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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you deny that Matthew was recording what Jesus said to all His disciples, who at the time were all or mainly Jewish?

No.

Do you deny that Luke was not an eyewitnesses and was recording what Jesus said to all His disciples, who at the time Jesus spoke, were all or mainly Jewish, after having collected information from Jesus' Jewish eyewitnesses?

No. What is the reason for this question?

Do you deny that whether Luke's record or Matthew's record, Jesus was talking to His mainly Jewish audience in what both Matthew and Luke recorded?

No. But, Luke was writing to a Gentile audience so that is why he recorded Jesus's words differently at times so that his Gentile audience could understand what Jesus was talking about. Certainly, it would have been ridiculous for Luke to write "let the reader understand" in relation to a prophecy written by the prophet Daniel while knowing they would have no familiarity with it.

Do you deny that to the Jewish mindset of Jesus' day, "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place" would have immediately been identified with Christ's audience at the time, with the abomination of desolation placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC?

Yes, I deny that. That was a past event and Jesus was talking about a future event. Since what He was talking about related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings, I think they would have immediately thought of Daniel 9:26-27 which has nothing to do with Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC.

Do you deny that Jesus Himself celebrated channukah on which the above historical occurrence it was based?

LOL. No, I'm sure He did that, but this is an irrelevant question. As usual, you are making things unnecessarily complicated.

Do you deny that in order to split Matthew 24:15-21 out from the rest of the passage in terms of what period of time its talking about, you defy the common use of English grammar and the Greek grammar that Matthew 24:9-31 is correctly translated from, which connects the entire passage into one and the same period of tribulation at the end of the age by the use of the words "and", "therefore", "for", "but" etc?

LOL. I deny that you have any idea of what you're talking about here.

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 and that Luke 21:20-24 was talking about the wrath of God that would come upon Jerusalem, and that the disciples should therefore flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem?

LOL. Yes, I deny that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 and you know that since I've said so many times.

Do you deny that tribulation can refer to the wrath of God? If so, read Romans 2:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:6 and Revelation 2:22.

Do you deny that Matthew 24:9 and verses 21-22 and verses 29-31 are talking about a period of tribulation that Jesus was saying His disciples would endure - and that the period would be shortened for the elect's sake (Matthew 24:22)?

Yes, of course I do, since Jesus will return immediately after "the tribulation of those days" that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:29, which was not the tribulation He described in verses 21-22. Since you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage, you miss that the times of the Gentiles have followed the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21 that occurred in 70 AD. The times of the Gentiles will end when Jesus returns in the future.

Quite clearly, you do deny all this.

Quite clearly, you are wrong and have no idea of what you're talking about. Quite clearly, you are denying the obvious, which is that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages and describe what happened in Judea and in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am not sure how much 'parallel' you are referring to, so I will do a quick analysis with commentary:

I am saying that Matthew 24:15-22 is parallel to Luke 21:20-24a. I don't include Luke 21:24b because I see everything being parallel except for Jews being taken captive to all nations and the times of the Gentiles that followed 70 AD.

This is referring to the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD. Note that there is no 'let him who reads understand' message. The word 'see' therefore in this case is to see physically with the eyes. There is no 'abomination' mentioned. Some folks conflate this with the Abomination of Desolation event. They are not the same.

Yes, they are the same. You definitely have an inappropriate username. Please change it to a username that more accurately describes you like Eisegesis.

Luke spelled it out because he was writing to a Gentile audience. It would not have made any sense for him to write "let the reader understand" the prophecy from Daniel to Gentiles who would have been unfamiliar with Daniel's prophecies.

Look at the obvious similarities between these passages.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:15 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: ) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You really expect me to believe that Jesus said the things recorded above separately within the Olivet Discourse? Which would mean He said "When ye shall see" something in relation to the desolation of Jerusalem, "then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains" two different times during His discourse? And would mean He said something related to them not trying to leave Judea or enter into it two different times? And would mean He said "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" two different times? And would mean He said "there shall be great distress" or "there shall be great tribulation" two different times in relation to distress and tribulation that would occur in Judea? That's not even reasonable to think He did that. Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He said such similar things twice during the discourse. Surely, they would have asked "Wait, didn't you already say that?" if He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 separately from saying what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-21. I can't even take that theory seriously at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's Bible 101 stuff:

View attachment 65447

How does seeing the two witnesses as the law and the prophets line up with the two witnesses being described as two candlesticks (lampstands) and two olive trees (Revelation 11:4)?

In the book of Revelation, candlesticks (lampstands) represent churches (Revelation 1:20). In Romans 11, it talks about branches of a wild olive tree (Gentile believers) being grafted into the cultivated olive tree that had some natural branches cut off (Israelite unbelievers) while other natural branches remained (Israelite believers). So, I believe the two witnesse represent the church with Jew and Gentile believers witnessing together as one body.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. Turns out his eisegesis regarding Matthew 24:15-21 is the same as yours and @Spiritual Israelite's (and others).

That means it's exegesis then. In contrast to your eisegesis. Except for him saying that the abomination of desolation was Christ's crucifixion, that is. I disagree with that. That can't be the case since Jesus was saying that people in Judea would need to flee into the mountains after seeing the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place and, obviously, no one in Judea fled to the mountains after Jesus was crucified.