70 AD revisited

[CadyandZoe]

In Romans 9:6-8 . . . [h]ow can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here?

Paul compares Isaac and Ishmael, who are both blood relatives of Abraham. But what sets them apart? Is it their level of spirituality? Not quite. The critical difference is that God selected one while the other was not. Paul's purpose in this section is to highlight God's choice.

Next, Paul draws a comparison between Jacob and Esau, who happen to be twins and share no apparent differences. This is a strong example of God's choice, which was made even before the boys were born. If God's decision were based on their spirituality, He would have waited until after their birth to see how they would turn out. However, since God chose Jacob over Esau before their birth, we can infer that He had a specific purpose in mind for each of them.

There is no mention of spirituality in this text. The difference between Isaac and Ishmael is not just that God chose Isaac over Ishmael, but that God intended Isaac to be the child of promise. God told Abraham that his descendants would be named through Isaac, demonstrating that God's will prevails and that each child has a purpose.

And just as there was a child of promise, there will also be an Israel of promise.

Then in verse 8 Paul said "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". Again, how can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here?

I don't see a spiritual/physical distinction here because Paul doesn't mention spirituality in this particular argument. The distinction that makes a difference is God's purpose for each person. We know from other New Testament books that spirituality (the activity of the Spirit within the believer) is what marks a person as one of those whom God has chosen. That is true.

Nonetheless, It is essential to exercise caution in interpreting Paul's argument in this context. The matter being discussed pertains to a specific promise made by God to his kinsmen (as stated in verse 3), so it would be erroneous to draw a conclusion that applies to all believers. The focus of Paul's argument is on Jewish believers who are Jacob's descendants and have been selected by God to fulfill his promise to Israel.

No, it does not pertain to a future Israel. Where does Paul indicate that?

Paul has taken the time to work on how and when God will fulfill his promise to save "all of Israel." His argument is three chapters long and concludes in chapter 11 with the following two statements.

First, in support of my earlier point, Paul says,

Romans 11:
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

The "remnant" are Jewish Christians alive at the time of writing. These believers represented only a fraction of Israel. Not everyone in Israel became a Christian. Only a small fraction did. Nevertheless, as Paul argues, this was God's choice. He has a purpose for this condition. But in the future, the ungodly will be removed from Israel, leaving only Jewish believers. Only the remnant will survive as Paul says here.

Romans 11:25-27
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
"This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

The current Israel is not the Israel of promise. The Israel that existed during Paul's day was not the Israel of promise. But one day, after the "fulness of the Gentiles has come in," God will remove the ungodly from Israel, leaving a remnant of Jewish believers. In this way, all Israel will be saved.

I'll look at it another time.

I appreciate your time. Thanks

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I already did. You don't have to accept it. The "holy place" that Matthew and Mark described was described by Luke as being the city of Jerusalem. That was the "holy place" where Roman armies encircled the city.

There were 2 AoDs in Daniel, and both Matthew and Mark referred to the one in Dan 9, in which the AoD would be an army set against the temple, come to destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's what Scriptures say to me--you can fashion it any way you want.

But that is not an abomination which causes desolation though

Destroying the temple is just that (and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy.... (this was fulfilled in 70 AD)

an abomination (idol or unclean thing) Which causes desolation (makes it unclean or abominable) is an idol placed in the temple

We have an example of Antiochus Epiphanies (sp?) who slaughtered a pig in the most holy place. rendering it unclean and cause sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I already did. You don't have to accept it. The "holy place" that Matthew and Mark described was described by Luke as being the city of Jerusalem. That was the "holy place" where Roman armies encircled the city.

There were 2 AoDs in Daniel, and both Matthew and Mark referred to the one in Dan 9, in which the AoD would be an army set against the temple, come to destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's what Scriptures say to me--you can fashion it any way you want.

Can I chime in?

I believe you are making an important point here, so I want to highlight it a bit more. You spoke about "2 AoD's in Daniel" and so let's compare the two.

Daniel 9:27
"and on the wing of abominations (plural) will come one who makes desolate

Daniel 11:31
"And they will set up the abomination (singular) of desolation."

Matthew 24:15
“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

In the first instance, the passage speaks about multiple desolations, which signal the arrival of a desolating person upon reaching a limit. It's as if God allows multiple offenses to go unanswered until, for his reasons, he decides to punish those who commit them. In this instance, God brings a Roman general to Jerusalem as a means of punishment.

