Abomination of Desolation

[Screaming Eagle]

Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (KJV)
Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'and' in v 12 and the 'but' (v 13) which begins linguistically a new focus of comments)
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (KJV) (SE comments; note 'this Gospel of the Kingdom';
Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'direct' reference to Daniel's prophecy that follows the 'ands' and the 'but' in v 13). Jesus Himself is directing those who would have understanding to consider the abomination He makes reference to here; that's separate and apart from His word spoken that destroyed the 70 AD temple; His word was enough to do that; He didn't have to 'be there' because His word did it)

Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. {the abomination: Heb. to set up the abomination} {maketh...: or, astonisheth} (

Friends, this 'abomination' has not taken place. This critical part of this scripture has not taken place yet. It's in the immediate context (scriptural witness) of the prophecy to/through Daniel and has not been done. There's also Paul's report in 2 Thess 2 that backs it up. Jesus had already talked about Herod's temple being destroyed which was certainly fulfilled. It's interesting to note that the Western wall still remains so 'every stone' was not on top of one another even from that if it's the correct wall. Jesus is talking about a 'yet to be' temple in which the abomination will stand. Paul says 'when you see' in reference to this abomination (man of sin).
According to Tacitus, the Roman historian, Caius had intended to but Caligula died and his plans were brought to nothing (imagine that). There was indeed great destruction (albeit not complete) and much of what's previously spoken of in Ma 24 did indeed take place just as He said. How could we not believe that this critical passage is yet to be done in a yet to be built temple in Jerusalem?
Here is an historical report of this part of the destruction that did indeed take place.


The Roman writer Tacitus adds that Caius commanded the Jews to place his effigies in the Temple. Josephus records that the Jews pleaded with Petronius not to do this. The Jews in their stubborn monotheism were willing to sacrifice their whole nation before they would allow the Temple to be defiled. Petronius marveled at their courage and ceased with the process so confrontation was temporarily averted. An enraged Caligula commanded that Petronius be put to death. Josephus records that Caligula himself died soon thereafter and due to bad weather at sea, the letter ordering Petronius' death arrived three weeks after the news arrived of Caligula's death. Petronius was not executed and the Temple was spared this particular abomination.

http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html

I'll be interested to hear your comments.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Paul,

You plainly stated a lot of assertions that are not well-founded in Scripture. So I plainly stated my opinions in response. Please understand there is no offense intended. I just think its best to speak plainly because it helps clarify things.


Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (KJV)
Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'and' in v 12 and the 'but' (v 13) which begins linguistically a new focus of comments)
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (KJV) (SE comments; note 'this Gospel of the Kingdom';
Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'direct' reference to Daniel's prophecy that follows the 'ands' and the 'but' in v 13). Jesus Himself is directing those who would have understanding to consider the abomination He makes reference to here; that's separate and apart from His word spoken that destroyed the 70 AD temple; His word was enough to do that; He didn't have to 'be there' because His word did it)

How is Christ's reference to the Abomination of Desolation "separate and apart from His word spoken that destroyed the 70 AD temple?" Those ideas are perfectly unified in the context in which they are given:
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Christ gives the command for the first century believers to "flee to the mountains" because the Roman army was about to destroy Jerusalem. How is it that you think this is separate from the destruction of Jerusalem? Especially in light of the parallel passage in Luke?
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
It seems to me that the message is perfectly unified and centered on the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.



Da 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. {the abomination: Heb. to set up the abomination} {maketh...: or, astonisheth} (

Friends, this 'abomination' has not taken place. This critical part of this scripture has not taken place yet. It's in the immediate context (scriptural witness) of the prophecy to/through Daniel and has not been done. There's also Paul's report in 2 Thess 2 that backs it up.
Jesus had already talked about Herod's temple being destroyed which was certainly fulfilled.
Merely asserting that it has not happened does not make it true. On the contrary, we have overwhelming testimony that it happened. In 2 Thess 2 Paul was talking about the Temple that was standing then in the first century. Christ explicitly connected the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD with the prophecies of Daniel. Remember the "Big Picture" that we get from Daniel 9 - Messiah would come, be cut off, and the Temple destroyed. This is exactly what happened in history. This witness is destroyed if you attempt to shred the Olivet Discourse into some bits and pieces that were fulfilled in the first century and other bits and pieces that will be fulfilled in the future.

Yes, Jesus had "already talked about the destruction of Herod's temple" and he continued talking about that same destruction. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests he suddenly shifted his discourse to talk about the destruction of some other temple that would be built 2000 years later! That is pure invention. It is not in the text.



It's interesting to note that the Western wall still remains so 'every stone' was not on top of one another even from that if it's the correct wall. Jesus is talking about a 'yet to be' temple in which the abomination will stand.
Paul says 'when you see' in reference to this abomination (man of sin).

