Mohammed and his sucessors. The 1290 days and 1335 days appear to be, according to some, the time between the first erection of a Muslim shrine on top of the holy place until Israel was liberated from the Turks in 1917.

Food for thought, and I'm sure it won't be a popular view here.

[Sheepdog]

actually, i've been wanting to figure it out, so i finally did: 1290 days / 365 days per year = approximately 3.53 years. use 360 day instead of 365 (as i've seen some argue this is how the Israelites reconed the year), and you get about 3.58.

so it's about three and a half years.

[eschaton]

There seem to be quite a few sites out there claiming that the Ab. of Des. is the Dome of the Rock. Some see the "little horn" of Daniel 8, 12, as Mohammed and his sucessors. The 1290 days and 1335 days appear to be, according to some, the time between the first erection of a Muslim shrine on top of the holy place until Israel was liberated from the Turks in 1917.

Food for thought, and I'm sure it won't be a popular view here.

You're probably right about this not being a popular view here, but I see some people feel the preaching of John the Baptist is the fulfilment of Dan 12:2. Your idea is certainly no more of a stretch than that is, so I'm willing to discuss it with you.

Are you saying the first Muslim shrine was erected in Jerusalem in 1917? According to my information it was erected in 684.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Dome_of_the_Rock.html

I don't find a little horn in Daniel 12, but I assume you are referring to the events in chapter 12 that are similar to those chapter 8.

Daniel8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

If the little horn is Mohammed what horn did he come out of and what were the dates of his movements toward the south, east and pleasant land? How did he throw down stars from heaven? Are there any other prophetic scriptures about Mohammed?

[Krusader]

You're probably right about this not being a popular view here, but I see some people feel the preaching of John the Baptist is the fulfilment of Dan 12:2. Your idea is certainly no more of a stretch than that is, so I'm willing to discuss it with you.

Are you saying the first Muslim shrine was erected in Jerusalem in 1917? According to my information it was erected in 684.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Dome_of_the_Rock.html

I don't find a little horn in Daniel 12, but I assume you are referring to the events in chapter 12 that are similar to those chapter 8.

Daniel8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

If the little horn is Mohammed what horn did he come out of and what were the dates of his movements toward the south, east and pleasant land? How did he throw down stars from heaven? Are there any other prophetic scriptures about Mohammed?

No, the first shrine built over the temple, a temporary mosque later replaced by the Dome, was in the 7th century. If you calculate from 1 HR (the first year of the Muslim Calender) to 1917 (when Israel was liberated by the Brits from the Turks), you have 1335 yrs. (lunar Muslim yrs.). The time differential between the 1290 years and the 1335 years is the time that elapsed before the Muslims began building the abomination. There was around 45 years before the Mohammedan shrine was erected on the holy hill. The wooden Mosque of Omar was built at that time, later replaced with the present stucture.

Of course, the above timing goes with the belief that Mohammed, himself, is the "Little horn" mentioned in Daniel, 8-12.

It's pretty complicated, and the whole thing is set forth at:

http://deepergospeltruths.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm

That is a two-part explanantion of the above, although I'm kind of leary of this guy since his view on the Godhead seems unorthodox. And, I'm not saying I agree with him, etither.

[eschaton]

No, the first shrine built over the temple, a temporary mosque later replaced by the Dome, was in the 7th century. If you calculate from 1 HR (the first year of the Muslim Calender) to 1917 (when Israel was liberated by the Brits from the Turks), you have 1335 yrs. (lunar Muslim yrs.). The time differential between the 1290 years and the 1335 years is the time that elapsed before the Muslims began building the abomination. There was around 45 years before the Mohammedan shrine was erected on the holy hill. The wooden Mosque of Omar was built at that time, later replaced with the present stucture.

Of course, the above timing goes with the belief that Mohammed, himself, is the "Little horn" mentioned in Daniel, 8-12.

It's pretty complicated, and the whole thing is set forth at:

http://deepergospeltruths.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm

That is a two-part explanantion of the above, although I'm kind of leary of this guy since his view on the Godhead seems unorthodox. And, I'm not saying I agree with him, etither.

