This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!

[Trekson]

I agree. The errors you mention in your posts are many.

That's what I said. When the daily sacrifices were taken away and the AoD was placed in the temple (Daniel 8:11-12; 11:31 & 12:11) it did not result in the destruction of either the city or the temple - and the daily sacrifices for sins mentioned in Daniel 8:11-12; 11:31 & 12:11 were only temporarily suspended.

- but Daniel 9:26-27 associates abominations with the destruction of both the city and the temple, and the complete cessation of sacrifices for sin.

Whatever it is that constituted the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is not specified in the text. However, in their rejection of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sins, daily animal sacrifices for sins continued to be made by the people upon the altar in the Jerusalem temple - and this continued for forty years until the temple was destroyed.

Like lost sheep, the people wandered in unbelief. The author to the Hebrews wrote,

"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks! Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness. There your fathers tested me and tried me, and they saw my works for forty years. Therefore, I became provoked at that generation and said, Their hearts are always wandering and they have not known my ways. As I swore in my anger, They will never enter my rest!" (Hebrews 3:7-11).

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (Hebrews 3:16-19).



So much error is here in what you say. Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 have not been fulfilled yet, and are both talking about a fulfillment that will take place in the one and only holy place ("let the reader understand") - a.k.a the New Testament temple - the one and only [naos] / sanctuary of God - of which the historical AoD of Daniel 8:11-12; 11:31 & 12:11 is the type that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15

- but Daniel 9:27 has been fulfilled by and in the Messiah.



You can see what the kind of delusion you are under which leads you to falsely assume that IF Rev.13:14-16 is referring to a temple in Jerusalem made with human hands, this also refers to the temple Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

It's the same delusion Preterists and @Spiritual Israelite and others are under - except they place that "AoD" in a Jerusalem "temple" in a different millennium to you.​

What can I say, I know that the historicist take is wrong but I can't prove it to you until they start being fulfilled on a more regular basis but billions might die before any of y'all might change your mind.

 

[Trekson]

Is is possible that the term "army" used here does not mean a military army?

According to what I just found on the net, so take it w/ a grain of salt, there were four kinds of foreign soldiers, translated in english as: numbers, allies, auxillary and laeti (which means "joy" so I don't know about that one).

 

[CTK]

According to what I just found on the net, so take it w/ a grain of salt, there were four kinds of foreign soldiers, translated in english as: numbers, allies, auxillary and laeti (which means "joy" so I don't know about that one).

Thanks for your response. For what it is worth, here is a cut / paste found within the Daniel 8:12 narrative in the commentary on Daniel:

The “Host” (army) Given to the Little Horn​

In Daniel 8:12, the term often translated “army” does not need to be confined to a military force in the traditional sense. The Hebrew word used here, tsābāʾ (צָבָא), carries a broader meaning, referring to an organized body, a host, or those arranged under authority and purpose. Throughout Scripture, this word is used not only for armies, but also for the hosts of heaven, the stars, and even those appointed to service within the tabernacle. The emphasis, therefore, is not on warfare alone, but on structure, order, and alignment under a governing power.
When viewed in this light, the “host” given over in this verse can be understood as more than soldiers—it represents those who align themselves with the little horn and participate in its work. This is not merely a force that acts outwardly in conflict, but a body that supports, advances, and carries out its influence. The language suggests organization rather than chaos, participation rather than mere conquest.
Thus, the prophecy points beyond a battlefield and into a broader reality: a structured company of individuals who, knowingly or unknowingly, become part of the system through which the little horn extends its authority. The term allows us to see that this influence is not limited to military action, but is expressed through an ordered and sustained alignment that enables its reach and impact.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The “prince” (small p) who is to come out AFTER the destruction of the city in 70 AD is the one identified in 7:24 and 25, as well as the one identified in 8:23-25.

He is the little horn that has been revealed / discussed at length in Daniel 7,8 and 11. Here in chapter 9 he is again identified as a “prince” that will come after the cross, after 70 AD, and also right after pagan Rome is slain (7:11). When pagan Rome is slain in 476 AD this little horn will rise to power and will come to rule both over civil and religious matters.

That doesn't line up. You are talking about someone who was not the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD, which is who Daniel 9:26 refers to.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i totally understand that tedious and difficult subjects may result in a need to cool the brain and reset one’s fatigue.

LOL! You're a comedian. And you bore me. It's not like I was not already getting bored with you before that one post. But, go ahead and think otherwise if you want.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OK have it your simple way then.

Yes, I will. And don't need your permission to do so.

