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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Evidence: The word BEFORE (the birth-pains) in Luke, and the words NOT YET (in relation to the birth-pains) in Matthew.

Like @Trekson regarding Daniel's seventy weeks, you have decided to just dig your heels in and ignore the evidence in the text.

The Judean Christians fleeing and the events of the 1st century would all take place BEFORE the birth-pain signs, as Jesus said, and as Luke wrote.

The Judean Christians will need to flee again immediately before Christ returns, as Jesus said, and as Matthew wrote.

What exactly do you think Judean Christians will need to flee to the mountains from before Christ returns?

 

[Zao is life]

What exactly do you think Judean Christians will need to flee to the mountains from before Christ returns?

1. Unlike you, I don't believe that on the Mount of Olives, after beginning to answer the disciples' questions with telling them about what the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience, Jesus suddenly went back to talking about what He had said on the Temple Mount about the stones of the temple of stones.

2. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then [tote" at that time] shall the end come. 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:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.

If I lived in Judea TODAY and was an Israeli Jew, being someone who believes in Jesus, I would pay attention to Jesus's words recorded by Matthew, because

- I would understand that the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15 has everything to do with what Jesus had just said in Matthew 24:9-14.

- I would understand (because of Jewish history and the festival of channuka), that if I were a 1st century Jew hearing those words, then the abomination of desolation that had been placed in the temple by Antiochus IV is what I would have understood Jesus to be referring back to - basically saying that THAT abomination of desolation was a type of something to come

- but if I lived in Judea TODAY I would see it as a type of an idol in the holy place - the New Testament Temple, because

- I would understand that the abomination of desolation that was placed in the temple by Antiochus IV did not result in its destruction (it was cleansed afterward)

- and I would understand that the New Testament Temple cannot be destroyed but it can be defiled by an idol and be associated with mass apostasy - just like in the days of Antiochus IV,

- and I would also understand that Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27 linked THOSE abomination/s to the destruction of the temple and city - a prophecy that was confirmed by Jesus on the Temple Mount before He walked towards the Mount of Olives,

On the day He gave them that answer, the apostles whom Jesus was answering would not have understood anything about the New Testament Temple

- but they would have understood it by the time - and long before the time - Hebrews 9:11-15 was written by one of them, or by their brother.

I'm not going to repeat this reply to you again or answer any more questions you may ask about it so hopefully you will just agree to disagree (not that I care what you believe about it - because I don't take you seriously, to be honest).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

1. Unlike you, I don't believe that on the Mount of Olives, after beginning to answer the disciples' questions with telling them about what the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience, Jesus suddenly went back to talking about what He had said on the Temple Mount about the stones of the temple of stones.

Yeah, whatever. Can't you ever just answer a question?

2. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then [tote" at that time] shall the end come. 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:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.

If I lived in Judea TODAY and was an Israeli Jew, being someone who believes in Jesus, I would pay attention to Jesus's words recorded by Matthew, because

- I would understand that the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15 has everything to do with what Jesus had just said in Matthew 24:9-14.

I've already addressed this and you didn't respond to what I said in response to this. Just answer the question. You need to stop wasting your time repeating yourself and just answer the question.

- I would understand (because of Jewish history and the festival of channuka), that if I were a 1st century Jew hearing those words, then the abomination of desolation that had been placed in the temple by Antiochus IV is what I would have understood Jesus to be referring back to - basically saying that THAT abomination of desolation was a type of something to come

- but if I lived in Judea TODAY I would see it as a type of an idol in the holy place - the New Testament Temple, because

- I would understand that the abomination of desolation that was placed in the temple by Antiochus IV did not result in its destruction (it was cleansed afterward)

- and I would understand that the New Testament Temple cannot be destroyed but it can be defiled by an idol and be associated with mass apostasy - just like in the days of Antiochus IV,

- and I would also understand that Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27 linked THOSE abomination/s to the destruction of the temple and city - a prophecy that was confirmed by Jesus on the Temple Mount before He walked towards the Mount of Olives,

On the day He gave them that answer, the apostles whom Jesus was answering would not have understood anything about the New Testament Temple

- but they would have understood it by the time - and long before the time - Hebrews 9:11-15 was written by one of them, or by their brother.

I'm not going to repeat this reply to you again or answer any more questions you may ask about it so hopefully you will just agree to disagree (not that I care what you believe about it - because I don't take you seriously, to be honest).

