Daniel's Abomination Of Desolation In Matthew 24:15, A Future Event Unfulfilled

[David in NJ]

Local churches are not physical buildings.
We are living stones built together by God.
I did not speak of buildings.
I cor 3 does not mention buildings.

Excellent - just wanted to make sure i understood you correctly.
i fully agree

 

[Truman]

We are the ecclesia...the intangible congregation!

 

[Truth7t7]

Friend I understand and agree with this passage.
It is not either or,but both .

We disagree, it's a spiritual symbolic destruction not literal

You choose both to maintain 70AD fulfillment, as per my observation and opinion

 

[Truth7t7]

So you believe that John 2 (the death of His Body = God's Holy Temple) is the exact same meaning given in Matt 24: 1-2

Today is a new day - yesterday is gone - today we live for Christ - love

Jesus spoke of his resurrection, and his body being representative of the temple

 

[David in NJ]

We are the ecclesia...the intangible congregation!

AMEN

Jesus spoke of his resurrection, and his body being representative of the temple

Yes, absolutely true. This is crystal clear in John ch 2.
John chapter 2 and Matthew 24 are not the same events. They took place at different times in Jesus ministry.
In Matthew 24 he is clearly speaking of the buildings only - "not one stone left upon another".

 

[Naomi25]

What are you going to do with the figures below, who all represent the future (Antichrist)?

Daniel speaks of (The Little Horn) Daniel 7:8-11

Paul speaks of (The Man Of Sin) 2 Thessalonians 2:3

John's Speaks of (The Beast) Revelation 13:-5

They are not incompatible with the ref. in John's First Epistle to 'many antichrists'.

(cc @Naomi25 )

Farouk need do nothing with the figures below. The passage in John clearly, and rather obviously at that, covers both:

1 John 2:18
Warning Concerning Antichrists
[18] Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

Notice the Plural? Even if that escapes a person, then perhaps the word “many” ought enlighten them. And when we contrast it with Johns warning against a singular ‘antichrist’ who is coming (future) and the ‘many’ who have already come (present, and therefore suggesting an ongoing trend)…well, as Farouk suggest, it speaks for itself.

All represent the same future human man "Unfulfilled"

Daniel speaks of (The Little Horn) Daniel 7:8-11

Paul speaks of (The Man Of Sin) 2 Thessalonians 2:3

John's Speaks of (The Beast) Revelation 13:-5

Wow. I am utterly speechless in the face of such eisegesis. Truly. Johns passage is so simple to comprehend. It even openly gives you a future Antichrist that you want. How can a person so baldly deny what is before ones eyes?

“So NOW there ARE MANY”….

Really…? Do words even mean what they mean anymore?

 

[farouk]

Farouk need do nothing with the figures below. The passage in John clearly, and rather obviously at that, covers both:

1 John 2:18
Warning Concerning Antichrists
[18] Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

Notice the Plural? Even if that escapes a person, then perhaps the word “many” ought enlighten them. And when we contrast it with Johns warning against a singular ‘antichrist’ who is coming (future) and the ‘many’ who have already come (present, and therefore suggesting an ongoing trend)…well, as Farouk suggest, it speaks for itself.



Wow. I am utterly speechless in the face of such eisegesis. Truly. Johns passage is so simple to comprehend. It even openly gives you a future Antichrist that you want. How can a person so baldly deny what is before ones eyes?

“So NOW there ARE MANY”….

Really…? Do words even mean what they mean anymore?

@Naomi25 I guess farouk - and all of us - know perfectly well how to count our fingers...

 

[Naomi25]

I Disagree, the scripture clearly states the bad guy seen in Daniel 9:27 will be present on earth at the (Consummation) the ultimate end

A claim of dual fulfillment is silenced in this fact alone, as Antiochus Epiphanies died in 164BC

Jesus Is The Lord

….seriously…why do we not have a facepalm emoji?

By your reasoning, we can’t say that Melchizedek was a prefigurement of Christ, because he died. Or that the Exodus was a prefigurement of how Jesus leads his people out of slavery…cause that happened way back when.