Okay,

That makes a little more sense now.
I'll take a look at the site and get back with you.

Later

[Krusader]

Okay,

That makes a little more sense now.
I'll take a look at the site and get back with you.

Later

Thanks, I'd value your opinion. C

[eschaton]

Thanks, I'd value your opinion. C

Hi again,

I took a look, but I'm sorry to say I wasn't very impressed. The author seems to take random scriptures and tie them to random events in history. Maybe I shouldn't critisize him for that, since that's the backbone of preterist interpretation too.

There are plenty of questions I could ask him about why he presumes this or that, but I couldn't even find the answers to my earlier questions, so I probably wouldn't spend too much time analyzing his ideas.

Who knows? Maybe the guy is 100% right on. I once exchanged emails with a guy who thought John F. Kennedy was the antichrist. He based that on the fact that Kennedy was Catholic and he understood that the false religion represented by the beast in Revelation 17 was the Catholic church. The antichrist receives a fatal head wound in Revelation 13:3 just like Kennedy. He believed Kennedy would come back to life as the antichrist.

How can you prove something that hasn't happened yet is wrong? Maybe it will happen. That's why I chose Kennedy as my avatar.

God bless,
Alan F.

[Krusader]

Hi again,

I took a look, but I'm sorry to say I wasn't very impressed. The author seems to take random scriptures and tie them to random events in history. Maybe I shouldn't critisize him for that, since that's the backbone of preterist interpretation too.

There are plenty of questions I could ask him about why he presumes this or that, but I couldn't even find the answers to my earlier questions, so I probably wouldn't spend too much time analyzing his ideas.

Who knows? Maybe the guy is 100% right on. I once exchanged emails with a guy who thought John F. Kennedy was the antichrist. He based that on the fact that Kennedy was Catholic and he understood that the false religion represented by the beast in Revelation 17 was the Catholic church. The antichrist receives a fatal head wound in Revelation 13:3 just like Kennedy. He believed Kennedy would come back to life as the antichrist.

How can you prove something that hasn't happened yet is wrong? Maybe it will happen. That's why I chose Kennedy as my avatar.

God bless,
Alan F.

Interesting! Some historic sources (and I'm not sure of their reliability) say that Mohammed's mother was a Jewess. If this is so, by modern orthodox standards, that would make Mohammed a Jew by birth. Since Daniel states that the little horn forsakes the God of his Fathers - that would fit, since Allah was a poor substitute for Jehovah or Yahweh!

[eschaton]

Interesting! Some historic sources (and I'm not sure of their reliability) say that Mohammed's mother was a Jewess. If this is so, by modern orthodox standards, that would make Mohammed a Jew by birth. Since Daniel states that the little horn forsakes the God of his Fathers - that would fit, since Allah was a poor substitute for Jehovah or Yahweh!

You're right. That would make sense. But the information I found at this page didn't say anything about it.

http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/islam2.htm

Mohammed’s Early Years. Mohammed was born in Mecca on the Arabian peninsula in A. D. 570. Today Mecca is in the nation of Saudi Arabia. He was born into clan of Bani Hashim of the tribe of Quraish that dominated Mecca and the surrounding area. His father’s name was Abdullah and his mother’s Amina.

[Dcn_Athanasius]

actually, i've been wanting to figure it out, so i finally did: 1290 days / 365 days per year = approximately 3.53 years. use 360 day instead of 365 (as i've seen some argue this is how the Israelites reconed the year), and you get about 3.58.

so it's about three and a half years.


Peace and grace.

This of course was what I was trying to point to.

Once three and a half years is established, we can then look for events that took three and a half years. Three come to mind. Our Lord's earthly ministry ministry. The time from the establishment of Christianity at Pentecost till St Stephen was martyred and the time the Roman armies were in Judea after 66AD.

My own opienion weak as it is is that the Roman armies have some aspect of this matter. Especially since one of the Gospel writers changes 'abomination of desolation" in the discourse to "when you see jerusalem encompassed by armies."