After all that, you didn't actually answer the question. So, I will try again. This time just answer the question. It shouldn't be so difficult. What exactly do you think Judean Christians will need to flee to the mountains from before Christ returns?

 

[covenantee]

Then why does God use men at all? Why didn't God give the same anointing to David than was done for Christ? It's not about what kind of anointing is greater it's about fulfilling the prophecy to the letter, not substituting for something that is close enough or seems to be better. God gives these prophecies, men don't just make them up. It's 100% exact or nothing.

So God must have blown it when He didn't anoint His Son with the same anointing as David.

You believe that God's anointing of His Son was no greater than His anointing of David.

Have you told Him?

 

[covenantee]

I don't need to explain why

And you don't need to be believed.

Why are you listening to folks who were way less informed about prophecy then we are.

They were way more informed about false prophecy than you are.

 

[Zao is life]

There is no biblical verification for what you believe and the bible doesn't say anything about what you believe Messiah accomplished via this prophecy. You are adding all that. The text has the last week separated from the other 69. That's noy my opinion, that is how it is written. So, you see a gap between the middle of the 70th week and what, the final 3 1/2 years involved w/ 70 ad? Where does it say they are connected in scripture? or did you just decide that's how it must be. I never said I was the only one that has rec'd this clarification, I added yet. If one is really searching for truth regarding this, their eyes will be opened as well. You say you are "open" but everything you say declares you are not.

The text does not imply a gap in-between the close of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week. You have read that into the text and decided that the things Daniel 9:24 listed as the things the Messiah would accomplish with 70 consecutive weeks, He would accomplish with in 69 weeks - which at some point in this thread you decided you ought to change to within 69.1 weeks (or whenever during the start of the 70th week you decided it was that Messiah was cut off).

 

[Zao is life]

Yeah, whatever. Can't you ever just answer a question?


I've already addressed this and you didn't respond to what I said in response to this. Just answer the question. You need to stop wasting your time repeating yourself and just answer the question.


After all that, you didn't actually answer the question. So, I will try again. This time just answer the question. It shouldn't be so difficult. What exactly do you think Judean Christians will need to flee to the mountains from before Christ returns?

I will try again. Not that I'm not interested what you think.

The sign Jesus gave to the Judean Christians that they need to fee Judea had nothing (and has nothing) to do with the temple of stone in Jerusalem.

As to what they would need to flee from I'm not a prophet - but Judea is in the West Bank, and only those Jews who live there understand how much security they need around them on a daily basis so that they are not slaughtered by those who despise them and regard them as invaders.

The non-Jewish Palestinian Christians - the few who are left - either despise the Jewish "occupation of Palestine (Judea and Samaria)" almost as much, or they are on the side of the state called Israel - and have by now left "Palestine" for their own safety (if they have been able to).

The place is a hot-spot - but I'm not a prophet to know what are THE THINGS that Jesus told the Christians in Judea to flee FROM when they see an idol in the New Testament Temple (nor do I know exactly how / where the prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 will be fulfilled).

You can continue to have Jesus mean something He did not mean when He gave the abomination of desolation in the holy place as the sign that they should flee - but I don't believe you, and I do not care what you think "just because I cannot answer your question" because unlike you - I do not force things INTO scripture. Nor do I ignore the meaning of words and the grammar of passages like you do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I will try again. Not that I'm not interested what you think.

I explained what the sign would be to the Judean Christians that they need to fee Judea - exactly what Jesus gave them as the sign - which had nothing to do with the temple of stone in Jerusalem.

As to what they would need to flee from I'm not a prophet

You don't have to be a prophet to know that Jesus was talking about fleeing from God's wrath, from being killed by the sword or being taken captive to other places.

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

- but Judea is in the West Bank and only those Jews who live there understand how much security they need around them on a daily basis so that they are not slaughtered by those who despise them and regard them as invaders.

The non-Jewish Palestinian Christians - the few who are left - either despise the Jewish "occupation of Palestine (Judea and Samaria)" almost as much, or they are on the side of the state called Israel - and have by now left "Palestine" for their own safety (if they have been able to).

The place is a hot-spot - but I'm not a prophet to know what it is that is going to happen that Jesus told the Christians in Judea to flee from when they see an idol in the New Testament Temple (nor do I know how exactly the prophecy will be fulfilled).