In the second instance, an unauthorized person sets up an abominable thing in the temple, causing the temple to be defiled (desolated).

Do you know which passage in Daniel Jesus was referring to? Based on his use of the singular form of "Abomination," it seems likely that he was referring to Daniel 11:31. However, this passage had already been fulfilled over 200 years before Jesus began his public ministry. Therefore, it seems that Jesus wanted his readers to study Daniel 11:31, draw conclusions from it, and use that information to recognize a similar event in the future.

Yes?

@EclipseEventSigns @Eternally Grateful

 

[MatthewG]

That and it could deal with an uproar - abomination of desolation because of what you suggest @CadyandZoe another thing to remember that is sometime lost, is the reality of the times then and there, when that happened there was a huge uproar most likely from with-in the civilians that seen this happening.

I could be wrong but have heard something about it, sign of the time, ???, Civil war? ? ? In house imploding.

All the best,
Matthew

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Can I chime in?

I believe you are making an important point here, so I want to highlight it a bit more. You spoke about "2 AoD's in Daniel" and so let's compare the two.

Daniel 9:27
"and on the wing of abominations (plural) will come one who makes desolate

Daniel 11:31
"And they will set up the abomination (singular) of desolation."

Matthew 24:15
“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

In the first instance, the passage speaks about multiple desolations, which signal the arrival of a desolating person upon reaching a limit. It's as if God allows multiple offenses to go unanswered until, for his reasons, he decides to punish those who commit them. In this instance, God brings a Roman general to Jerusalem as a means of punishment.

In the second instance, an unauthorized person sets up an abominable thing in the temple, causing the temple to be defiled (desolated).

Do you know which passage in Daniel Jesus was referring to? Based on his use of the singular form of "Abomination," it seems likely that he was referring to Daniel 11:31. However, this passage had already been fulfilled over 200 years before Jesus began his public ministry. Therefore, it seems that Jesus wanted his readers to study Daniel 11:31, draw conclusions from it, and use that information to recognize a similar event in the future.

Yes?

@EclipseEventSigns @Eternally Grateful

Yes,

Remember, the temple was destroyed by Babylon.. it was not called an abomination which causes desolation.. it was a destruction.

They then rebuilt the temple by the decree of Cyrus, It was this temple in which the Abomination of desolation of Daniel 11 was committed. When sacrifice and burnt offering was cut off by a Pig being sacrificed in the Holy Place (a pig was considered unclean)

Again, in 70 AD. Rome destroyed the temple. again because of sin.

As we see in daniel 9. It appears a new temple will be built. and that temple also will be defiled by an abominable thing standing in the HS. Only this time, it will be seen by the many (impossible in 70 Ad.) Which makes Jesus appear to be saying the world, or at least those in Israel. will see this event take place.. So is this a telivised event (or livestream internet?)

has to make you think.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I already did. You don't have to accept it. The "holy place" that Matthew and Mark described was described by Luke as being the city of Jerusalem. That was the "holy place" where Roman armies encircled the city.

There were 2 AoDs in Daniel, and both Matthew and Mark referred to the one in Dan 9, in which the AoD would be an army set against the temple, come to destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's what Scriptures say to me--you can fashion it any way you want.

That's not even accurate to scripture. Of course you have to twist scripture to fit into your particular notions. "That's what Scriptures say to me". Yes, and that's what important afterall - what you think it means. Not.

Again, looking to what Scripture says is the most important thing. Not what YOU think it means. There's needs to be Bible Study 101 class right now.
Daniel includes more info about the "abomination of desolation" elsewhere. No one has to guess.
[Dan 11:31 LSB] 31 "Mighty forces from him will stand, profane the sanctuary fortress, and abolish the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
[Dan 12:11 LSB] 11 "But from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, [there will be] 1,290 days.

Tied specifically to the temple. Setting up something that makes the temple (and holy of holies) unclean. So very clear if you do some basic contextual reading.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes,

Remember, the temple was destroyed by Babylon.. it was not called an abomination which causes desolation.. it was a destruction.

They then rebuilt the temple by the decree of Cyrus, It was this temple in which the Abomination of desolation of Daniel 11 was committed. When sacrifice and burnt offering was cut off by a Pig being sacrificed in the Holy Place (a pig was considered unclean)

Again, in 70 AD. Rome destroyed the temple. again because of sin.