Just some rambling thoughts.

Peace and grace

[Krusader]

You're right. That would make sense. But the information I found at this page didn't say anything about it.

http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/islam2.htm

Mohammed’s Early Years. Mohammed was born in Mecca on the Arabian peninsula in A. D. 570. Today Mecca is in the nation of Saudi Arabia. He was born into clan of Bani Hashim of the tribe of Quraish that dominated Mecca and the surrounding area. His father’s name was Abdullah and his mother’s Amina.


According to a footnote found on pg. 205 of Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", Vol. 5, Amina was a Jewess.

[eschaton]

According to a footnote found on pg. 205 of Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", Vol. 5, Amina was a Jewess.

Good work. That's one item down. We need to see if the rest of the facts match now.

[Krusader]

Good work. That's one item down. We need to see if the rest of the facts match now.

Of course, I haven't found any Muslim source admitting that!

Also, the 23rd vs. of Daniel 8 (about being familiar with dark sentences) just reminds me of the Quran. In the NIV, it states that the Little Horn would be familiar with intrigue, which I think fits Mohammed to a tea.

I suppose that if one believes the Dome of the Rock to be an abomination of desolation (which fits in well with current events), the possibility of Mohammed being the Little Horn is a neat fit.

I read on one website that Melancthon toyed with the idea.

[eschaton]

Of course, I haven't found any Muslim source admitting that!

Also, the 23rd vs. of Daniel 8 (about being familiar with dark sentences) just reminds me of the Quran. In the NIV, it states that the Little Horn would be familiar with intrigue, which I think fits Mohammed to a tea.

I suppose that if one believes the Dome of the Rock to be an abomination of desolation (which fits in well with current events), the possibility of Mohammed being the Little Horn is a neat fit.

I read on one website that Melancthon toyed with the idea.

Hi Crusader,

In regards to Daniel 8:23, it is not about the Koran. It is about the allegorical mysteries of the Bible. Please check all of the following references.

Psa78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
Ps 49:4 Pr 1:6 Mt 13:11-13 13:34,35 Mk 4:34 Heb 5:14 2Pe 3:16

This fits well with the idea that the antichrist is going to be an apostate in the church, which is what the church fathers who were close to the oral traditon of the apostles taught. Jesus spoke "dark sayings." That is to say He spoke in parables. Like I said, please check all the references.

If you really want to understand about the abomination of desolation and other things about Bible prophecy you should read what the church fathers wrote. There is a free download here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/87302

You can find the same information and much more in the web pages at www.ccel.org.

About the Kennedy thing, it was just my way of making a joke.

Blessings,
Alan F.

[Sheepdog]

My own opienion weak as it is is that the Roman armies have some aspect of this matter. Especially since one of the Gospel writers changes 'abomination of desolation" in the discourse to "when you see jerusalem encompassed by armies."


that's the same thing i noticed. furthermore, it is Luke specifically who mentions the armies, whereas Matthew uses the AoD. i haven't checked Mark.

personally, i think the most plausible explanation is taht they are talking about the same thing, but worded it differently to differing audiences. Matt was likely addressed to Jews, and thus he could allude to the Abomb and presume everyone knew what he was talking about. Luke, however, was writing to a Gentile (at least one, Luke 1:1-3, possibly to a whole group), ... the Abomb reference would not have made sense without clarification, so Luke just opted to unpack it.

[kofh2u]

Peace and grace.

This of course was what I was trying to point to.

Once three and a half years is established, we can then look for events that took three and a half years. Three come to mind. Our Lord's earthly ministry ministry. The time from the establishment of Christianity at Pentecost till St Stephen was martyred and the time the Roman armies were in Judea after 66AD.

My own opienion weak as it is is that the Roman armies have some aspect of this matter. Especially since one of the Gospel writers changes 'abomination of desolation" in the discourse to "when you see jerusalem encompassed by armies."

Just some rambling thoughts.

Peace and grace


Its both.

Matthew 24 predicts a very long series of events all pertaining to the Jews:

Matt. 24:8 All these are the (very) beginning of sorrows (for the long Diaspora of the Jewish people).