The IDEA of foreshadowing events is that they DO happen before THE event. If Antiochus WAS alive at the end time, then he WOULD BE the Antichrist. He was not, therefore he is long dead.

Ultimately, prefiguring or foreshadowing events are for the purpose to highlight or glorify the ultimate event…to highlight the fullness or completion of the final one. It’s like, in a way, the build up of birth pains Christ talked about. We see these patterns, grumbling, growing, pointing to what we can expect…to a final crescendo. In the case of Christ, it’s one of glorious, salvific fulfilment. In the Antichrist’s case, it’s Satan’s last push to use his influence and the systems of the world to corrupt and kill as many as he can as the world goes down in flames.

 

[Truth7t7]

Local churches are not physical buildings.
We are living stones built together by God.
I did not speak of buildings.
I cor 3 does not mention buildings.

Hey

Farouk need do nothing with the figures below. The passage in John clearly, and rather obviously at that, covers both:

1 John 2:18
Warning Concerning Antichrists
[18] Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.

Notice the Plural? Even if that escapes a person, then perhaps the word “many” ought enlighten them. And when we contrast it with Johns warning against a singular ‘antichrist’ who is coming (future) and the ‘many’ who have already come (present, and therefore suggesting an ongoing trend)…well, as Farouk suggest, it speaks for itself.



Wow. I am utterly speechless in the face of such eisegesis. Truly. Johns passage is so simple to comprehend. It even openly gives you a future Antichrist that you want. How can a person so baldly deny what is before ones eyes?

“So NOW there ARE MANY”….

Really…? Do words even mean what they mean anymore?

My statement is very clear, the figure below is the same future evil man

Many within eschatology use the catch all phrase (The Antichrist) when speaking of the figure below

All represent the same future human man (The Antichrist) "Unfulfilled"

Daniel speaks of (The Little Horn) Daniel 7:8-11

Paul speaks of (The Man Of Sin) 2 Thessalonians 2:3

John's Speaks of (The Beast) Revelation 13:-5

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 I guess farouk - and all of us - know perfectly well how to count our fingers...

Well…apparently not ALL of us….
It is interesting, isn’t it, how people believe something so hard, that they just ignore what’s obviously clear? I mean, I do understand there being tension in some of the harder to interpret passages, because goodness, there are plenty of them…but that one? Not one of them!

 

[Truth7t7]

….seriously…why do we not have a facepalm emoji?

By your reasoning, we can’t say that Melchizedek was a prefigurement of Christ, because he died. Or that the Exodus was a prefigurement of how Jesus leads his people out of slavery…cause that happened way back when.

The IDEA of foreshadowing events is that they DO happen before THE event. If Antiochus WAS alive at the end time, then he WOULD BE the Antichrist. He was not, therefore he is long dead.

Ultimately, prefiguring or foreshadowing events are for the purpose to highlight or glorify the ultimate event…to highlight the fullness or completion of the final one. It’s like, in a way, the build up of birth pains Christ talked about. We see these patterns, grumbling, growing, pointing to what we can expect…to a final crescendo. In the case of Christ, it’s one of glorious, salvific fulfilment. In the Antichrist’s case, it’s Satan’s last push to use his influence and the systems of the world to corrupt and kill as many as he can as the world goes down in flames.

You can claim whatever you want, but Antiochus Epiphanes 164BC dosent fit the description of Daniel 9:27 for "Fulfillment" this is future

 

[Naomi25]

Hey

My statement is very clear, the figure below is the same future evil man

Many within eschatology use the catch all phrase (The Antichrist) when speaking of the figure below

All represent the same future human man (The Antichrist) "Unfulfilled"

Daniel speaks of (The Little Horn) Daniel 7:8-11

Paul speaks of (The Man Of Sin) 2 Thessalonians 2:3

John's Speaks of (The Beast) Revelation 13:-5

I’m….not sure anyone disagrees with you. But that was NOT what Farouk was saying, nor was that was John was saying…in part at least. You affectively took what Farouk and John said, pretty much didn’t even acknowledged that either had spoken, and then just pointed to something that…once again, I’m not sure we’re disagreeing with you about!