How would fleeing to the mountains provide safety to anyone in this day and age of modern technology, weapons and travel? How would people survive in the mountains these days where they would be used to modern conveniences?

You can have Jesus mean something He did not mean when He gave the abomination of desolation in the holy place as the sign - but I don't believe you, and I do not care what you think "just because I cannot answer your question" because unlike you - I do not force things INTO scripture.

LOL. You expect me to take you seriously when you can't even explain why Jesus said to flee to the mountains even though He specifically stated why that would be the case. Okay then.

 

[Zao is life]

You don't have to be a prophet to know that Jesus was talking about fleeing from God's wrath, from being killed by the sword or being taken captive to other places.

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


How would fleeing to the mountains provide safety to anyone in this day and age of modern technology, weapons and travel? How would people survive in the mountains these days where they would be used to modern conveniences?


LOL. You expect me to take you seriously when you can't even explain why Jesus said to flee to the mountains even though He specifically stated why that would be the case. Okay then.

I don't have to be a prophet to know that you are dishonest with scripture because you know perfectly well that whereas Jesus told them about the tribulation and persecution that the apostles and disciples who were alive between AD30 and 70 AD would experience BEFORE any of the end-of-the age birth-pain signs, and warned them to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem,

He told them that all this would occur BEFORE any of those birth-pain signs

- AND He said that when they see the birth-pain signs, they would know that the end "is not by and by".

Matthew recorded Jesus telling His disciples about the tribulation they would experience FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs and at the end of the age and in that context told them that THEREFORE those in Judea need to flee Judea WHEN they see an idol in the holy place.

I do not have to be a prophet to know how dishonest you are with the scriptures. Nor do I have to know what is going to happen to those who do not flee Judea when the abomination of desolation - the idol in the holy place - is seen to appear in the New Testament Temple - Paul never identified the man of sin.

Your arguments which include details of how they can hide in that Judean wilderness are ridiculous and smack of the kind of fantasies you see in the left-behind series.

 

[covenantee]

Your arguments which include details of how they can hide in that Judean wilderness are ridiculous and smack of the kind of fantasies you see in the left-behind series.

In which post does @Spiritual Israelite do that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't have to be a prophet to know that you are dishonest with scripture

LOL! All you have to offer are false accusations. Nothing more.

because you know perfectly well that whereas Jesus told them about the tribulation and persecution that the apostles and disciples who were alive between AD30 and 70 AD would experience BEFORE any of the end-of-the age birth-pain signs, and warned them to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem,

He told them that all this would occur BEFORE any of those birth-pain signs

Jesus indicated that there would be persecution before the destruction of the temple buildings, but also before His return. Unless you acknowledge and understand that within the Olivet Discourse Jesus talked both about things that would happen before and up to 70 AD and things that would happen before and up to His future return, you are going to cause the accounts to contradict each other. Luke focused on the persecution that the disciples and other believers would have to endure, so that's why He talked about that as occurring before the birth pain signs. But, Matthew focused on the persecution that believers will have to endure before Jesus comes at the end of the age which is why He talked about it as occurring after the birth pain signs.

- AND He said that when they see the birth-pain signs, they would know that the end "is not by and by".

With "the end" being the end of the age and not the end of Jerusalem, as preterists would claim. Those birth pain signs are global in scope, so it should be obvious that they would not be signs of local tribulation and the end of Jerusalem approaching, but not yet being at hand.

Matthew recorded Jesus telling His disciples about the tribulation they would experience FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs and at the end of the age and in that context told them that THEREFORE those in Judea need to flee Judea WHEN they see an idol in the holy place.

After the description of those birth pain signs in Mark 13 and Luke 21 both say "But when" or "So when". That can't be ignored. Though Matthew instead uses the word "therefore", the Greek word translated as "therefore" does not necessarily have to be used to connect a verse directly to the preceding verses. It can be used as a transitional word in relation to a separate topic. So, it can be used in the sense of Jesus saying despite everything He just said about signs related to the end of the age which could, but would not necessarily happen in their lifetimes, He was saying what they should look for in their lifetimes instead of wars and earthquakes and such is the abomination of desolation, which Luke shows is related to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. If the word "therefore" was there in the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts, you might have a stronger argument, but it is just not the case that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 must follow what is described immediately prior chronologically. Jesus was not obligated to answer the two questions He was asked in chronological order.