As in so many cases, this cryptic methodology used in scripture supports the one corrallary in history we all agree with: History repeats itself.

Then, we all agree that Matthew also applies this same corrallary, repeating the events to follow 32 AD, in three different sets.

What distinguishes the first fleeing is that it is from Judaea, when Roman soldiers stand where they ought not, the Holies of Holies reserved for the High Priest and his conversations with God.

Matt. 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

This is the exodus from Israel which lasts until at least 1917, but certainly, until 1948 Statehhod. So, 667AD is wrong about flreeing from the Promised Land. They aren't there.

What distinguishes the second meaning of an abomination, the Mosque, standing where it ought not is the verse which identifies the enormous tradegy of the Great Tribulation, one way beyond the initial diaspora:





Matt. 24:21 For then, (in 1942-45 AD) shall be (The) Great Tribulation (for the Jews who will have had fled in this Diaspora of 70 AD), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, (the Holocaust of 1942-46, or three and one half years), no, nor ever shall be, ("Never Again!).

Matt. 24:22 And except those days (of 3.5 years) should be shortened (by American intervention into WWII), there should no flesh (of the Holy People of the Book) be saved: but for (the House of Jacob and the House of Israel), the elect’s sake, those days (of 42 months) shall be shortened.

[Krusader]

Hi Crusader,

In regards to Daniel 8:23, it is not about the Koran. It is about the allegorical mysteries of the Bible. Please check all of the following references.

Psa78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
Ps 49:4 Pr 1:6 Mt 13:11-13 13:34,35 Mk 4:34 Heb 5:14 2Pe 3:16

This fits well with the idea that the antichrist is going to be an apostate in the church, which is what the church fathers who were close to the oral traditon of the apostles taught. Jesus spoke "dark sayings." That is to say He spoke in parables. Like I said, please check all the references.

If you really want to understand about the abomination of desolation and other things about Bible prophecy you should read what the church fathers wrote. There is a free download here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/87302

You can find the same information and much more in the web pages at www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org/).

About the Kennedy thing, it was just my way of making a joke.

Blessings,
Alan F.

That's interesting. NIV translates 8:23 as "intrigues." That wouldn't pertain to Christ, of course. I'm still kicking it all around, so any input is good. Thanks

PS: What are the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 referring to?

Also, I love reading the Church Fathers (I used to be High Church Anglican, and Eucharistic minister in the Church before it got so off course!)

[GhostontheNet]

Maybe I shouldn't critisize him for that, since that's the backbone of preterist interpretation too. Random events my foot.

[eschaton]

That's interesting. NIV translates 8:23 as "intrigues." That wouldn't pertain to Christ, of course. I'm still kicking it all around, so any input is good. Thanks

My Strong's Hebrew shows this:

23 . . . 'achariyth:H319 . . . malkuwth:H4438 . . pasha':H6586 . . . . tamam:H8552 . melek:H4428 . 'az:H5794 paniym:H6440 . biyn:H995 chiydah:H2420 chiydah:H2420 . 'amad:H5975 .

2420. chiydah, khee-daw'; from H2330; a puzzle; hence a trick, conundrum, sententious maxim:--dark saying (sentence, speech), hard question, proverb, riddle.

Which is the same things it says in the other OT verses.

2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

2 . . pathach:H6605 . peh:H6310 . . mashal:H4912 . . naba':H5042 chiydah:H2420 chiydah:H2420 . qedem:H6924

So there shouldn't be any doubt about it.

[eschaton]

Random events my foot.

Im sorry your foot is random Ghost.

[Dcn_Athanasius]

that's the same thing i noticed. furthermore, it is Luke specifically who mentions the armies, whereas Matthew uses the AoD. i haven't checked Mark.

personally, i think the most plausible explanation is taht they are talking about the same thing, but worded it differently to differing audiences. Matt was likely addressed to Jews, and thus he could allude to the Abomb and presume everyone knew what he was talking about. Luke, however, was writing to a Gentile (at least one, Luke 1:1-3, possibly to a whole group), ... the Abomb reference would not have made sense without clarification, so Luke just opted to unpack it.