Your simple way: Jesus answered them about the temple that they asked about:

Yep. That is obvious. End of story. Moving on to other things now instead of repeating the same things over and over....

 

[CTK]

That doesn't line up. You are talking about someone who was not the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD, which is who Daniel 9:26 refers to.

Maybe you might want to study the wording of the verse- who destroyed the city verses who is the prince that COMES AFTER that individual who destroyed the city. Good luck.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe you might want to study the wording of the verse- who destroyed the city verses who is the prince that COMES AFTER that individual who destroyed the city. Good luck.

You might want to not try to twist the verse and make it about a prince who was not actually the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Good luck. The prince was to come in the future as of the time the verse was written, not after the people destroyed the city and the sanctuary. In your view, he is not the the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary at all.

 

[covenantee]

So, you're going to believe something from an organization whose purpose is to denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ? Perhaps to those at the time because they were in Rome's army, they were understood to be Romans. Their army was large because of their use and they used the plunder of other nations to help pay for them.

"So, you're going to believe something from an organization whose purpose is to denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ?"

What a ludicrous statement.

When Titus gave credit to God for the Roman victory, did he "denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ"?

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

Remember that Titus was waaaaay smarter than you.

I've provided salient evidence from the Jewish Virtual Library.

Let's see you do the same.

"Perhaps" doesn't qualify.

 

[CTK]

You might want to not try to twist the verse and make it about a prince who was not actually the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Good luck. The prince was to come in the future as of the time the verse was written, not after the people destroyed the city and the sanctuary. In your view, he is not the the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary at all.

I think you have misunderstood the verse and have twisted things. That is alright because Daniel is such a difficult book to interpret.

Many believe it also must follow our English grammatical rules- but it was not written that way nor does it / or must it be interpreted that way.

It all must be read and studied in context with the surrounding verses. If one believes he / she must look for the nearest noun to apply then they are mistaken. Daniel has too many situations like that.

Chapter 8 is a very difficult chapter to interpret, especially verses 11-14. But regarding our discussion, the prince who is to come is the little horn who comes to full power AFTER 70 AD when the city and the temple are destroyed.

He arrives or comes to full power around 500 AD - some 400 plus years after the people (pagan Rome) destroy the city. The purpose of writing this verse this unusual and particular way is to be able to support / confirm when and where the little horn originates from … This is one of God’s ways He will reveal that the little horn is someone who comes after 70AD and from within the church He established that BEGAN during the period of “the people” (pagan Rome) and is not what most people have accepted him arriving as an end time actor (a fictitious evil actor labeled as the “anti- Christ” that arrives some 2000 years or more after the cross. There is NO literal actor identified in any Scripture (old or new). There is indeed an “anti-Christ” spirit mentioned 4 times in the NT but that is not a person but anyone that would preach a different gospel than the Messiah- thus, one who had the “spirit” of an anti-Christ one.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think you have misunderstood the verse and have twisted things. That is alright because Daniel is such a difficult book to interpret.

No, I haven't, but I will also say that it's alright that you have misunderstood the verse and twisted things since you're right that it's a difficult book to interpret. Though I don't really think that Daniel 9:24-27 is all that difficult to interpret, overall.

Many believe it also must follow our English grammatical rules- but it was not written that way nor does it / or must it be interpreted that way.

So, paraphrase the verse for me the way you understand it. Since, you know, you must believe that all of the English translators translated it poorly.

It all must be read and studied in context with the surrounding verses.

Of course. That's why I believe the prince refers to Messiah the prince. But, I'm sure you are not ready to receive that.

If one believes he / she must look for the nearest noun to apply then they are mistaken. Daniel has too many situations like that.

Please speak more clearly instead of being so vague.

Chapter 8 is a very difficult chapter to interpret, especially verses 11-14.

That passage has nothing to do with Daniel 9:26. You are trying to relate unrelated verses.

But regarding our discussion, the prince who is to come is the little horn who comes to full power AFTER 70 AD when the city and the temple are destroyed.

No, he isn't. The prince mentioned in Daniel 9:26 is the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Some say it was Titus. Some say it was Messiah the prince since His people the Jews were ultimately responsible for crucifying the Messiah which eventually led to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That's the view I hold.

He arrives or comes to full power around 500 AD - some 400 plus years after the people (pagan Rome) destroy the city. The purpose of writing this verse this unusual and particular way is to be able to support / confirm when and where the little horn originates from … This is one of God’s ways He will reveal that the little horn is someone who comes after 70AD and from within the church He established that BEGAN during the period of “the people” (pagan Rome) and is not what most people have accepted him arriving as an end time actor (a fictitious evil actor labeled as the “anti- Christ” that arrives some 2000 years or more after the cross. There is NO literal actor identified in any Scripture (old or new). There is indeed an “anti-Christ” spirit mentioned 4 times in the NT but that is not a person but anyone that would preach a different gospel than the Messiah- thus, one who had the “spirit” of an anti-Christ one.