So…if you insist upon it: The Little Horn: yes, the final evil man.
The Man of Sin: yes, the final evil man.
The beast: yes, the final evil man.

NONE of that changes the fact that in 1 John 2, John both points to this final evil man AND also to MANY ‘antichrists’ that NOW ARE present. Which, as I think Farouk was attempting to point out, suggests that it is not entirely impossible for there to have been prefigurements TO this final, evil man. And quite frankly, to ignore or reject that notion means you are simply refusing to deal with the text honestly.

 

[Truth7t7]

I’m….not sure anyone disagrees with you. But that was NOT what Farouk was saying, nor was that was John was saying…in part at least. You affectively took what Farouk and John said, pretty much didn’t even acknowledged that either had spoken, and then just pointed to something that…once again, I’m not sure we’re disagreeing with you about!

So…if you insist upon it: The Little Horn: yes, the final evil man.
The Man of Sin: yes, the final evil man.
The beast: yes, the final evil man.

NONE of that changes the fact that in 1 John 2, John both points to this final evil man AND also to MANY ‘antichrists’ that NOW ARE present. Which, as I think Farouk was attempting to point out, suggests that it is not entirely impossible for there to have been prefigurements TO this final, evil man. And quite frankly, to ignore or reject that notion means you are simply refusing to deal with the text honestly.

It's a standard Preterist attempt to remove the future evil man (The Antichrist) with the general usage of (The spirit of Antichrist) seen in 1 John 2 Apples and Oranges

Thanks for the response, Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Naomi25]

This would mean Daniel saw 3 events.

Antiochus Epiphanies is the first.

Preterist see 70AD as the second.

There is still a future where Christ sets up a throne in a temple. That temple and throne are made desolate.

Daniel 9:26 shows the destruction and desolation because Jerusalem ceased to exist as inhabited for years. This 70AD event was neither Antiochus Epiphanies nor the future temple at the Second Coming.

Jesus was warning about the future one at the Second Coming. But the warning was still applied to 66AD, even though Jesus was not talking about 70AD.

The error of Preterist is claiming the OD was only about 70AD. It was only about the Second Coming.

Prophetic foreshortening means Daniel would not have had to see 3 events. Not unless you also insist that the OT prophets had to have seen (and understood) that their Messiah was coming in two separate comings.
The simple fact is that the Prophets didn’t always understand what they saw, and this is because it was often given to them in ways that were almost impossible to understand from their vantage point.

You claim that Daniel had no real prophetic meaning in the desolation of Antiochus E or 70AD…that Matt 24 was only ‘followed by chance’ as well. But like everyone else making claims, you have no biblical proof for this.

The Preterists could very well be wrong… I am not a Preterist, but I feel that rejecting the stark coincidences that aligned on both occasions makes dismissing them, at least as prefiguring events, as dangerous. How many Pharisees and Jews dismissed Jesus, do you think, saying that the fact that his life ‘matched the prophecies’ was just a coincidence, or he had manipulated them to do so? How many of them ignored those facts by pushing their coming Messiah off into the future…for a more ‘perfect fulfilment’?

I do, as it happens, believe there is good scriptural arguments to suggest there WILL be a final fulfilment…I just think it behooves us to be cautious that we do not fall into these same traps…that we consider, carefully, all historical and biblical cases, and not to dismiss things simply because we have our hearts set on something else, or our allegiance already aligned with some system.

 

[Naomi25]

You can claim whatever you want, but Antiochus Epiphanes 164BC dosent fit the description of Daniel 9:27 for "Fulfillment" this is future

Well, thank you…I always like to be able to claim whatever I like. And it’s always nice to be given permission to.

The slightly hilarious thing here is…I have not been attempting to claim that Antiochus E WAS the future fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. Which I would have thought was obvious, as Antiochus died some 3 thousand years ago, which would discount him for anything ‘future’…would it not?

Perhaps I was going too fast for you. Let’s break it down a little. 1 John 2 tells us that JUST like there WILL be a FINAL antichrist, so there have ALREADY been MANY. Even NOW there are MANY.