As we see in daniel 9. It appears a new temple will be built. and that temple also will be defiled by an abominable thing standing in the HS. Only this time, it will be seen by the many (impossible in 70 Ad.) Which makes Jesus appear to be saying the world, or at least those in Israel. will see this event take place.. So is this a telivised event (or livestream internet?)

has to make you think.

Are you referencing Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, where he discusses a man who exalts himself above all forms of worship and proclaims himself to be God while standing in the temple of God? Is that similar to what you had in mind?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Are you referencing Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, where he discusses a man who exalts himself above all forms of worship and proclaims himself to be God while standing in the temple of God? Is that similar to what you had in mind?

I think this would be exactly him,


Also see rev 13: 5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to [c]continue for forty-two months. 6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
and Daniel 12: 1 “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

 

[Timtofly]

In Romans 9:6-8 Paul clearly makes a distinction between those who are physical descendants and those who are not. That's why he says "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.". How can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here? He talked about something that is true of some people, but not because they are Abraham's physical descendants. That's a strong clue that he was talking about a spiritual reality there rather than one determined by anything physical.

Then in verse 8 Paul said "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". Again, how can you not see a spiritual/physical distinction here? It's obvious. Paul was speaking here about "God's children" who are "children of the promise" and "are regarded as Abraham's offspring". And he made it clear that all of that is not because they were "children by physical descent". A very clear spiritual/physical distinction was being made there. And you still miss it. Please ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7) because right now your understanding of all this is very far from the truth.

This is not about a spiritual distinction. It is more about God's sovereignty and plan. Obviously God's plan is spiritual since God is not a physical being. Paul is saying that Abraham got in the flesh and allowed the birth of Ishmael. That was not God's sovereign plan. Isaac born from Sarah was God's sovereign plan.

Then Paul gives the example of Jacob and Esau to enforce that point. Paul was not saying that only Isaac was spiritual. God was saying the plan was through physical Isaac.

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Certainly a spiritual aspect can be applied, because obviously Abraham had a moment there, where he was not in faith, but forcing his own will over God's, and Ishmael was born. The miracle was in how Isaac was born, not that Hagar was still able to conceive. Both births were still physical. One was just more expected than the one God promised producing faith. Hebrews 11:11

"Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised."

Obviously God forgave both Sarah and Abraham for their lack of faith. God's sovereign plan still happened.

The point still remains that the physical offspring of Israel are called the children of God. It was both physical and spiritual, no distinction made until the Cross. After the Cross, Israel was no longer physical. All branches cut off, and no new natural branches were produced.

But wild branches grafted in, did not make them Israel. It made them part of the church. We are in Christ, not in Israel. We are not natural branches. Israel made up the natural branches. Paul did make the distinction between natural and wild. Paul did not make the distinction between physical and spiritual.

Wild branches don't equate to physical, neither do natural branches equate to spiritual. Being in Christ makes us spiritual. Being in Adam makes us physical.

Obedience to God's sovereign plan makes us spiritual. Obedience to Adam's dead corruptible flesh makes us physical.

After the Second Coming that distinction will be done away with. No one will remain in Adam's dead corruptible flesh which causes this distinction between the physical and spiritual. No one will remain in death, the punishment for Adam's disobedience.

The Law was to allow Israel to be spiritually in Christ at the same time as being of one ethnicity. They were born into the Law, not grafted in as outsiders. Yet they still followed after Adam's dead corruptible flesh instead of God's sovereign plan. That is why they were cut off, and no longer Israel. Even at Mt. Sinai many were cut off. The 40 years in the desert was the embodiment of branches cut off not receiving the promise God gave them. Even Moses was not able to join in that promise, because of an act of disobedience to God. But Moses was not handed over to Satan for eternal punishment. Moses was still in Christ and covered by the Atonement of the Cross.

So while Paul was talking about his generation, the application went all the way back to Abraham.

 

[Timtofly]

There is no reference to the temple or the holy of holies in Matthew 24:15. The reference is to the holy place, for which Luke 21:20 provides the identification, which was Jerusalem, known in Scripture as the holy city (Nehemiah 11:1; Matthew 4:5; 27:53).

The appearance of the Roman armies advancing on Jerusalem was the signal Jesus had given for the Judaean Christians to flee. (Matthew 24:15,16; Luke 21:20,21). During the period approaching AD 70, they fled, and survived.