Nah. I'm not convinced that any of that has to do with Daniel 9:26, but thanks for sharing your view, anyway.

 

[Zao is life]

Thanks for your thoughts. Please read or re-read the earlier posts -#'s 122, 123 and 134. Just for nothing tell me your understanding of what 12:11 is talking about and how you intepret the 1290 days....

The only thing the phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to in the Bible is an idol in God's temple.

You can't change the meaning scripture gives to something into something your human imagination conjures up.

IMO your argument is as ridiculous - and blasphemous - as the thought that Jesus was inhabited by an idol.

(a) "Just for nothing" "my understanding" is not mine, sucked out of a fantasy world and conjured up in my own mind like the (lack of) understanding of so many today - including yourself.

(b) The understanding Jews have had since before the time of Christ - and that the church has had since the beginning (until a generation came along in the last 150 years or so saying "it's not so"), is the only correct understanding.

1. Encyclopedias will tell you that the phrase 'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made.

2. The text of Daniel 8:11-12; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 links all three passages to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what historically occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the temple (which is what historically occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(c) 1,290 days and 1,335 days - the text of Daniel 12:11-12 links the 1,290 and 1.335 days that the verses are talking about, both to daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the temple.

In Daniel 12:11-12 you are reading about what is now a historical event still celebrated by Jews as Hanukkah. each year.

3. Josephus dates the 2,300 days (Daniel 8:13-14) from the time of the apostasy procured through Menelaus, the high priest - from the 142nd year of the Seleucid Empire, the 6th month of that year, and the 6th day of the month.

He dates the abomination of desolation being set up on the 25th day of Kislev (the 9th month of the biblical calendar) 145 SE (the 145th year of the Seleucid Empire). This matches the account in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which also places the abomination on 25 Kislev, 145 SE.

According to 1 Mac.4:52, the cleansing of the 2nd temple took place in the 148th year, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month.

4. In Daniel 12:11-12 the 1,290 day period is dated from the taking away of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus and the setting up of the image upon the altar (the abomination of desolation) - three years, 6 months and 15 days. Or three years and seven months

Antiochus IV Epiphanes died 1,335 days after his profaning the temple.

All of this took place over 200 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Any Bible interpreter who applies the abomination of desolation to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D 70 needs to explain why the abomination of desolation set up in the 2nd temple in 167 BC (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12), is NOT associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or the temple (unlike the abominations of Daniel 9:26-27).

Any Bible interpreter who applies the 1,290 days and 1,335 days to the latter days preceding the return of Christ (2,100+ years after the historical abomination of desolation in the temple), needs to explain - without engaging in guess-work and speculation and theological inventions:

(a) what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age which the 1,290 and 1,335 days are associated with; and

(b) what constitutes the temporary removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus; and

(c) why what is already an historical event needs to be repeated (rather than it being a type); and

(d) give a TRUE biblical reason why the historical abomination of desolation in the 2nd temple is not the type of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Testament Temple) mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

A TRUE biblical reason.​

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes. The key word there being "after" and not "at the end of", as some try to say in their efforts to change the text. So, not only was He cut off after the 69th week ended, but He arrived after it ended, also. Good point. For people to say He was cut off at the end of the 69th week is just a case of blatantly twisting the text.


Yes. As only He could do. It's mind boggling to see these dispensationalists trying to claim that the people of Israel can accomplish those things themselves. Such blasphemy.

ps
oh yeAH its blasphemy all right . but go to and b ehold
for its now not just the people of israel they claim can accomplish those things themselves .
GO TO and behold the well favored harlots ecumenical intefaith interreligious dialogue .
according to it ALL FALSE RELIGOINS can . NO NEED TO REPENT TO BELIEVE ON JESUS .
OH we all serving the same GOD , THEY SAY . what an anti christ lie got sold .
No worries , this sheep is in the business of exposing all harlots to include the MOTHER HARLOT .
CHRIST JESUS gets preached ON MY WATCH and all lies exposed .
And let us do ourselves a kindness , a good reminder
AND LET ALL KNOW that THE SON OF GOD IS NOT THE MINISTIR OF ANY SIN OR UNBELIEF either .
only satan would sell such a blapshemy as to have CHRIST holding onto rainbows and kissing on korans
and budda s tatues for world peace .

