Zao is life
Well-Known Member
You don't even understand what the word "therefore" means in Matthew 24:15 so there's no real hope in you understanding grammar.
This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!
- Thread starter Trekson
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You don't even understand what the word "therefore" means in Matthew 24:15 so there's no real hope in you understanding grammar.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. Look at you butting in to every discussion I'm having with others like a little child. Pathetic. I don't need this nonsense from someone who thinks that the disciples wouldn't have any questions to ask Jesus after Him telling them that the temple buildings that they and the rest of the Jews held in such high regard would be destroyed. You expect me to believe that they would have just moved on to other topics after hearing that and not wanted to ask any questions about it, such as when it would happen. Ridiculous.
So much error is here. First, no one is going copy Christ's covenant, because that isn't what is spoken of. Dan. 2:44, 7:21, 23-25, 8:11-12, 9:27, 11:21-45 and 12:7 are all speaking of the same guy. The holy city is New Jerusalem. Just because a temple might be built o even a tabernacle would suffice, and they start w/ the sacrifices again doesn't mean that God will be there or honor anything about it. It's the faux messiah's who is trying to steal the praise and glory meant for God unto himself. 2300 days, a prophecy not fulfilled, the abomination of desolation never had anything to do w/ Jerusalem. There are kinds of abominations and desolations, but there is only One "THE" AoD spoken of by Christ and he wasn't referencing 9: 27 he was referencing Dan. 11:31 and 12:11. You can see what that future fulfillment will look like in Rev. 13:14-15. I know those other ones aren't speaking of the messiah and neither is 9:27. Neither Matt. 24:15 or 2 Thess. 2:4 have been fulfilled yet and yes they are speaking of the same guy from Dan. 9:27.
Yes, they obeyed Lk. 21 20-24 as I said which was "specifically" about 70ad. Matt. and Mark were not.They understood that it meant to flee, which is exactly what they did.
If they'd been dispensational futurists, they'd have remained in Jerusalem and perished.
But they were waaaaaay smarter than you.
Thank God for the preservation of the Judaean Christian Church.
It goes back to the last person mentioned which wasn't Christ, it was "the prince to come", which is 'after 70ad in the linear reading and there is no reason not to read it that way. The last week is separated all by itself for a reason. The person is Dan. 9:27 is the same one that is in Dan. 11:22-23. The word "league", means covenant.
Judaea in Matthew 24:16 = Judaea in Mark 13:14 = Judaea in Luke 21:20
They obeyed every one of them.
Your claim is invalid.
"He" in Daniel 9:27 is Messiah the Prince, who is clearly not in Daniel 11:22-23.
Your claim is invalid.
I asked if you understand grammar. You didn't respond.
Who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come"?
Where are you getting your "league" nonsense from?
Not one English Bible version translates the word "league".
Last edited:
There is a difference, Lk says "when you see Jerusalem be surrounded flee". Matt. and Mark say "when you see THE AoD flee. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was not the AoD. That is one signal thing spoken of in Dan. 11:31 and 12:11 "not" 9:27. You can see what the fulfillment will look like in Rev. 13:14-15. There is a reason why we are told to "rightly divide the truth". We do this by noticing all the little things that makes one scenario different from another scenario. This also happens when one realizes that the ToJT and the GT are two separate events upon two different peoples for two different reasons. I believe the ToJT began in 70ad.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Jesus said the temple buildings would be destroyed and that is what spawned the Olivet Discourse. Daniel 9:26-27 talks about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which occurred in 70 AD. So, it's obvious to anyone with discernment that Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15 (Mark 13:14).
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Luke's account is not about a different even than the Matthew and Mark accounts. The reason that Luke worded it differently is because his audience was primarily Gentiles who would not have known anything about the prophecy in Daniel. So, it wouldn't make sense for him to reference the prophecy in Daniel and say "let the reader understand" to Gentiles who were not familiar with Daniel's prophecies and would not understand what he was talking about. So, Luke spelled it out to them what would tell believers of that time that it was time to flee and that was when Jerusalem began being surrounded by the Roman armies.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
No, it references the last person specifically focused on. The "prince to come" is not specifically focused on in Daniel 9:26. It's the people of the prince to come who are focused on there. They are the ones who would destroy the city and the sanctuary. The last individual focused on before Daniel 9:27 is the Messiah, so the prince in Daniel 9:27 is the Messiah. It certainly does not reference any future prince because the people of the prince destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. So, the prince had to be the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. That can't apply to any future prince.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Do you know that the word "therefore" is not in that verse in most English translations? Also, the parallel verse of Mark 13:14 says "but when" instead of "therefore". So, how can we know what Jesus actually said? Did He say "When you therefore see the abomination of desolation..." or did He say "But when you see the abomination of desolation..."?
Matthew 24:15 (KJV): 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: )
Matthew 24:15 (NIV): “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
Matthew 24:15 (ESV): “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Mark 13:14 (KJV): But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Most other English translations have "But when", "So when" or just "When" at the beginning of Mark 13:14 and don't have the word "therefore" in that verse.