If the Roman armies are your metric, then the AoD was in place before Jesus was born. They were already there as Jesus was growing up. They had already desecrated and made Jerusalem unholy. So why narrow your own metric down into a single year? Jerusalem was already desolate and not productive. Jesus already cursed Jerusalem prior to the Cross.

 

[covenantee]

If the Roman armies are your metric, then the AoD was in place before Jesus was born. They were already there as Jesus was growing up. They had already desecrated and made Jerusalem unholy. So why narrow your own metric down into a single year? Jerusalem was already desolate and not productive. Jesus already cursed Jerusalem prior to the Cross.

They're not my metric. They're Jesus' metric.

Have you told Him that He got His metric wrong?

 

[covenantee]

That's not even accurate to scripture. Of course you have to twist scripture to fit into your particular notions. "That's what Scriptures say to me". Yes, and that's what important afterall - what you think it means. Not.

Again, looking to what Scripture says is the most important thing. Not what YOU think it means. There's needs to be Bible Study 101 class right now.
Daniel includes more info about the "abomination of desolation" elsewhere. No one has to guess.
[Dan 11:31 LSB] 31 "Mighty forces from him will stand, profane the sanctuary fortress, and abolish the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
[Dan 12:11 LSB] 11 "But from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, [there will be] 1,290 days.

Tied specifically to the temple. Setting up something that makes the temple (and holy of holies) unclean. So very clear if you do some basic contextual reading.

Daniel 9 is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:
26 ...the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary...

Daniel 11 and 12 are not.

Different events.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That's not even accurate to scripture. Of course you have to twist scripture to fit into your particular notions. "That's what Scriptures say to me". Yes, and that's what important afterall - what you think it means. Not.

Again, looking to what Scripture says is the most important thing. Not what YOU think it means. There's needs to be Bible Study 101 class right now.
Daniel includes more info about the "abomination of desolation" elsewhere. No one has to guess.
[Dan 11:31 LSB] 31 "Mighty forces from him will stand, profane the sanctuary fortress, and abolish the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
[Dan 12:11 LSB] 11 "But from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, [there will be] 1,290 days.

Tied specifically to the temple. Setting up something that makes the temple (and holy of holies) unclean. So very clear if you do some basic contextual reading.

All of your rhetoric is unnecessary and not constructive. I'm giving you my opinion, brother--not telling you that I interpret things the way I see fit!

All you're doing is quoting the passages that I inferred mentions a 2nd "Abomination of Desolation." As I said, one AoD was mentioned in Dan 9.27, and the other was mentioned in Dan 11-12, and indirectly in Dan 8. The one Jesus spoke of was the 1st application to the Roman Army in Dan 9.26-27. There, as I said, we are told that "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

So Daniel was specifically linking the destruction of Jerusalem by an Army to the AoD. And Jesus confirms this in Luke 21 when he says, "20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

There is no question in my mind that this "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops" is the AoD, because in Matthew and in Mark we read, in the same place in the Discosurse Luke says this, "15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel...16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The "standing of Roman troops around the city, set to destroy the temple" equates to Dan 9.27, "And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it."

In other words, the abomination being "set up" is the equivalent of a Roman mobilization and siege, or a "standing" at the city gates. As the passage indicates, this is the Roman ruler "confirming God's covenant with Israel," which was to devote them to destruction when as a nation they are fully disobedient.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If the Roman armies are your metric, then the AoD was in place before Jesus was born. They were already there as Jesus was growing up. They had already desecrated and made Jerusalem unholy. So why narrow your own metric down into a single year? Jerusalem was already desolate and not productive. Jesus already cursed Jerusalem prior to the Cross.

Amen, Jerusalem has prety much been desolate since babylon, and continues right up till today

 

[Eternally Grateful]

All of your rhetoric is unnecessary and not constructive. I'm giving you my opinion, brother--not telling you that I interpret things the way I see fit!

All you're doing is quoting the passages that I inferred mentions a 2nd "Abomination of Desolation." As I said, one AoD was mentioned in Dan 9.27, and the other was mentioned in Dan 11-12, and indirectly in Dan 8. The one Jesus spoke of was the 1st application to the Roman Army in Dan 9.26-27. There, as I said, we are told that "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

So Daniel was specifically linking the destruction of Jerusalem by an Army to the AoD. And Jesus confirms this in Luke 21 when he says, "20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

There is no question in my mind that this "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops" is the AoD, because in Matthew and in Mark we read, in the same place in the Discosurse Luke says this, "15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel...16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The "standing of Roman troops around the city, set to destroy the temple" equates to Dan 9.27, "And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it."