 

[Zao is life]

Part 1.


1. the "abomination that causes desolation

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes two centuries earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple expected to be ruined during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical or future events to Daniel’s prophecy, they often miss the deeper covenant meaning behind the phrase “the abomination that causes desolation.” Daniel 9:24–27 is not a prophecy about a building. It is a prophecy about the Messiah, the covenant, and what follows when the Messiah is rejected.

The Temple was sacred because it represented the presence of God among His people. But it was also a shadow—an earthly pattern pointing to a greater reality. If the Messiah is the true fulfillment of that reality, then the greatest desecration imaginable would not be the fall of stones, but the rejection of the One to whom those stones testified. In that light, the “abomination” reaches its deepest meaning at the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not merely a moment of sorrow; it was covenant betrayal of the highest order—the Holy One of Israel rejected and “cut off” in the very time Daniel said He would come. No military campaign, no political upheaval, and no destruction of masonry can match the spiritual gravity of that act.

This is why the desolation that follows cannot be reduced to the burning of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction was real and devastating, but it was the consequence, not the cause, of desolation. The true desolation is spiritual: the severing of communion that occurs when the Messiah is rejected—the loss of covenant nearness, the leaving of the “house” empty. Only later does that desolation become visible in history, when the city falls.

The Gospels themselves invite the reader to understand Daniel’s language through the words of Jesus. Three passages speak directly to Daniel 9:27e:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand) …” (Matthew 24:15)

“But when you see the abomination of desolation… standing

whereStanding where it ought not (let the reader understand) …” (Mark 13:14)

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Luke 21:20)

All three writers are preserving the same discourse from Jesus, yet each presents it with distinct emphasis and nuance. Luke omits the phrase “abomination of desolation” and speaks directly to the visible realities that would soon confront Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark retain the phrase and explicitly identify Daniel as the prophetic source. These differences are not contradictions. They are deliberate distinctions shaped to communicate unique messages to different audiences—and taken together, they help confirm both the timing and the identity of what Daniel foretold.

A Daniel 9:25–26 Lens: The Prince and the One “Cut Off”

Before Matthew and Mark even differ in phrasing (“holy place” versus “where it ought not”), they agree on something crucial: Jesus says this is what was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” That invitation is not incidental. It directs the reader back to the heart of Daniel 9, where the Messiah is presented in two complementary portraits that function like a hinge in the prophecy.

In Daniel 9:25, the Messiah is revealed as the Prince—the One who comes with covenant authority, restoration, and purpose. This is the Messiah in His rightful place, arriving exactly on time within the seventy-weeks framework.

Then in Daniel 9:26, the same Messiah is revealed in the shock of the Gospel: He will be “cut off, but not for Himself.” This is the Messiah in unjust suffering—rejected, condemned, sacrificed, not for His own sin, but for others.

Daniel already holds these two portraits together: the Prince who comes to restore (v.25), and the Messiah who is cut off to redeem (v.26). The Gospels do not invent this tension—they unveil its fulfillment. This is why Matthew can place the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs, while Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—and yet both remain true and converge on the same event: the cross.

The only thing the phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to in the Bible is an idol in God's temple.

You can't change the meaning scripture gives to something into something your human imagination conjures up.

IMO your argument is as ridiculous - and blasphemous - as the thought that Jesus was inhabited by an idol.

 

[Zao is life]

Yes, I will. And don't need your permission to do so.


Yep. That is obvious. End of story. Moving on to other things now instead of repeating the same things over and over....

I'm not surprised you have chosen to ignore the fact that I proved how your simple logical fallacies have changed the Olivet Discourse and in the process you have turned what it's talking about upside-down, and so you have chosen to just move on.

Not surprised at all. It's a waste of time correcting you.

 

[Trekson]

Thanks for your response. For what it is worth, here is a cut / paste found within the Daniel 8:12 narrative in the commentary on Daniel:

The “Host” (army) Given to the Little Horn​

In Daniel 8:12, the term often translated “army” does not need to be confined to a military force in the traditional sense. The Hebrew word used here, tsābāʾ (צָבָא), carries a broader meaning, referring to an organized body, a host, or those arranged under authority and purpose. Throughout Scripture, this word is used not only for armies, but also for the hosts of heaven, the stars, and even those appointed to service within the tabernacle. The emphasis, therefore, is not on warfare alone, but on structure, order, and alignment under a governing power.
When viewed in this light, the “host” given over in this verse can be understood as more than soldiers—it represents those who align themselves with the little horn and participate in its work. This is not merely a force that acts outwardly in conflict, but a body that supports, advances, and carries out its influence. The language suggests organization rather than chaos, participation rather than mere conquest.
Thus, the prophecy points beyond a battlefield and into a broader reality: a structured company of individuals who, knowingly or unknowingly, become part of the system through which the little horn extends its authority. The term allows us to see that this influence is not limited to military action, but is expressed through an ordered and sustained alignment that enables its reach and impact.

