Abomination in the Holy Place

[Krusader]

I was reading a book titled, "Who is this Allah," by a Nigerian Christian, and he made an interesting comment. He said that many Nigerian Christians believe that the Dome of the Rock is actually the abomination of desolation spoken of in Matt. 24:15. I was also shocked to learn that the Muslim Dome of the Rock which sits atop the Jewish Temple Mount, has this statement engraved on its wall: "The God Who Has No Son."

For Christians, this is an abomination standing in the holy place.

[Conductor42]

I've never heard about the statement upon the wall, interesting...

Are there any other inscriptions upon that wall that we should be aware of?

[Krusader]

I've never heard about the statement upon the wall, interesting...

Are there any other inscriptions upon that wall that we should be aware of?

I'm not sure, I just found it on a website (Christian) - I think the whole thing goes something like: Allah who has no partners and does not have a son.

Are you familiar with the passage in Daniel?

[technomage]

I was reading a book titled, "Who is this Allah," by a Nigerian Christian, and he made an interesting comment. He said that many Nigerian Christians believe that the Dome of the Rock is actually the abomination of desolation spoken of in Matt. 24:15. I was also shocked to learn that the Muslim Dome of the Rock which sits atop the Jewish Temple Mount, has this statement engraved on its wall: "The God Who Has No Son."

The actual inscription reads as follows (in classical Arabic):

"O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son."

[CatholicSage]

It may be replaced, in time. The important thing is to not use the word "abomination" as an incitement to violence or terrorism; they're doing plenty of that on their own.

[Dee Dee Warren]

For Christians, this is an abomination standing in the holy place.

Not this one. Not any more than anything blasphemous to Christ standing anywhere else. For a great majority of Christians there is nothing no longer particularly currently holy about that spot - it has significance in past history, but no longer in that way. Don't confuse dispenational theology with Christianity in general. Many Christians are not dispensational.

[Krusader]

Not this one. Not any more than anything blasphemous to Christ standing anywhere else. For a great majority of Christians there is nothing no longer particularly currently holy about that spot - it has significance in past history, but no longer in that way. Don't confuse dispenational theology with Christianity in general. Many Christians are not dispensational.

I would have to disagree. The belief that the Dome of the Rock may be the abomination of desolation mentioned by Christ is not in keeping with dispensational doctrine. Dispensationalists look for a rebuilding of the temple, to be occupied by the anti-Christ, claiming to be God. Those that hold to the Dome of the Rock view see no reason for the rebuilding of the temple nor the reinstitution of animal sacrifices. Also, the use of the word "holy place" by the Lord, surely would have indicated the Temple to the Jews with whom he was speaking. Why spiritualize it?

Also, I'm not certain why Lutheran Sage feels that we have to circumvent the words of Christ and make nice with the Muslims - who have engraved an anti-Christian, anti-Trinitarian, anti-Deity of Christ inscription on their edifice. Sorry, I'm not politically correct (and if this country keeps going in that direction we can bend down and........well you know the saying).

If you are anyone else is interested in the Dome of the Rock = Abomination of Desolation view, a good site to peruse is:

http://www.firefromheaven.net/

Please note, that I do not agree with everything on this site, and have some questions regarding how this fellow views the Trinity. Nevertheless, what he has to say about prophecy is interesting, and we should be open to other views. Besides, I just don't agree with LaHaye on a lot of stuff.

Also, thanks to Justin for digging up the whole inscription.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Your statement was that this is a view "of Christians" in general - it is not. It may be the view of some Christians no doubt. I would distance myself entirely from such a view. Luke tells us what the abominiation of desolation was and it is long past history. Further I do not regard (and many Christians do not regard) the Temple mount as a holy place in the sense you are stating. It has a rich and beautiful heritage but it is not a "holy place" to many of us. I would feel the same about a denial of Christ standing anywhere.

[Divine_Clarity]

Crusader, what I perceive deedee as trying to say to you in saying that not all of us are dispensationalist or think this place to be a "holy ground" is that not all of us belive in the reinstatement of a political Israel, but that the Israel spoken of in Revelation is actualy a term used metaphorically for God's chosen people as seen in Romans 9:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 (I am not well studied in eschatology so I cannot defend much more than this)

[Krusader]

I'd have to disagree again. Certainly most Christians that I know (and I've known quite a few), would be horrified to learn that the Muslim Dome over the Temple Mount disclaims Christ's Sonship and Deity. Also, not all Christians (nor even most) hold to a preterist view regarding eschatology; but I will agree, most Christians aren't even aware of the teaching that the Dome of the Rock could be the abomination mentioned by Daniel and the Lord.

I personally believe that the replacement view (the Church replaces Israel and the Jewish people) is incorrect - one only has to read Paul's words in Romans 11 to understand that the Church is not Israel (the Mormons' view not withstanding).

[Krusader]

Crusader, what I perceive deedee as trying to say to you in saying that not all of us are dispensationalist or think this place to be a "holy ground" is that not all of us belive in the reinstatement of a political Israel, but that the Israel spoken of in Revelation is actualy a term used metaphorically for God's chosen people as seen in Romans 9:6 and 1 Peter 2:9 (I am not well studied in eschatology so I cannot defend much more than this)

I was quite aware of what was being stated - see post above.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I'd have to disagree again. Certainly most Christians that I know (and I've known quite a few), would be horrified to learn that the Muslim Dome over the Temple Mount disclaims Christ's Sonship and Deity. Also, not all Christians (nor even most) hold to a preterist view regarding eschatology; but I will agree, most Christians aren't even aware of the teaching that the Dome of the Rock could be the abomination mentioned by Daniel and the Lord.

I am just correcting you that to blanket claim that it is a Christian thing is incorrect. This is not even a preterist issue - there are others who are not preterist who would not ascribe the significance you do to the Temple Mount. There is a reason there is no Temple any longer - God destroyed it. Be careful you are not revering something He disdained and destroyed.

Even if I were still dispensational this would be IMHO an incorrect view of the abomination as Christians are supposed to flee to the mountains once it is "seen" - are you running yet?

I personally believe that the replacement view (the Church replaces Israel and the Jewish people) is incorrect - one only has to read Paul's words in Romans 11 to understand that the Church is not Israel (the Mormons' view not withstanding).

Good thing I don't hold to the "replacement" view - Do a search for Rev Klett's article "Not Replacement... Expansion!" and you will understand it better. That though is another thread but many people do not properly understand what a view such as mine really holds. I didn't before.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I edited my above post - I didn't like the tone of one sentence and softened it

[Krusader]

I am just correcting you that to blanket claim that it is a Christian thing is incorrect. This is not even a preterist issue - there are others who are not preterist who would not ascribe the significance you do to the Temple Mount. There is a reason there is no Temple any longer - God destroyed it. Be careful you are not revering something He disdained and destroyed.

Even if I were still dispensational this would be IMHO an incorrect view of the abomination as Christians are supposed to flee to the mountains once it is "seen" - are you running yet?



Good thing I don't hold to the "replacement" view - Do a search for Rev Klett's article "Not Replacement... Expansion!" and you will understand it better. That though is another thread but many people do not properly understand what a view such as mine really holds. I didn't before.

I will researach that site. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I would like to know about what you think regarding the website I posted.

[Gideon Brown]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure I understand - what do you still disagree about?

This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about here. It's just so corny...