Jesus was not talking about some other Temple that was yet to be. That idea is absurd on three counts:

1) There is nothing in the text of the OD that suggests it.

2) There can never be another sanctified Jewish Temple to God. Even if the Jews pile up a bunch of rocks and call it a Temple, God would never call it "My House" because it was built by folks who reject Him and His Son. Therefore, the AoD can never happen again in another Temple.

3) There is no prophecy in the Bible that says there will be a future Temple.

Your entire interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is foreign to Scripture. It is pure invention.



According to Tacitus, the Roman historian, Caius had intended to but Caligula died and his plans were brought to nothing (imagine that). There was indeed great destruction (albeit not complete) and much of what's previously spoken of in Ma 24 did indeed take place just as He said. How could we not believe that this critical passage is yet to be done in a yet to be built temple in Jerusalem?

Are you really suggesting that the Olivet Discourse was not completely fulfilled because the stones of the wailing wall still stand? If that were correct, then Scripture becomes an utterly meaningless. Christ opened the OD by declaring the destruction of the first century Temple. This was fulfilled in 70 AD. Now you say that his prophecy was not "really fulfilled" and he was really talking about the destruction of a future temple that would not even be a real temple???

Please consider this:

1) None of those ideas are taught in Scripture

2) Those ideas were all invented by futurists before you were born

3) Therefore, we know that you are believing those ideas not because you found them in Scripture, but because you were taught them by men.

Think about that.

Many blessings my plain-speaking friend,

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
So, what 'was' the AoD? If there was one, who was it? It's clear from the historical record that it wasn't at the same time as the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (so it was yet future from when He spoke it).
Antiochus Epiphanes was a 'shadow' or 'type' of the AC but Jesus wasn't talking abut him because it had already happened.
I don't believe something as critical as that (which He pointed to for us to understand) coud have been missed. Nor do I believe that it was 'like the world has never seen'. Jerusalem and Solomon's temple had been destroyed before.
If your assertion is that it was all 'wrapped up' in history by 70AD, where does that leave us now? What might He be 'waiting' for? Awful long gap there.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
So, what 'was' the AoD? If there was one, who was it? It's clear from the historical record that it wasn't at the same time as the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (so it was yet future from when He spoke it).
Antiochus Epiphanes was a 'shadow' or 'type' of the AC but Jesus wasn't talking abut him because it had already happened.
I don't believe something as critical as that (which He pointed to for us to understand) coud have been missed. Nor do I believe that it was 'like the world has never seen'. Jerusalem and Solomon's temple had been destroyed before.
If your assertion is that it was all 'wrapped up' in history by 70AD, where does that leave us now? What might He be 'waiting' for? Awful long gap there.
What makes you think that the identity of the AoD is "critical" to our understanding of the OD? Sure, it was critical for the disciples to know so they would know it was time to get out of town. But we don't need to know that detail to understand the truth of the OD.

Also, your belief in the "antichrist" is not Biblical. The Bible defines the antichrist as a false teacher, not a wanna-be world dictator.

You need to reevalutate everything you have been taught by the futurist mindset. It is filled from beginning to end with non-biblical speculations and human inventions.

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
The only reason I mentioned the ac is because Jesus specifically points to that 'person' 'standing in' the Holy place. I don't think He used that word lightly. He said it was for them (and us) to understand.

Let me ask you this: if you were to tell your wife 'honey, I love you BUT...what impact do you think that would have on her? Do you think it might change the whole attitude of the conversation you were having with her? It would be very different from 'honey, I love you AND...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
The only reason I mentioned the ac is because Jesus specifically points to that 'person' 'standing in' the Holy place. I don't think He used that word lightly. He said it was for them (and us) to understand.

Your understanding the AoD fits well with Paul's description (2 Thess 2) of the apostate High Priest who walked around the Temple as if he owned the place, implicitly declaring that he was God. When the disciples saw the abomination of that unholy priesthood, they might have understood it was time to get out of town.



Let me ask you this: if you were to tell your wife 'honey, I love you BUT...what impact do you think that would have on her? Do you think it might change the whole attitude of the conversation you were having with her? It would be very different from 'honey, I love you AND...
It sounds like you are trying to derive a meaning from the English translation of the Greek word "kai" which can mean either "and" or "but."

Where is the "but" that you are talking about. Which verse? ETA: I just found your comment Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'and' in v 12 and the 'but' (v 13) which begins linguistically a new focus of comments)

Richard

BTW - do you know how to use the quote function? Just hit the "Reply" button in the lower right, just below the post you are answering. It will automatically include the previous post in quotes. That makes it easier to follow the conversation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'and' in v 12 and the 'but' (v 13) which begins linguistically a new focus of comments)

Let me ask you this: if you were to tell your wife 'honey, I love you BUT...what impact do you think that would have on her? Do you think it might change the whole attitude of the conversation you were having with her? It would be very different from 'honey, I love you AND...