I do not have to be a prophet to know how dishonest you are with the scriptures.

False accusation. I am very honest with the scriptures and am as careful as I can be to not cause contradictions in scripture. You, on the other hand,...not so much.

Nor do I have to know what is going to happen to those who do not flee Judea when the abomination of desolation - the idol in the holy place - is seen to appear in the New Testament Temple - Paul never identified the man of sin.

You can't even explain why they would need to flee even though the reason is clearly given in Luke 21:23. The reasons given make no sense in a future context. But, you can't bring yourself to be honest enough to admit that. The idea of anyone needing to flee to the mountains for any reason in the future is ridiculous. And you're not honest enough to admit that fleeing to the mountains in the future would not bring anyone any kind of safety and security because of modern technology and weapons and such.

 

[Trekson]

So God must have blown it when He didn't anoint His Son with the same anointing as David.

You believe that God's anointing of His Son was no greater than His anointing of David.

Have you told Him?

He didn't blow anything. The anointing (consecration) of Christ simply wasn't the anointing prophesied. That won't come until after Armageddon.

 

[Trekson]

The text does not imply a gap in-between the close of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week. You have read that into the text and decided that the things Daniel 9:24 listed as the things the Messiah would accomplish with 70 consecutive weeks, He would accomplish with in 69 weeks - which at some point in this thread you decided you ought to change to within 69.1 weeks (or whenever during the start of the 70th week you decided it was that Messiah was cut off).

I didn't decide anything, but I know the bible says the things of Dan. 9:24 weren't for Messiah to accomplish at all, they were for Israel to do. Christ laid the foundation for this prophecy but it remains unfulfilled until after Armageddon.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL! All you have to offer are false accusations. Nothing more.


Jesus indicated that there would be persecution before the destruction of the temple buildings, but also before His return. Unless you acknowledge and understand that within the Olivet Discourse Jesus talked both about things that would happen before and up to 70 AD and things that would happen before and up to His future return, you are going to cause the accounts to contradict each other. Luke focused on the persecution that the disciples and other believers would have to endure, so that's why He talked about that as occurring before the birth pain signs. But, Matthew focused on the persecution that believers will have to endure before Jesus comes at the end of the age which is why He talked about it as occurring after the birth pain signs.


With "the end" being the end of the age and not the end of Jerusalem, as preterists would claim. Those birth pain signs are global in scope, so it should be obvious that they would not be signs of local tribulation and the end of Jerusalem approaching, but not yet being at hand.


After the description of those birth pain signs in Mark 13 and Luke 21 both say "But when" or "So when". That can't be ignored. Though Matthew instead uses the word "therefore", the Greek word translated as "therefore" does not necessarily have to be used to connect a verse directly to the preceding verses. It can be used as a transitional word in relation to a separate topic. So, it can be used in the sense of Jesus saying despite everything He just said about signs related to the end of the age which could, but would not necessarily happen in their lifetimes, He was saying what they should look for in their lifetimes instead of wars and earthquakes and such is the abomination of desolation, which Luke shows is related to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. If the word "therefore" was there in the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts, you might have a stronger argument, but it is just not the case that what is described in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 must follow what is described immediately prior chronologically. Jesus was not obligated to answer the two questions He asked in chronological order.


False accusation. I am very honest with the scriptures and am as careful as I can be to not cause contradictions in scripture. You, on the other hand,...not so much.


You can't even explain why they would need to flee even though the reason is clearly given in Luke 21:23. The reasons given make no sense in a future context. But, you can't bring yourself to be honest enough to admit that. The idea of anyone needing to flee to the mountains for any reason in the future is ridiculous. And you're not honest enough to admit that fleeing to the mountains in the future would not bring anyone any kind of safety and security because of modern technology and weapons and such.

Yourself and @Trekson should swap for a while.

Let Trekson take the abomination of desolation IN THE HOLY PLACE, and IGNORING

(a) the word "THEREFORE"; and
(b) the context of what Jesus was saying about the trubulation the living stones of the New Testament Temple will experience at the end of the age FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs,

let Trekson cut the abomination of desolation in the holy place out from its context given by Jesus, and paste it instead into a time-period nearly 1.930 years earlier - AD 70.