The word "army" usually means what it says, but the word "host" besides being an army, can be taken other ways as well. I believe the context would be the deciding factor.

 

[CTK]

The only thing the phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to in the Bible is an idol in God's temple.

You can't change the meaning scripture gives to something into something your human imagination conjures up.

IMO your argument is as ridiculous - and blasphemous - as the thought that Jesus was inhabited by an idol.

(a) "Just for nothing" "my understanding" is not mine, sucked out of a fantasy world and conjured up in my own mind like the (lack of) understanding of so many today - including yourself.

(b) The understanding Jews have had since before the time of Christ - and that the church has had since the beginning (until a generation came along in the last 150 years or so saying "it's not so"), is the only correct understanding.

1. Encyclopedias will tell you that the phrase 'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made.

2. The text of Daniel 8:11-12; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 links all three passages to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what historically occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the temple (which is what historically occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(c) 1,290 days and 1,335 days - the text of Daniel 12:11-12 links the 1,290 and 1.335 days that the verses are talking about, both to daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the temple.

In Daniel 12:11-12 you are reading about what is now a historical event still celebrated by Jews as Hanukkah. each year.

3. Josephus dates the 2,300 days (Daniel 8:13-14) from the time of the apostasy procured through Menelaus, the high priest - from the 142nd year of the Selecid Empire, the 6th month of that year, and the 6th day of the month.

He dates the abomination of desolation being set up on the 25th day of Kislev (the 9th month of the biblical calendar) 145 SE (the 145th year of the Seleucid Empire). This matches the account in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which also places the abomination on 25 Kislev, 145 SE.

According to 1 Mac.4:52, the cleansing of the 2nd temple took place in the 148th year, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month.

4. In Daniel 12:11-12 the 1,290 day period is dated from the taking away of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus and the setting up of the image upon the altar (the abomination of desolation) - three years, 6 months and 15 days. Or three years and seven months

Antiochus IV Epiphanes died 1,335 days after his profaning the temple.

All of this took place over 200 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Any Bible interpreter who applies the abomination of desolation to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D 70 needs to explain why the abomination of desolation set up in the 2nd temple in 167 BC (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12), is NOT associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or the temple (unlike the abominations of Daniel 9:26-27).

Any Bible interpreter who applies the 1,290 days and 1,335 days to the latter days preceding the return of Christ (2,100+ years after the historical abomination of desolation in the temple), needs to explain - without engaging in guess-work and speculation and theological inventions:

(a) what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age which the 1,290 and 1,335 days are associated with; and

(b) what constitutes the temporary removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus; and

(c) why what is already an historical event needs to be repeated (rather than it being a type); and

(d) give a TRUE biblical reason why the historical abomination of desolation in the 2nd temple is not the type of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Testament Temple) mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

A TRUE biblical reason.​

I believe we should simply move on. Best wishes.

 

[Trekson]

"So, you're going to believe something from an organization whose purpose is to denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ?"

What a ludicrous statement.

When Titus gave credit to God for the Roman victory, did he "denounce anything that could possibly lead to Christ"?

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

Remember that Titus was waaaaay smarter than you.


I've provided salient evidence from the Jewish Virtual Library.

Let's see you do the same.

"Perhaps" doesn't qualify.

So, those people from the Jewish virtual library, sat down w/ Titus for an interview? Who exactly claims Titus said that? Hopefully not traiterous Josephus. I got my info from scripture. If you disagree, take it up w/ God.

 

[covenantee]

The only thing the phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to in the Bible is an idol in God's temple.

To the Judaean Christians just prior to 70 AD, it referred to the Roman armies advancing on the holy city Jerusalem.

They recognized the sign, and fled, and saved their lives.

 

[covenantee]

So, those people from the Jewish virtual library, sat down w/ Titus for an interview? Who exactly claims Titus said that? Hopefully not traiterous Josephus. I got my info from scripture. If you disagree, take it up w/ God.

Josephus is a recognized historian.

You're not.

Do you think you know more about Jewish history than Jews know about Jewish history?

You don't.

You got your info from your imagination.