Peace and grace my brother,

I agree with your considered meditations on these matters. St Luke seems to 'interpret' our Lord's words through the grace of the Holy Spirit and instead of writing "Abomination of desolation" interprets the verse to mean "armies encompassing Jerusalem".

I think one of the 'keys' (don't like the phrase but it fits here) to understanding this (in the very limited way we may understand it) is that St Matthew's Gospel was written to the Jew. It therefore records the reference in prophet Daniel as the Jew would have understood it(AoD). However, since the Gospel of St Luke was directed to the Gentile, this would rather be for them a confusion. So here St Luke rather asserts when you see the "armies encompassing Jerusalem". A thing the Gentiles could wait and watch for (I believe in early authorship btw) and see the matter fulfilled in the period 66AD to 70AD, which by the way fits the exact time frame of the three and a half years AND can give an understanding why one is blessed if he reaches the 1335th day (iow they survived the destruction of the city).

When we read of Joesphus accounts of what actually occurred inside Jerusalem during that siege and the horrible calamities that befell the Jewish inhabitants (for the Christian had fled temporarily to the hills) we can see very much fulfilled prophecy.

In a nutshell, in my weak understanding, and I am a sinner and may easily be wrong, the -complete- prophecies of the prophet Daniel, are fulfilled during the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, leading up to and including the temple/City destruction in 70 AD. Apart perhaps only from any reference to the final Day and final Judgement.

Pray for me a sinner in my presumption to imagine that I know anything regarding this most holy subject. May the Lord our God forgive any errors made through my ignorance in daring to speak on this topic.

Peace and grace to all.

[Amazing Rando]

Peace and grace my brother,

I agree with your considered meditations on these matters. St Luke seems to 'interpret' our Lord's words through the grace of the Holy Spirit and instead of writing "Abomination of desolation" interprets the verse to mean "armies encompassing Jerusalem".

I think one of the 'keys' (don't like the phrase but it fits here) to understanding this (in the very limited way we may understand it) is that St Matthew's Gospel was written to the Jew. It therefore records the reference in prophet Daniel as the Jew would have understood it(AoD). However, since the Gospel of St Luke was directed to the Gentile, this would rather be for them a confusion. So here St Luke rather asserts when you see the "armies encompassing Jerusalem". A thing the Gentiles could wait and watch for (I believe in early authorship btw) and see the matter fulfilled in the period 66AD to 70AD, which by the way fits the exact time frame of the three and a half years AND can give an understanding why one is blessed if he reaches the 1335th day (iow they survived the destruction of the city).

When we read of Joesphus accounts of what actually occurred inside Jerusalem during that siege and the horrible calamities that befell the Jewish inhabitants (for the Christian had fled temporarily to the hills) we can see very much fulfilled prophecy.

Well said! :smile:

In a nutshell, in my weak understanding, and I am a sinner and may easily be wrong, the -complete- prophecies of the prophet Daniel, are fulfilled during the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, leading up to and including the temple/City destruction in 70 AD. Apart perhaps only from any reference to the final Day and final Judgement.

Pray for me a sinner in my presumption to imagine that I know anything regarding this most holy subject. May the Lord our God forgive any errors made through my ignorance in daring to speak on this topic.

Peace and grace to all.

Hey, don't be so hard on yourself! :smile: We're all just pilgrims trying to make the best sense we can of the sacred scriptures. I'm certain He'll enlighten us to the errors of our ways when we meet him face to face. :teeth:

[GhostontheNet]

You haven't responded to the earlier post, so I thought I would take another look at the "this generation" in relation to the "time of thy visitation."

Here's the verses you referred to.

Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Considering the proximity of these verses to Jesus' description of the future in Luke, and it's close resemblance to the Olivet discourse in Matthew and Mark, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at the similar verse in Matthew.

Mat23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Jesus had also made another similar statement earlier in Luke.

Luke13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Jesus said the house was left desolate and He would not be seen until He was greeted with "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It seems He had already received that greeting in Matthew, Mark, and John.