That leads us to believe that while there will be a big daddy at the end, there have been lots.

The second temple Jews regarded Antiochus as someone who fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy BECAUSE he DESOLATED their temple in the most hideous way.

That is not to say it was THE desolation…but they certainly regarded it that way. It is therefore LEGITIMATE to imagine that this event and man was one of the MANY. But not THE FINAL. FUTURE. MAN.

Do I still have you? I am still NOT saying AE WAS the FUTURE MAN.

And if you cannot get it, I think I wash my hands of you.

 

[Naomi25]

It's a standard Preterist attempt to remove the future evil man (The Antichrist) with the general usage of (The spirit of Antichrist) seen in 1 John 2 Apples and Oranges

Thanks for the response, Jesus Is The Lord

I’m not a Preterist.
And I didn’t say “spirit of antichrist”.
All I said, was what John said. It THAT still apples and oranges? Or does the Apostle have weight?

 

[Truth7t7]

Well, thank you…I always like to be able to claim whatever I like. And it’s always nice to be given permission to.

The slightly hilarious thing here is…I have not been attempting to claim that Antiochus E WAS the future fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. Which I would have thought was obvious, as Antiochus died some 3 thousand years ago, which would discount him for anything ‘future’…would it not?

Perhaps I was going too fast for you. Let’s break it down a little. 1 John 2 tells us that JUST like there WILL be a FINAL antichrist, so there have ALREADY been MANY. Even NOW there are MANY.

That leads us to believe that while there will be a big daddy at the end, there have been lots.

The second temple Jews regarded Antiochus as someone who fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy BECAUSE he DESOLATED their temple in the most hideous way.

That is not to say it was THE desolation…but they certainly regarded it that way. It is therefore LEGITIMATE to imagine that this event and man was one of the MANY. But not THE FINAL. FUTURE. MAN.

Do I still have you? I am still NOT saying AE WAS the FUTURE MAN.

And if you cannot get it, I think I wash my hands of you.

Thanks for your response, I now understand your intent, thanks

 

[Truth7t7]

I’m not a Preterist.
And I didn’t say “spirit of antichrist”.
All I said, was what John said. It THAT still apples and oranges? Or does the Apostle have weight?

You quoted Farouk not yourself in validation of his/her comments regarding 1 John 2

Yes (The Spirit Of Antichrist) in 1 John 2 is used by many, including Preterist to discredit a future evil man (The Antichrist) when the word (The Antichrist) is used, I never claimed you were a preterist

 

[Waiting on him]

Prophetic foreshortening means Daniel would not have had to see 3 events. Not unless you also insist that the OT prophets had to have seen (and understood) that their Messiah was coming in two separate comings.
The simple fact is that the Prophets didn’t always understand what they saw, and this is because it was often given to them in ways that were almost impossible to understand from their vantage point.

You claim that Daniel had no real prophetic meaning in the desolation of Antiochus E or 70AD…that Matt 24 was only ‘followed by chance’ as well. But like everyone else making claims, you have no biblical proof for this.

The Preterists could very well be wrong… I am not a Preterist, but I feel that rejecting the stark coincidences that aligned on both occasions makes dismissing them, at least as prefiguring events, as dangerous. How many Pharisees and Jews dismissed Jesus, do you think, saying that the fact that his life ‘matched the prophecies’ was just a coincidence, or he had manipulated them to do so? How many of them ignored those facts by pushing their coming Messiah off into the future…for a more ‘perfect fulfilment’?

I do, as it happens, believe there is good scriptural arguments to suggest there WILL be a final fulfilment…I just think it behooves us to be cautious that we do not fall into these same traps…that we consider, carefully, all historical and biblical cases, and not to dismiss things simply because we have our hearts set on something else, or our allegiance already aligned with some system.

We are the body of Christ.

 

[Waiting on him]

You quoted Farouk not yourself in validation of his/her comments regarding 1 John 2

Yes (The Spirit Of Antichrist) in 1 John 2 is used by many, including Preterist to discredit a future evil man (The Antichrist) when the word (The Antichrist) is used, I never claimed you were a preterist

You never answered my post.