My wife would certainly sense a difference if I said I love you BUT - but that is because it shows a limit to my love, or something conflicting with my love for her.

How do you see this impacting our understanding of Mat 24:13?

[Screaming Eagle]

[QUOTE=RAM;18829]Your understanding the AoD fits well with Paul's description (2 Thess 2) of the apostate High Priest who walked around the Temple as if he owned the place, implicitly declaring that he was God. When the disciples saw the abomination of that unholy priesthood, they might have understood it was time to get out of town.


It sounds like you are trying to derive a meaning from the English translation of the Greek word "kai" which can mean either "and" or "but."

Where is the "but" that you are talking about. Which verse? ETA: I just found your comment Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (KJV) (SE comments; note the 'and' in v 12 and the 'but' (v 13) which begins linguistically a new focus of comments)

Richard, The 'but' is in v 13. It's the word de.

Am I to understand that you don't know who the AoD was? Where is more information about the Priest that you referred to?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, The 'but' is in v 13. It's the word de.

Thanks for pointing that out. My bad.

The word de variously means " but, moreover, and, etc."

So how does this affect your understanding of the verse?



Am I to understand that you don't know who the AoD was? Where is more information about the Priest that you referred to?
Of course I don't know (with certainty) what the AoD was! Neither do you, or anyone else for that matter. We don't know because God did not tell us, so it is a matter of dispute and speculation. That's why the meaning of the AoD is irrelevant to the discussion. It will not help us discern between Futurism and Preterism because no one knows the true meaning.

But given all the information available, the best answer I have found is that the AoD was an unholy High Priest. He would have been very evident to anyone hanging around the Temple. He definitely was "standing where he ought not." Josephus gives us info on the abominable activities of the unholy priesthood, as well as those of the zealots who filled the Temple with the abomination of dead bodies.

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
My brother. Look at the way you just used the word 'but' in your last post. Linguistically, it basically 'wipes out' everything just said before that. It indicates a 'shift' that is in the very language and word itself. It changes the 'focus' of the conversation. AND it's important lol!!
We would be remiss if we did not take that seriously (every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God) and especially considering what follows. In the same manner, we would be remiss by choosing not to pay attention to (at least) two witnesses that have the power (like Elijah) to shut up the heavens and prevent rain (presumably with a prophetic word) for 42 months (like Elijah).
Please consider it bro. That's all I'm asking.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
My brother. Look at the way you just used the word 'but' in your last post. Linguistically, it basically 'wipes out' everything just said before that. It indicates a 'shift' that is in the very language and word itself. It changes the 'focus' of the conversation. AND it's important lol!!
We would be remiss if we did not take that seriously (every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God) and especially considering what follows. In the same manner, we would be remiss by choosing not to pay attention to (at least) two witnesses that have the power (like Elijah) to shut up the heavens and prevent rain (presumably with a prophetic word) for 42 months (like Elijah).
Please consider it bro. That's all I'm asking.
Hello bro!

I very much appreciate you appeal to me as a brother. For that is what we are. We agree completely that "every word of God" must be respected for what it is. We are absolutely unified in this understanding.

I don't understand your point about how I used "but" in my previous post. I had written that no one knows with certainty the meaning of the AoD, BUT given what we do know, the best answer is etc.. How does that "but" "wipe out everything just said before that?" Everything I said before the "but" remains true. The word "but" merely indicates that the things that I had just said were not the "final word" on this question. It's like this:

We do not have certain knowledge of the AoD, BUT given what we do know, the best answer seems to be ....

What's the problem with that?

So again, let me ask, how does the word "de" (but, moreover, and) affect your understanding of Matt 24:13, and why?

Great chatting bro,

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

RAM wrote:
but that is because it shows a limit to my love, or something conflicting with my love for her.

Could it not also indicate that you essentially said 'enough!'. You put the other foot down and made a very difficult decision probably after MUCH travail and pain.
BTW, the scripture in Lk does mention 'desolation' but not the AoD. I dunno why.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM wrote:
but that is because it shows a limit to my love, or something conflicting with my love for her.

Could it not also indicate that you essentially said 'enough!'. You put the other foot down and made a very difficult decision probably after MUCH travail and pain.

I'm not sure if I am following you on this. I think it would help a lot if you showed how you understand Matt 24:13.



BTW, the scripture in Lk does mention 'desolation' but not the AoD. I dunno why.
One explanation is that Luke was writing to Gentile Greeks who would not have understood the reference, so he just compressed it into a statement of the desolation of Jerusalem which certainly followed form the abomination that maketh desolate (which is how it is translated in Dan 12:11).

I understand all three versions of the OD as absolutely unified with the differences simply giving more info from slightly different perspectives. Just like the four accounts of the crucifixion (which never would be thought to imply four different fulfillments).