Mark11:8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strowed them in the way.
9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:

Mat21:8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strowed them in the way.
9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

John12:12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

He had received the blessing in Luke just before He made the statement about the destruction.

Luke19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

If the "visitation" Jesus spoke of was His entry into Jerusalem, then He seems to contradict Himself. He says He won't be seen again until they say something they just said. Consider what Zacharias prophesied earlier in Luke.

Luke1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

He makes it sound like the visitation happened for all of Israel when Christ was born.

My point in all of this is that there is a spiritual qualification on who is being visited and who is accepting. This is the same point I was making about Luke 12:41, and the same thing John Chirsostym was getting at. You can't limit generations and visitations in scripture to specific ranges of earthly time. There is a spiritual quality to all of these things, which I think is what Augustine was referring to when he spoke of Christ's "continual coming in the church." After reading both posts against me, I have no problem admiting your case, save that you are both shooting yourself in the foot and not refuting my actual position. In light of the already-not tension of all related to the kingdom of God in the New Testament, something widely admitted by those scholars dealing with the relevant texts, I have no problem saying that that the "visitation", itself to my research a technical term for the Exodus, old or new, and the return of YHWH to Zion, refers both to the work of Christ, embodying and accomplishing YHWH's return to Zion in His ministry, and applying the term to the Second Coming. As already-not yet tensions go, the Luke 19 text looks quite clearly to be on the already side of things, and following your own reasoning, that's one more reason to believe that Luke 21 really means what it says when it says "this generation". DeeDeeWarren frequently pulls out a list to the extent that;

There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done. Some examples are:

The Kingdom of heaven: Christ says it was among them right then (Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:21), but then also said that they were waiting for it (Matthew 6:10, Luke 21:31)

The Adoption: Paul says that we have now received the spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15), and John says that we are now children of God (1 John 3:2), but Paul also says that we are waiting for the adoption (Romans 8:23, see also 1 John 3:2)

Salvation: We have been saved (Eph 2:8, 2 Tim. 1:9), we are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, Phil 2:12-13), we are waiting to be saved (Acts 15:11, 1 Peter 1:9)
Glorification: We have already been glorified by virtue of being elected and justified (Romans 8:30) and we will be glorified after we have suffered for Christ (Romans 8:16)
Eternal Life: We have it now (John 6:47), we are waiting for it (Mark 10:30)

Judgment: the world has been judged (John 12:31), the world is being judged (Matthew 25), the world will be judged (Matthew 12:41, Hebrews 9:27)

Death: It has been abolished (2 Timothy 1:10), it will be abolished (1 Corinthians 15:26) And this is something of the tip of the iceburg. The reason that this works is that the Christian who truly follows the path experiences the future that Christ brought into the present already, for He brought the future into the present. In essence, all major eschatological events have already been accomplished, and will be accomplished in a greater and more dramatic fashion at the Second Coming.

[kofh2u]

Originally posted by eschaton:
You haven't responded to the earlier post, so I thought I would take another look at the "this generation" in relation to the "time of thy visitation."

Here's the verses you referred to.

Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Considering the proximity of these verses to Jesus' description of the future in Luke, and it's close resemblance to the Olivet discourse in Matthew and Mark, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at the similar verse in Matthew.

Mat23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Jesus had also made another similar statement earlier in Luke.

KOFHY:
Exactly.
Timing.

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

And, who is the Lord, if not the body of Christ, the one that embodies the bread and drinks the wine that flows through that body of Christ, if not us, the church?

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as the doves (of peace) to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and
the ships of Tarshish first (from Western Europe), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD, (YVHV), thy God, (the Word of scripture), and to the Holy One of Israel, (Jesus), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour (restoring my chosen to Israel) have I had mercy on thee.

[kofh2u]

Ghoster...
When you say the following quote, do you imply the meanings which I have added to your sentence in my brackets?