The phrase "But when" or "So when" can introduce a different topic from what was written in the preceding verses. Here is one example of that...
Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. 34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
In verse 34 above the phrase "But when" introduces a new topic regarding which commandment in the law is the greatest. The topic before that was the resurrection of the dead. So, when Mark 13:14 says "But when you see the abomination of desolation..." it does not have to relate directly to the timing of the immediately preceding verses but can be the start of Jesus answering the question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings after previously referencing the question related to His coming and the end of the age.
I acknowledge that the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 can cause a potential problem with how I interpret Matthew 24:15-22, but even the word "therefore" can be used to reference something previously said before the immediately preceding verses. One example of this is in Ephesians 4:1 where Paul uses the word therefore to refer back to things he said before Ephesians 3:14-21 which contains a prayer he made for the Ephesians and doesn't relate to what he said starting in Ephesians 4:1.
At least your argument about me supposedly ignoring or misunderstanding the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 is stronger than your argument that Jesus did not answer the disciples' question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. There is no reason whatsoever that He would not be willing to answer that question after having just told them shortly before that the temple buildings would be destroyed. Imagine me telling you that your house is going to be destroyed, but then refusing to answer any questions you have about that. It makes no sense.
Last edited:
I know. I was kidding. That's why I included this:
Yes, I am. Thanks for asking.
Because you continue not telling me exactly what you think Jesus meant when He said "I am coming quickly". You seem to think He was saying His coming was near, but that's not what it means.
No, that is correct and that's why it's translated that way. So, why do you (apparently) think He said He is coming soon rather than quickly? His coming itself will be quick. Has nothing to do with how long it will be until He comes. I have seen other preterists try to make that argument, so I thought you were trying to make it, also.
Maybe you should re-read your own post then. You are trying to associate Him coming quickly with "the time is near". You are coming across as if you think He said His coming is near when He said He is coming quickly. Is that not the case?
I, of course, am not saying He is presently coming immediately, which obviously makes no sense.
Okay, so we agree on that then. So, why do you bring that verse up when you try to argue that His coming was near as of the time Revelation was written? Him saying He was coming quickly has nothing to do with how long it would be before He came.
Talk about not being clear. You came across as if you believed that Him saying "I am coming quickly" meant He was saying He was coming soon (that His coming was near). But, I guess you were not intending to say that? Fine.
Let me ask you this. Since you think that Jesus came in 70 AD, how exactly do you think He came quickly in 70 AD?
I never said quickly means near or soon. You’ve assumed that, contrary to the multiple times I said I think it means quickly. And that explains why your counterpoints have been confusing, as you’ve created a strawman - arguing against something I never said.
The verb “I am coming” is present tense and so has a continuous aspect, but that doesn’t always mean it’s happening in the present time. Instead we have to look at the context to determine the timing of this continuous action. So if you ask me what I think it means on its own in a vacuum, without any context, it simply means Christ is presently coming quickly at the time the statement is given. You need context to determine if it’s in present time, or continuous action in the future.
Just prior to that to revelation 22:12, is vs 10, where we find the phrase “do not seal up the vision, for the TIME IS NEAR”.
This indicates that the continuous action of Christ coming quickly/speedily is future, though NEAR future.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's fine. I misunderstood because it came across that you were relating "I am coming quickly" directly to the phrase "the time is near". That gave the impression that you saw the words "quickly" and "near" as synonyms. But, that's not the case. Okay then. Let's move on.
Yeah. These things happen. Obviously, I didn't purposely misrepresent what you were saying. You mentioned "I am coming quickly" and "the time is near" together and that's what made me think you were saying that you thought Jesus said His coming is near when saying "I am coming quickly".
What does "presently coming quickly at the time the statement is given" mean? Do you agree with me that He was saying that He would come quickly once He actually came in the future from the time He said that or not? It seems from other things you said that you agreed with me about that.
How can coming quickly be a continuous action? I don't know what you're trying to say here.
There is no continuous action of Christ coming quickly. That makes no sense whatsoever. No, Him saying "I am coming quickly" means that once it was time for Him to come in the future, He would come quickly. A continuous action of coming quickly contradicts what the word quickly means. If I'm still misunderstanding you here, then it is entirely your fault because if you actually agree with me about what Jesus was saying when He said "I am coming quickly", you definitely are not making that clear. Nevermind His statement "the time is near". I am only talking about what He meant when He said "I am coming quickly". You can say that the time was near that He was going to come quickly if you want, but that's a separate argument from what I'm talking about, which relates only to what "I am coming quickly" means.
There is no difference. "Judaea" is the same "Judaea" in all three accounts. The flight is the same in all three accounts. The AoD was the armies surrounding Jerusalem, the sign to flee.
That is accurately handling the Word of Truth, not dispensatanally contorting and mutilating it.
