Matthew 24:15 'So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--'

Clearly Matthew is referring to a standing abomination of desolation

When was there a standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?


Mr. JP Holding wrote 'First, it is worth noting that the Josephus, not at all having the Olivet Discourse in mind, saw the Daniel prophecy as fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in 70 and regarded the shedding of priestly blood in the sactuary as the desecration or abomination that caused the 70 desolation'

Where does Josephus mention Daniel in connection with the standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?

Josephus wrote in Antiquities 10 'In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.'

I can't find any mention there of a standing abomination.

Is the shedding of blood a standing abomination?

1 Maccabess 1:54 'On the fifteenth day of the month of Kislev in the year 145, the abomination of desolation was set up on the altar of the Lord. '

Surely this is far more likely to be a standing abomination?

Sounds like it's part of the upcoming Seven Years of Hell on Earth

Speaking of Great Tribulation, Stevie came in and said:

When was there a standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?

Try the crowning of the false high priest. If you want one in particular. Not with the thought in mind that this excludes other abominations before and after. Don't think in black and white, please.

Where does Josephus mention Daniel in connection with the standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?

Two different topics, Stevie. Congrats on finding the Ant. 10 reference your master missed, however.

Today @ 05:32 PM
jpholding:

When was there a standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?

Try the crowning of the false high priest. If you want one in particular. Not with the thought in mind that this excludes other abominations before and after. Don't think in black and white, please.

That was a standing abomination of desolation was it?

Today @ 05:32 PM
jpholding:

Where does Josephus mention Daniel in connection with the standing abomination of desolation in the Temple?


Two different topics, Stevie. Congrats on finding the Ant. 10 reference your master missed, however.

The one which makes no reference to any abomination of desolation, standing or otherwise?

So when you wrote 'First, it is worth noting that the Josephus, not at all having the Olivet Discourse in mind, saw the Daniel prophecy as fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in 70 and regarded the shedding of priestly blood in the sactuary as the desecration or abomination that caused the 70 desolation', you thought it was worth noting because it was irrelevant to Matthew's talk of a standing abomination of desolation.

That was a standing abomination of desolation was it?

Yep. Unless you want to whine that he was in a wheelchair or some goofy stuff.

The one which makes no reference to any abomination of desolation, standing or otherwise?

Clue in:

1) Josephus made NO ref to a "standing" anything. Jesus did.
2) My point in the section you quoted was the Joe saw Daniel's events as fulfilled in 70. That he did not recognize the same thing as THE abomination as Jesus did is irrelevant for my point. It does show that he had broader outlines of fulfillment in view, which does support my case.

Search Google for "Laubach" to get some help, please.

Today @ 07:37 PM
jpholding:

That was a standing abomination of desolation was it?

Yep. Unless you want to whine that he was in a wheelchair or some goofy stuff.

Remind me to post this thread on errancy.

Today @ 07:37 PM
jpholding:


The one which makes no reference to any abomination of desolation, standing or otherwise?

Clue in:

1) Josephus made NO ref to a "standing" anything. Jesus did.
2) My point in the section you quoted was the Joe saw Daniel's events as fulfilled in 70. That he did not recognize the same thing as THE abomination as Jesus did is irrelevant for my point. It does show that he had broader outlines of fulfillment in view, which does support my case.

Search Google for "Laubach" to get some help, please.

So Josephus saw something different from what you claim was the standing abomination of desolation, and you think that supports your case?

I looked on Google for 'Laubach', (assuming you did not mean my former work colleague Frank Laubach)

http://www.laubach.de/

I fail to see the relevance. I went to a German dentist last year - the Frau Doktor Harbecke.Are you saying I should go to a German dentist again? What does that have to do with any standing abominations of desolation?

Remind me to post this thread on errancy.

Read your own message and remind yourself.

So Josephus saw something different from what you claim was the standing abomination of desolation, and you think that supports your case?

Maybe you'll eventually figure it out, but I doubt it.

I looked on Google for 'Laubach', (assuming you did not mean my former work colleague Frank Laubach)

Add the word "literacy".

Today @ 07:37 PM
jpholding:

That was a standing abomination of desolation was it?

Yep. Unless you want to whine that he was in a wheelchair or some goofy stuff.

1) Josephus made NO ref to a "standing" anything. Jesus did.
2) My point in the section you quoted was the Joe saw Daniel's events as fulfilled in 70. That he did not recognize the same thing as THE abomination as Jesus did is irrelevant for my point.

So you are trying to convince the Errancy members who will be reading this thread that THE standing abomination of desolation that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15 (a chapter that you claim Matthew redacted to change Jesus's words BTW), was the false High Priest?

http://www.tektonics.org/tillpfft06.html

'Nor do we claim there were no "abominations" beforehand as X seems to think -- in fact we have no problem with all sorts of teensy-weensy abominations before the Big Fat Abomination that was the straw that broke the camel's back. '

So THE abomination that Jesus was talking about was not the Big Fat abomination that broke the camels' back. Jesus's standing abomination was just a teensy-weensy abomination, at least according to your article.

So why did Jesus not refer in Matthew 24:15 to the Big Fat abomination, rather than to the teensy-weensy standing abomination? Preterism is very hard to understand!

Today @ 02:49 PM
stevencarrwork:

So Josephus saw something different from what you claim was the standing abomination of desolation, and you think that supports your case?

Actually Steve, what I think JP means (and please correct me if I am wrong JP ) is that Josephus seing the disctruction of Jerusalem as being predicted by Daniel as supporting his case. Not the differences. You see it is the similarities that usually support a person position not the differences. I though it was clear, I guess I was wrong.