..."the return of YHWH to Zion (the Promised Land), refers both to (1) the work of Christ (over these last 2000 years), embodying (his physical presence in our world through the Church membership now 1.44 billion) and (2) accomplishing (as specifically predicted in Isaiah 60;61;62;66: Zech 8;12;14) YHWH's return (in the spirit of Christian tourism) to Zion in His ministry (to the Moslems and Jews in the Middle East), and applying the term to the Second Coming (to a physical demonstration of Love for one's enemies and personal, potenially dangerous sacrifice of laying down one's life for God in the name of peace in His Holy Land)...

[GhostontheNet]

Ghoster...
When you say the following quote, do you imply the meanings which I have added to your sentence in my brackets?

..."the return of YHWH to Zion (the Promised Land), refers both to (1) the work of Christ (over these last 2000 years), embodying (his physical presence in our world through the Church membership now 1.44 billion) and (2) accomplishing (as specifically predicted in Isaiah 60;61;62;66: Zech 8;12;14) YHWH's return (in the spirit of Christian tourism) to Zion in His ministry (to the Moslems and Jews in the Middle East), and applying the term to the Second Coming (to a physical demonstration of Love for one's enemies and personal, potenially dangerous sacrifice of laying down one's life for God in the name of peace in His Holy Land)... Negative, I apply the return of YHWH to Zion in its already phase to the ministry and work of Christ at A.D. 26/27-A.D. 30, who indeed is YHWH's Wisdom and Word, and its aftermath (which is indeed still continuing). Your scriptural cites are dead on the money, though I wouldn't adopt the referents you give them. The Second Coming is in my opinion self explanitory, save that my millenial view is definately optimistic.

[kofh2u]

Negative, I apply the return of YHWH to Zion in its already phase to the ministry and work of Christ at A.D. 26/27-A.D. 30, who indeed is YHWH's Wisdom and Word, and its aftermath (which is indeed still continuing). Your scriptural cites are dead on the money, though I wouldn't adopt the referents you give them. The Second Coming is in my opinion self explanitory, save that my millenial view is definately optimistic.


Second Coming.

How do you see this, particularly in regard to Rev 5:5?

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders, saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof.

[GhostontheNet]

Second Coming.

How do you see this, particularly in regard to Rev 5:5?

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders, saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof. I see it as entirely unrelated.

[eschaton]

After reading both posts against me, I have no problem admiting your case, save that you are both shooting yourself in the foot and not refuting my actual position. In light of the already-not tension of all related to the kingdom of God in the New Testament, something widely admitted by those scholars dealing with the relevant texts, I have no problem saying that that the "visitation", itself to my research a technical term for the Exodus, old or new, and the return of YHWH to Zion, refers both to the work of Christ, embodying and accomplishing YHWH's return to Zion in His ministry, and applying the term to the Second Coming. As already-not yet tensions go, the Luke 19 text looks quite clearly to be on the already side of things, and following your own reasoning, that's one more reason to believe that Luke 21 really means what it says when it says "this generation". DeeDeeWarren frequently pulls out a list to the extent that;

And this is something of the tip of the iceburg. The reason that this works is that the Christian who truly follows the path experiences the future that Christ brought into the present already, for He brought the future into the present. In essence, all major eschatological events have already been accomplished, and will be accomplished in a greater and more dramatic fashion at the Second Coming.

While the 'this generation' is closely related to the abomination of desolation, I think discussion more properly belonges under another current thread where I have already given convincing proofs.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49911&page=1

One of the things that bothers me about new interpreters is the attitude that only modern people are knowledgable about these things. About fifteen hundred years ago Augustine said:

Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous, or to allude rather to some other event,-whether to that coming of the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. City of God - Book XX - Chapter 5

I'm quite aware of this, and yet ghost says practically the same information as though it is a new idea and somehow refutes my position. I don't see where the other arguments about the number of stones is pertinent, since several walls and towers is more than a few. While Josephus used hyperbole, I believe Jesus and the writers of scripture used spiritual language and can be demonstrated from scripture.