You still haven't told us, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come"?
|
In Greek, the present tense usually represents a continuous or repeated action. For example, “I am running” is present tense. Grammatically, the phrase “I am running” refers to the continuous action of running and does not necessarily define its cessation. Context provides that information. For instance, “I am running this afternoon” specifies when the continuous action occurs (this afternoon). The context defines the limitations of the continuous action. Just to remind the continuous action is not necessarily unending. When I say I am running this afternoon, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m running forever, again context determines it.
Some actions occur almost instantly, like a balloon popping. The present tense is used in these cases as well, but it indicates the action occurring literally in the present from the author’s perspective. An instantaneous action like a balloon popping would not be expressed with present tense if it were meant for the future.
That said, if “coming quickly” is an instantaneous action, it occurs at the time of John’s perspective and does not refer to future action. “The balloon is popping”
If “coming quickly” is future relative to John’s perspective, then it is a continuous action, with a starting point and an ending point determined by context, expressed in the present tense as a futuristic present, emphasizing certainty and ongoing action. “I am running this afternoon”
So, grammatically, what we know is the “coming quickly” is not instantly like a balloon popping right when John received the revelation, because the phrase “the time is near” (not, the time is now) indicates the “coming quickly” is still future, as in the example “I am running this afternoon”.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter. In this case, it clearly does not mean that. There is no sense in which Jesus, at the time He spoke those words, was continually coming quickly. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. That contradicts the meaning of the word quickly. You can't come quickly over a continuous period of time.
If you say you are running this afternoon, you are not continuously running from the time you said that. You are talking about something you are going to do in the future. You are turning something simple into something complicated for no reason at all.
Did you really need to use so many words to say something so simple? So, you do agree with me that Jesus saying "I am coming quickly" means that He was saying He was coming in the future from the time He spoke and was saying that when He comes He will come quickly?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Several times I have pointed out to these people who deny that Luke 21:20-24a, Matthew 24:14-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are parallel accounts of the same event that Luke worded things a little differently (such as saying "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" instead of "when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place") simply because he primarily had a Gentile audience who knew nothing about any prophecy from Daniel. It would have made no sense for Luke to reference Daniel and say "let the reader understand" to Gentiles who would not know what he was talking about. I never get any response when I point this out. I think because they know I'm right about that, but can't bring themselves to admit it because they insist on making Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20) mean what they want it to mean in a futurist context.
They actually think it makes sense that Jesus said more than once during the Olivet Discourse that people in Judea would need to flee to the mountains and that it would be particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to do that. As if He said the same exact words multiple times in relation to two different events. Imagine if He said those things multiple times during the discourse and how confused the disciples would have been ("Wait, didn't you already say that?"). It's nonsense.
Last edited:
So true, bro. They need to contort and mutilate the obvious in an attempt to shoehorn it into their dispen paradigm.
Nonsense upon nonsense it certainly is.
In vs. 26, "the prince to come" isn't the important part but it is prophesying about the future a/c. The "people of the prince" are. Israel was considered too small potatoes for Rome to risk their valuable soldiers upon, so except for a handful of Roman leaders, the army of Titus (who wasn't the prince to come either). The army was made up of conscripted soldiers from the nations surrounding Israel that they had already defeated. It is the people of those nations from the eastern part of the empire that the a/c will form his ten nation confederacy in the latter days. They were untrained and in their greed to loot the temple, the fire was set. It was never Titus's intention to burn it down, but it was God. God set things in motion for 70ad and My God, at least, doesn't make abominations against himself. One has to look at the reasons for 70ad from God's pov, not Israel's. Judaea fleeing is prophesied twice for two different reasons, the latter day events will occur in Israel again, which prior to 1948 was considered impossible for the historicists of the 1800's +. One would think they would be honest w/ themselves and say Oops, we got that one wrong, instead they doubled down on their false teachings and denied the obvious. The only logical reason for their blindness was pride, imo.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL! You think trying to argue that the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD is some future Antichrist is convincing? In what way would a future Antichrist be the prince of people who died long ago? LOL! If only you knew how ridiculous your arguments are. But, you clearly don't because you continue to embarrass yourself with them repeatedly.
If the present tense verb implies immediate action it means it’s happening now, at the very moment from the authors point of view. So if the coming quickly is an “instantaneous” action, then grammatically, it’s happening when John was told it. In other words, Christ would be immediately in the sky in front of John or over Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
If the preset tense verb implies a future action, it’s not happening immediately right now, but “continuous” in the future . Continuous, as in Christ coming quickly occurs over a period of time - leaving Heaven and descending to earth etc…quickly modifes the speed of the process. Christ is coming quickly from point a to b, this action is “continuous” or in motion between two these points. The only thing I can think think to compare this to - present tense is a video (moving through time, I am running), while Aorist tense is a picture (moment in time, I ran)
The main point is that, grammatically, we can’t determine WHEN the coming occurs without surrounding context.
I am running quickly = assumed I am currently running now with no context
I am running quickly this afternoon = I’m not running now, but will be in the future.
So, Christ told John not to seal up the vision for the “time is near”. This tells the WHEN for Christ coming quickly - his coming quickly was soon.
Last edited:
Similar threads