The you take the 70th week of Daniel, and IGNORING

(a) the word "AFTER"; and
(b) the context of what Daniel was saying about what the Messiah would accomplish within 70 weeks commencing from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,

you cut the 70th week of Daniel out from its context given by Daniel, and paste it into the final seven years of this age leading up to the return of Christ.

Both of you should feel comfortable swapping and doing that for a while, because you are both used to doing that, each with your own respective passages of scripture.

Who knows - maybe you will realize your intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty with texts of scripture, and who knows - maybe it will even cause both of you to stop cutting and pasting!!!

While you're about it, let @covenantee and all those who agree with you swap with Trekson for a while also

- because they all agree that Matthew 24:6-15 is talking about something that will take place in the same century as Luke 21:12-24 BEFORE any of the birth pain signs Jesus gave (Luke 21:12) while ignoring the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15, as well as the difference between the words "JERUSALEM" in Luke 21:20 and "IN THE HOLY PLACE" in Matthew 24:15, as well as ignoring when, in relation to the birth-pain signs, Jesus said Matthew 24:9-14 would occur.

 

[Zao is life]

In which post does @Spiritual Israelite do that?

How would fleeing to the mountains provide safety to anyone in this day and age of modern technology, weapons and travel? How would people survive in the mountains these days where they would be used to modern conveniences?

 

[jeffweeder]

He didn't blow anything. The anointing (consecration) of Christ simply wasn't the anointing prophesied. That won't come until after Armageddon.

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his first coming, so he could attain our redemption and everlasting righteousness in him.
No need for him tp be anointed again in the future.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yourself and @Trekson should swap for a while.

Let Trekson take the abomination of desolation IN THE HOLY PLACE, and IGNORING

(a) the word "THEREFORE"; and
(b) the context of what Jesus was saying about the trubulation the living stones of the New Testament Temple will experience at the end of the age FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs,

let Trekson cut the abomination of desolation in the holy place out from its context given by Jesus, and paste it instead into a time-period nearly 1.930 years earlier - AD 70.

The you take the 70th week of Daniel, and IGNORING

(a) the word "AFTER"; and
(b) the context of what Daniel was saying about what the Messiah would accomplish within 70 weeks commencing from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,

you cut the 70th week of Daniel out from its context given by Daniel, and paste it into the final seven years of this age leading up to the return of Christ.

Both of you should feel comfortable swapping and doing that for a while, because you are both used to doing that, each with your own respective passages of scripture.

Who knows - maybe you will realize your intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty with texts of scripture, and who knows - maybe it will even cause both of you to stop cutting and pasting!!!

While you're about it, let @covenantee and all those who agree with you swap with Trekson for a while also

- because they all agree that Matthew 24:6-15 is talking about something that will take place in the same century as Luke 21:12-24 BEFORE any of the birth pain signs Jesus gave (Luke 21:12) while ignoring the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15, as well as the difference between the words "JERUSALEM" in Luke 21:20 and "IN THE HOLY PLACE" in Matthew 24:15, as well as ignoring when, in relation to the birth-pain signs, Jesus said Matthew 24:9-14 would occur.

Looks like you've lost your mind. I'm not going to waste any more time on you when you clearly are just playing games at this point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't decide anything, but I know the bible says the things of Dan. 9:24 weren't for Messiah to accomplish at all, they were for Israel to do. Christ laid the foundation for this prophecy but it remains unfulfilled until after Armageddon.

If the people of Israel could make an end of sins, finish the transgression, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy and anoint the most holy themselves, then that would mean Jesus died for nothing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your arguments which include details of how they can hide in that Judean wilderness are ridiculous and smack of the kind of fantasies you see in the left-behind series.

In which post does @Spiritual Israelite do that?

How would fleeing to the mountains provide safety to anyone in this day and age of modern technology, weapons and travel? How would people survive in the mountains these days where they would be used to modern conveniences?

What I said has absolutely nothing to do with the left behind series. Looks like your reading comprehension skills are failing you yet again. You can't tell us why people in Judea would need to flee to the mountains in the future and you can't tell us how they would survive there if they do. That says it all about your understanding of Matthew 24:15-22. You just believe what you want to believe when it comes to that passage.

 

[covenantee]

Your arguments which include details of how they can hide in that Judean wilderness

Copy/paste some of those details. I/we would like to see them.