I'm not into post-modern interpretation and that appears to be what kofh2u offers. Inspired men wrote the scriptures and it is not of any private interpretation. I believe the church fathers were much more knowledgable about these things because they were much closer to the time of the apostles and original languages. Modern interpreters, both premill and preterist, tend to ignore what the earlier saints offered about these things.

[eschaton]

The use of abomination in the NT: Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 16:15; Revelation 17:4,5; 21:27.

946. bdelugma, bdel'-oog-mah; from G948; a detestation, i.e. (spec.) idolatry:--abomination.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Jesus sees the attitude of the Pharisees as an abomination. It is the hypocrisy that is an abomination.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Most would agree that this is the spiritual harlotry of false religion, and not sexual infidelity. The abomination is spiritual. She shall be left desolate. (17:16,18:19)

Rev21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Most would agree that spiritual abomination is what is indicated in the New Earth. Deception is an abomination like making a lie.

In all three instances I see spiritual abomination such as hypocrisy, spiritual harlotry, and deceitfulness. This makes more sense than an idol place in a stone temple.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel. Daniel 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11

8251. shiqquwts, shik-koots'; or shiqquts, shik-koots'; from H8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; espec. idolatrous or (concr.) an idol:--abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).

A literal/historical interpretation leads to 1 Maccabees 1:54; 6:7, and Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet Jesus spoke of the event as future. In chapter 9 it is the overspreading or placing on a wing of the temple. The temple didn't really have wings, so I think the action of overspreading is more likely. Compare this to the actions of the little horn.

7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

A transgression or speaking appears to be associatied with the desolation rather than the placing of a literal idol. A literal interpretation would have the little horn casting stars to the ground. Compare to how stars are referred to elsewhere in Daniel.

12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The interpretation of the antichrist by those in the early church often tied together the Pauline and Johanine epistles together with Revelation, Daniel and the Gospels. I can see why Augustine wrote about 2nd Thessalonians:

No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate -apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church. City of God Book XX, chapter 19

Barnabas wrote:

Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is-where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord."235 I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling236 of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple.237 He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man,238 but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them.239 This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord. Epistle of Barnabas chapter XVI

And Iraeneus:

2. Whence also he says, that this handiwork is "the temple of God," thus declaring: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are."31 Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however," it is said, "of the temple of His body."32 And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? "33 He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares "our body," that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be "the members of Christ; "but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, "If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy." How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power."34 Chapter VI Book V, Against the Heresies

Most in the early church saw the antichrist as an apostate in the church that would lead many astray. The abomination of desolation can be seen as the deception that will lead many astray.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[Krusader]

The use of abomination in the NT: Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 16:15; Revelation 17:4,5; 21:27.

946. bdelugma, bdel'-oog-mah; from G948; a detestation, i.e. (spec.) idolatry:--abomination.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Jesus sees the attitude of the Pharisees as an abomination. It is the hypocrisy that is an abomination.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Most would agree that this is the spiritual harlotry of false religion, and not sexual infidelity. The abomination is spiritual. She shall be left desolate. (17:16,18:19)

Rev21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Most would agree that spiritual abomination is what is indicated in the New Earth. Deception is an abomination like making a lie.

In all three instances I see spiritual abomination such as hypocrisy, spiritual harlotry, and deceitfulness. This makes more sense than an idol place in a stone temple.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel. Daniel 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11

8251. shiqquwts, shik-koots'; or shiqquts, shik-koots'; from H8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; espec. idolatrous or (concr.) an idol:--abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).

A literal/historical interpretation leads to 1 Maccabees 1:54; 6:7, and Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet Jesus spoke of the event as future. In chapter 9 it is the overspreading or placing on a wing of the temple. The temple didn't really have wings, so I think the action of overspreading is more likely. Compare this to the actions of the little horn.

7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

A transgression or speaking appears to be associatied with the desolation rather than the placing of a literal idol. A literal interpretation would have the little horn casting stars to the ground. Compare to how stars are referred to elsewhere in Daniel.

12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The interpretation of the antichrist by those in the early church often tied together the Pauline and Johanine epistles together with Revelation, Daniel and the Gospels. I can see why Augustine wrote about 2nd Thessalonians: