Daniel's 1260 vs. 1290 vs. 1335 vs 2300 Days Prophecies (Abomination of Desolation Was the Crucifixion)

[Randy Kluth]

And where does the AC reign from during that 3.5 year period?

I don't know--could be from some major European city. I think his False Prophet will hate Catholicism in Rome, promoting some kind of world religion, led by the Antichrist himself who will claim to have Divine authority. His power will be unquestioned and unchallenged for 1260 days. After that, world support will drop off, and there will be a challenge to his rule over the world. I think itt will probably be a revolt led by China and India. Pure speculation, my brother. A big fat "I don't know!" :)

 

[ewq1938]

I don't know--could be from some major European city.

The AC doesn't spend time in Jerusalem during the 3.5 years/42 months of Rev 13?

 

[Randy Kluth]

The AC doesn't spend time in Jerusalem during the 3.5 years/42 months of Rev 13?

I should think he will, yes. After all, he disposes of the 2 Prophets in Jerusalem. Rev 11.7. I think his seat of power will be in a European capital.

But he will visit Jerusalem in some capacity, if he is to have the 2 Prophets killed. That may be at the end of his 1260 days of unchallenged reign in the world. Having the 2 Prophets of God murdered may precipitate the challenge to his world dominion when kings from the East march to Armageddon.

Paul never indicates that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt as a temple that Antichrist will reside in. A Jewish temple was never built for a man to dwell in--it was for the presence of God alone.

When Paul indicated Antichrist will sit in God's temple he is indicating metaphorically that Antichrist will proclaim himself God in heaven. Heaven is where God's temple is in the NT era. Paul knew the OT temple was going to be permanently destroyed. Keep in mind I'm just guessing here....

 

[ewq1938]

I should think he will, yes. After all, he disposes of the 2 Prophets in Jerusalem. Rev 11.7. I

So if he can so freely move there and even murder in that city, why would he a short time later attack it? Seems he has open access to it without any resistance. Most people believe he rules from Jerusalem which further makes any attack on the city to be unnecessary. Why would he attack a city he rules from and "owns"?

think his seat of power will be in a European capital.

But he will visit Jerusalem in some capacity, if he is to have the 2 Prophets killed. That may be at the end of his 1260 days of unchallenged reign in the world. Having the 2 Prophets of God murdered may precipitate the challenge to his world dominion when kings from the East march to Armageddon.

Paul never indicates that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt as a temple that Antichrist will reside in. A Jewish temple was never built for a man to dwell in--it was for the presence of God alone.

A false temple could be built for or by him.

When Paul indicated Antichrist will sit in God's temple he is indicating metaphorically that Antichrist will proclaim himself God in heaven. Heaven is where God's temple is in the NT era. Paul knew the OT temple was going to be permanently destroyed. Keep in mind I'm just guessing here....

Well, he did warn when the AoD was seen where it/he shouldn't be that's
likley in Jerusalem whether in a real temple or a symbolic one like in believers who get deceived etc.

Basically I am questioning why the AC would ever want to attack Jerusalem. I don't see anything about that happening, nor any possible need for it if the AC rules from Jerusalem through the entire trib, then takes armies to Armageddon which is 66 miles away from the city the AC was ruling from. Arm is about a war right there and not about a war against Jerusalem.

 

[Douggg]

Basically I am questioning why the AC would ever want to attack Jerusalem. I don't see anything about that happening, nor any possible need for it if the AC rules from Jerusalem through the entire trib, then takes armies to Armageddon which is 66 miles away from the city the AC was ruling from. Arm is about a war right there and not about a war against Jerusalem.

The answer is in Zechariah 14:2, to take half of the city of Jerusalem as hostage.

The battle that the beast-king will spearhead will be to fight against Jesus and his army of heaven. The beast-king will take his stand (against the Prince of princes, Daniel 8:25) on the temple mount (Daniel 11:45) where he will meet his end.