In other words, the abomination being "set up" is the equivalent of a Roman mobilization and siege, or a "standing" at the city gates. As the passage indicates, this is the Roman ruler "confirming God's covenant with Israel," which was to devote them to destruction when as a nation they are fully disobedient.

A "desolation" spoken of by Luke is not the same as an Abomination of Desolation spoken of By Mathew.

they are two different events

one speaks of the time of AD 70, the other speaks of the time of the "end of the age"

 

[covenantee]

Amen, Jerusalem has prety much been desolate since babylon, and continues right up till today

You can join Timtofly telling Jesus that He got His metric wrong.

Let us know what He says.

 

[Freedm]

Reading this original post and all the following arguments (a lot of it nasty, childish and uninformed), I'm surprised no one has brought up the pink elephant jumping up and down in the centre of the room. That is, in 70 AD there was no abomination of desolation. It did not happen.

Actually, the abomination of desolation was the spirit of anarchy and murder present in the zealots who led the revolt against Rome. They had taken the temple as their headquarters for war, fought with the priests and eventually had them murdered, starved the people, and by treachery plunged Jerusalem into the greatest time of tribulation not seen since the beginning of the world, nor ever would be.

These zealots did in fact cause the sacrifices to cease in the temple, on the 17th day of Tamuz in 70 AD, as there were no more priests to perform the sacrifices, as recorded by Josephus. And this ceasing of the sacrifices, by the way, occurred exactly 1290 days after the Roman General Cestius Gallus arrived to quell the rebellion, on the 4th of Cheshvan in 66 AD. The zealots surrendered exactly 45 days after the sacrifices ceased (3rd of Elul), which makes for a total of 1335 days.

Josephus War of the Jews Book 6 chapter 2
And now Titus gave orders to his soldiers that were with him to dig up the foundations of the tower of Antonia, and make him a ready passage for his army to come up; while he himself had Josephus brought to him, (for he had been informed that on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus, [Tamuz,] (70AD) the sacrifice called "the Daily Sacrifice" had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it, and that the people were grievously troubled at it,

Both Matthew and Luke recount the same warning from Jesus, but give slightly different reasons. Matthew says the abomination in the temple is a sign to flee, but Luke says the armies surrounding the city is a sign to flee.

Matthew 24:15-17
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.

Luke 21:20-21
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;

Therefore we can know that both events happened at the same time, and that both were warnings to flee the city. Combine that with what Josephus said about the sacrifice ending, exactly 1260 days after the Roman armies arrived, it's a pretty solid case.

 

[Freedm]

A "desolation" spoken of by Luke is not the same as an Abomination of Desolation spoken of By Mathew.

they are two different events

one speaks of the time of AD 70, the other speaks of the time of the "end of the age"

70 AD was the end of the age. They're speaking of the same time.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

All of your rhetoric is unnecessary and not constructive. I'm giving you my opinion, brother--not telling you that I interpret things the way I see fit!

All you're doing is quoting the passages that I inferred mentions a 2nd "Abomination of Desolation." As I said, one AoD was mentioned in Dan 9.27, and the other was mentioned in Dan 11-12, and indirectly in Dan 8. The one Jesus spoke of was the 1st application to the Roman Army in Dan 9.26-27. There, as I said, we are told that "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

So Daniel was specifically linking the destruction of Jerusalem by an Army to the AoD. And Jesus confirms this in Luke 21 when he says, "20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

There is no question in my mind that this "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops" is the AoD, because in Matthew and in Mark we read, in the same place in the Discosurse Luke says this, "15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel...16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The "standing of Roman troops around the city, set to destroy the temple" equates to Dan 9.27, "And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it."

In other words, the abomination being "set up" is the equivalent of a Roman mobilization and siege, or a "standing" at the city gates. As the passage indicates, this is the Roman ruler "confirming God's covenant with Israel," which was to devote them to destruction when as a nation they are fully disobedient.

When you keep saying that's your opinion, and scripture states things as facts so that there is no room for opinion, it can be safely stated you are wrong. And you should be held to the truth of scripture if you are wrong. That's the truth.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You can join Timtofly telling Jesus that He got His metric wrong.

Let us know what He says.

You will have to explain yourself to Jesus one day. I would worry about that.

We are fine.. We will gladly praise Jesus for keeping his word and his promise