Today @ 02:49 PM
stevencarrwork:

I looked on Google for 'Laubach', (assuming you did not mean my former work colleague Frank Laubach)

http://www.laubach.de/

I fail to see the relevance. I went to a German dentist last year - the Frau Doktor Harbecke.Are you saying I should go to a German dentist again? What does that have to do with any standing abominations of desolation?

I think that JP was referring to this site. (again correct me if I am wrong JP)

Again, it looked clear to me, but then again I may be wrong.

So you are trying to convince the Errancy members

No, Errancy members woulnd't be convinced that a rock was falling on their head if it hit them. Don't be so conceited as to think that I care whether Errancy members are convinced of anything. Those there for more than social reasons -- because they think FTill is an authority worth listening to -- can go eat a hedgehog.

who will be reading this thread that THE standing abomination of desolation that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15 (a chapter that you claim Matthew redacted to change Jesus's words BTW), was the false High Priest?

Yep. So, and so what about redaction? Is that a crime in the UK, to do things to make texts more understandable to readers? I guess translations are forbidden there?

So THE abomination that Jesus was talking about was not the Big Fat abomination that broke the camels' back. Jesus's standing abomination was just a teensy-weensy abomination, at least according to your article.

Stevie, try reading better -- use that Laubach site if possible. (Yes, Faramir, you got me right on all counts, but remember you are talking to Dense City, here.) Yes, that abom Jesus was talking about was the Big Fat one, from HIS view. From Joe's view, it was not; probably to him one was as bad as another.

Preterism is very hard to understand!

As I say, basic literacy is a helpful tool. When do I get my apology for you misreading me on the Chinese, and for the "deluded sun dog people" comments?

Today @ 08:06 PM
Faramir:



Actually Steve, what I think JP means (and please correct me if I am wrong JP ) is that Josephus seing the disctruction of Jerusalem as being predicted by Daniel as supporting his case. Not the differences. You see it is the similarities that usually support a person position not the differences. I though it was clear, I guess I was wrong.

Again, it looked clear to me, but then again I may be wrong.

Holding wrote '. Try Antiquities 10.276: "...Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." And what did Joe say above was the cause of this, back in the other passage, that was the cause of Rome coming to purify the place? Ah. '

So Holding quotes Josephus as support, when Josephus's quote of Daniel makes no mention of Matthew's standing abomination of desolation at all, and Holding specifically states that the Big Fat Abomination referred to by Jesus was not any of the abominations mentioned by Josephus.

And you say this is support?

Holding writes 'No, X, pay attention: Rome's actions were the cause of the desolation; their coming was a signal (for Luke) of the abominations forthcoming; and excuse me, but the class of behavior which Anauas called "abominations" didn't stop after his mouth opened. Nor do we claim there were no "abominations" beforehand as X seems to think -- in fact we have no problem with all sorts of teensy-weensy abominations before the Big Fat Abomination that was the straw that broke the camel's back. '

So the Big Fat standing abomination of Jesus that Holding in one post says was the High Priest, and in his article Holding says that the Big Fat abomination came after the Romans came and was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Truly, Holding is confused even by his standards.

However, I shall give him many, many more chances to answer the question. I am such a patient person.

What was the STANDING abomination of desolation referred to in Matthew 24:15?

To help Holding, I have started part of his answer here.

'The STANDING abomination of desolation referred to in Matthew 24:15 was.....'

Today @ 03:17 PM
jpholding:

Stevie, try reading better -- use that Laubach site if possible. (Yes, Faramir, you got me right on all counts, but remember you are talking to Dense City, here.) Yes, that abom Jesus was talking about was the Big Fat one, from HIS view. From Joe's view, it was not; probably to him one was as bad as another.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

Well, you obviously have trouble writing in a way that Steve understands.

If it make you feel any better JP, I understood you.

Today @ 09:34 PM
Faramir:

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

Well, you obviously have trouble writing in a way that Steve understands.

If it make you feel any better JP, I understood you.

I was confused by how JP was saying that there was a Big Fat abomination , yet one of the direct participants never recognised it as fulfilling JP's interpretation of events, yet JP still claims Josephus as support, although Josephus's interpretaion of Daniel's prophecy was entirely different.

I can understand JP saying he can interpret events 2,000 years ago better than an eyewitness of the time, but then claiming this mistaken eyewitness as support.....

Since:

a) Faramir understands perfectly what I am saying

b) Stevie does not, which is not surprising, since Stevie would be confused by directions for blowing his own nose,

I will make no further comment unless someone else asks for clarification. I have better things to do than educate the permanently dense.

Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
stevencarrwork:
However, I shall give him many, many more chances to answer the question. I am such a patient person.

What was the STANDING abomination of desolation referred to in Matthew 24:15?

To help Holding, I have started part of his answer here.

'The STANDING abomination of desolation referred to in Matthew 24:15 was.....'

Holding refuses to answer this question. Such a very simple question, and I have half-completed the answer for him......

Perhaps Faramir can have a go. After all, he claims to understand what Holding is writing, so it should be easy for him.

I shall repeat Matthew's Gospel 24:15-16

'"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.'

What abomination was standing in the Temple, in time to allow those in Judea to flee to the mountains (presumably to escape the Romans)?

Steve, Steve, there are vagrants that live in larger boxes than the one you have imposed upon yourself.

Oh, and don't forget to post whatever it is you wanted to post on Errancy. And thank you for the delay in our other debate, I am swamped right now.. and.... I notice that Mr. Till was online for quite a bit of time yesterday checking out the board. Please forward my best wishes for his family and my request for a status update about when he and I may continue debate negotiations and if he is going to answer the challenge about him being a "troll." I need to close that thread if he is not going to respond.

Thank you! Now I need to go an take my sun dog for a walk.