Convinced by the beast-king, the false prophet, and Satan to fight against Jesus and his army , Armageddon is the gathering place of the kings of the earth armies to prepare for the battle of that great day of God Almighty, Revelation 16:14-16. Gathering and preparing takes time, 45 days.

On the day that Jesus returns, the blood of the armies gathered by the kings of the earth will flow 200 miles (the north-south length of Israel), up to a horse's bridle in some places. As they are destroyed by the angel of Revelation 14:19-20.

Revelation 14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

"Without the city" means the areas in Israel beyond Jerusalem. Jerusalem, where the armies of the kings of the earth will surround and take half of the city as hostage (Zechariah 14:2), those armies will be destroyed by Jesus, Revelation 19:17-21.

There on the temple mount, the beast-king and the false prophet will meet their end. Cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 19:20.

Satan, too, will meet his end to be a terror no more, Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

[ewq1938]

The answer is in Zechariah 14:2, to take half of the city of Jerusalem as hostage.

He will have already done that years before Armageddon is fought except he will rule over all of Jerusalem for those 42 months and no war or battle would ever be needed.

 

[Douggg]

He will have already done that years before Armageddon is fought except he will rule over all of Jerusalem for those 42 months and no war or battle would ever be needed.re

The beast-king's EU army will be occupying Jerusalem for 42 months, Revelation 11:2, I agree. But the armies of all nations will be added to his EU army in Zechariah 14,

The battle of Zechariah 14 will be against Jesus and his army of heaven.

 

[ewq1938]

The beast-king's EU army will be occupying Jerusalem for 42 months, Revelation 11:2, I agree. But the armies of all nations will be added to his EU army in Zechariah 14,

The battle of Zechariah 14 will be against Jesus and his army of heaven.

There would be no reason for the AC to attack a city he already controlled for years. Zech 14 is clearly not about Jesus and Armageddon.

 

[Douggg]

There would be no reason for the AC to attack a city he already controlled for years. Zech 14 is clearly not about Jesus and Armageddon.

I think you may be using the word "attack" based on the premise that the citizens of Jerusalem will be at war with him ? yes.

If so, that will not be the case. The surrounding of Jerusalem and taking half the city as hostage will be that the beast-king and the rest of the kings of the earth will be preparing to defend themselves against Jesus and his army of heaven, who will be coming to take vengeance on behalf of the martyred great tribulation saints.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So if he can so freely move there and even murder in that city, why would he a short time later attack it? Seems he has open access to it without any resistance. Most people believe he rules from Jerusalem which further makes any attack on the city to be unnecessary. Why would he attack a city he rules from and "owns"?

I don't believe the AC would attack a city he lived in. As I said this is highly speculative to me. But I could offer possible suggestions.

It may be that the AC takes possession of Jerusalem towards the end of the 1260 days, which precipitates a resistance in the Eastern part of the world. Revelation indicates that the AC is part of a spirit that draws this "resistance" to Armageddon to fight him there.

A false temple could be built for or by him.

Yes, but a false temple was not what Paul was talking about in 2 Thes 2.

Well, he did warn when the AoD was seen where it/he shouldn't be that's
likley in Jerusalem whether in a real temple or a symbolic one like in believers who get deceived etc.

My view of the Abomintion of Desolation is that in accord with Dan 9.26-27 and Luke 21 it referred to the Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Church Fathers viewed it as such, as well.

Futurism often makes use of "fulfilled prophecies" to claim it still has a future application. That's just what "Futurism" does. However, I do consider myself a "Futurist," since there are prophecies in the book of Revelation that have yet to be fulfilled.

Basically I am questioning why the AC would ever want to attack Jerusalem. I don't see anything about that happening, nor any possible need for it if the AC rules from Jerusalem through the entire trib, then takes armies to Armageddon which is 66 miles away from the city the AC was ruling from. Arm is about a war right there and not about a war against Jerusalem.

Well, your view could be right--I just suspect differently. I think the AC isn't "attacking" Jerusalem, but rather, the 2 Prophets. I think he is the one who is attacked in Jerusalem by Eastern Armies who tire of his world rule after 1260 days.

 

[Davy]

Does the trib happen before Arm?

Yes, of course.

The battle of Armageddon happens on the 'last day' of this world, what is Biblically called "the day of the Lord".

But... the false Pre-trib Rapture school instead tries... to claim "the day of the Lord" is the time of "great tribulation" when it is not.

An easy Biblical proof is 2 Peter 3:10 where Peter mentions the "day of the Lord" coming "as a thief in the night", and then links the event of all of man's works being burned off the earth on that "day of the Lord".

How can the Pre-trib Rapture theory be correct since it wrongly believes Jesus comes to rapture the Church PRIOR to the "great tribulation" when that would require the beast kingdom and false-Messiah being able to continue? That is what saying "the day of the Lord" is the tribulation time would mean.

 

[Davy]

There would be no reason for the AC to attack a city he already controlled for years. Zech 14 is clearly not about Jesus and Armageddon.

Oh Zechariah 14 most definitely is... about Lord Jesus and the final battle of this world with the Revelation 19 Armageddon. That is why it is linking the "day of the Lord" with that battle. It's because the "day of the Lord" Biblically... is about the very last day of this world when Jesus comes.

From our conversations before, I recall that you heed man's false Pre-trib Rapture theory. They wrongly teach that the "day of the Lord" is the time of "great tribulation" when it is not. Their false doctrine moved... that "day of the Lord" in a vain attempt to support their pre-trib rapture theory.

 

[Exegesis]

tbd

 

[Exegesis]

Funny how there are other ways to interpret Daniel 11 without using Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a scapegoat for those that hate the New Testament, hate Jesus and hate Christians.

BTW...

Here is where he dies:

Daniel 11:19 - "Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found."

And from that moment on, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is no more.

"And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body."

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The remaining verses are about Rome. Julius Caesar is first:

Daniel 11:20 - "Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle."

What did I say at the beginning of this thread? A day will be interpreted as a year. Thus, a few days becomes a few years:

Julius Caesar was a Roman general and statesman who served as dictator from 49 BC until his assassination in 44 BC.

Yep. Fits perfectly. Rome was infamous for raising taxes. Just ask Jesus.

 

[ewq1938]

BTW...

Here is where he dies:



And from that moment on, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is no more.

"And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body."

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The remaining verses are about Rome. Julius Caesar is first:



What did I say at the beginning of this thread? A day will be interpreted as a year. Thus, a few days becomes a few years:

Julius Caesar was a Roman general and statesman who served as dictator from 49 BC until his assassination in 44 BC.

Yep. Fits perfectly. Rome was infamous for raising taxes. Just ask Jesus.

"neither in anger"

Doesn't match his death.

 

[Exegesis]

"neither in anger"

Doesn't match his death.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Many scholars interpret the verse as the assassination of Seleucus IV Philopater of Syria:

 

[ewq1938]

How did you come to that conclusion?

His death was violent and full of anger, so not a match.

 

[Exegesis]

His death was violent and full of anger, so not a match.

Hmmm. To me the phrase 'in anger' is referring to the emotions felt by the person who died, rather than an outside party.

Julius Caesar did not die from him being angry.

 

[ewq1938]

Hmmm. To me the phrase 'in anger' is referring to the emotions felt by the person who died, rather than an outside party.

Julius Caesar did not die from him being angry.

View attachment 68074

He was stabbed 23 times by the men who were supposed to protect him. That is dying in anger, as the anger was directed to him.

Barnes:

Neither in anger - Hebrew, “angers.” Not in any tumult or excitement, or by any rage of his subjects. This would certainly imply that his death would be a peaceful death.

 

[pandaflower]

What is the JW stance on Demons?