THE Holy Place.

[Randy Kluth]

I was discussing this subject on another forum, asking the question: Can one absolutely determine the meaning of the words "the holy place" by its predominant use in both the OT and NT Scriptures? After all, it is very common to try to impose one application of a biblical word in other places and in other contexts, which I believe involves an Interpretive Fallacy. Words derive their meanings from *context,* and not from use of a particular "biblical" word in a different context.

So we have the words "the holy place" used exclusively as a proper noun in the OT Scriptures, where the temple figures predominantly. "The Holy Place" is a Proper Noun applying to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place."

But "holy place," without the "the," is not always used as a Proper Noun in the OT Scriptures. It can refer to "a" holy place, and without the "the" designation does not refer to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." It can refer, for example, to the city of Jerusalem, made holy by the presence of the temple within it.

But what about Jesus' use of the term "the holy place" in the Olivet Discourse? Though this involves NT Scriptures, Jesus is still speaking in the OT era, where "the holy place" almost always refers to the Holy Place of the temple.

But in this case I believe Jesus shows that "the holy place" does not always have to be used, in the OT era, to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." Jesus speaks of a time, in the NT era, when the temple will no longer be recognized as "the Holy Place."

As such, Jesus applies "the holy place" in the more generalized OT fashion to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located and used to be identified as "the Holy Place." Jerusalem became, for Jesus, "the holy place" not as a sacred place any longer, but only as the place identified as such from OT times. In fact, Jesus indicated the temple would be destroyed, and no longer indicated to be a "holy place."

John 4.21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."

The OT use of the term "the Holy Place" as a Proper Noun may have been what threw off Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who began to interpret 70 Weeks Prophecy and the Olivet Discourse as something not yet fulfilled in 70 AD. Since the Holy Place of the temple was not violated in 70 AD, but rather, destroyed, they may have thought this has a future application to Antichrist, who will "set himself in the temple of God?"

That is, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, may have thought the violation of the temple in Dan 9.27 and in the Olivet Discourse had to apply in its ordinary OT application, to the temple itself, and not to the Roman Army? And this would follow from a false use of the term "the holy place," as if it has to have application as a Proper Noun, and not in the more generalized use.

I should think, though, that the Proper Noun use of the term "the holy place" did not have to be used as such, particularly when applying to the NT era, when the Holy Place was no longer considered sacred. Instead, Jerusalem would be considered sacred, while Jesus was still speaking in the OT era, as the place where the temple at that time was still sacred and was located there.

In the same way, the word "abomination" had a more technical application to violations of the Law of Moses when the Old Covenant was in play. But the word itself did not have to be applied in the light of the Law. It was just the typical way the word was used as the Bible often referred to violations of the Law.

But when Jesus used the term "Abomination of Desolation" he was speaking of a NT application, when the Law would no longer be in effect. Nevertheless, Jesus, still speaking in the Old Covenant era, may have used the traditional sense of "committing sacrilege against the Law" to apply to the pagan Romans, who in 66-70 AD violated what had been traditional holy territory to destroy it. During the time Jesus spoke, when still under the Law, the pagan Romans were clearly identified as an "abomination," violating what had been, in Jesus' time, the Holy Place.

So in the NT application, when the Law was no longer in play, the Romans were the "abomination of desolation" because they violated the city of Jerusalem, which had been the OT site of the sacred temple. The fact the temple was no longer considered sacred in the NT era had no bearing on use of the words.

The temple was no longer sacred, but the language used would still identify it as the place that had been sacred. Jesus was speaking while still in the OT era, and identified these items using OT language of the temple. But the application was NT and no longer required application to the temple as a sacred object, nor to the Law, as still applicable.

In my view, all these words applied, in context, to the Roman incursion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They obtained their definitions from an OT context, but applied in the NT sense.

This is complicated, and is the product of a long period of debate on the subject. This is only for the "initiated." ;)

 

[David in NJ]

I was discussing this subject on another forum, asking the question: Can one absolutely determine the meaning of the words "the holy place" by its predominant use in both the OT and NT Scriptures? After all, it is very common to try to impose one application of a biblical word in other places and in other contexts, which I believe involves an Interpretive Fallacy. Words derive their meanings from *context,* and not from use of a particular "biblical" word in a different context.

So we have the words "the holy place" used exclusively as a proper noun in the OT Scriptures, where the temple figures predominantly. "The Holy Place" is a Proper Noun applying to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place."

But "holy place," without the "the," is not always used as a Proper Noun in the OT Scriptures. It can refer to "a" holy place, and without the "the" designation does not refer to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." It can refer, for example, to the city of Jerusalem, made holy by the presence of the temple within it.

But what about Jesus' use of the term "the holy place" in the Olivet Discourse? Though this involves NT Scriptures, Jesus is still speaking in the OT era, where "the holy place" almost always refers to the Holy Place of the temple.

But in this case I believe Jesus shows that "the holy place" does not always have to be used, in the OT era, to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." Jesus speaks of a time, in the NT era, when the temple will no longer be recognized as "the Holy Place."

As such, Jesus applies "the holy place" in the more generalized OT fashion to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located and used to be identified as "the Holy Place." Jerusalem became, for Jesus, "the holy place" not as a sacred place any longer, but only as the place identified as such from OT times. In fact, Jesus indicated the temple would be destroyed, and no longer indicated to be a "holy place."

John 4.21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."

The OT use of the term "the Holy Place" as a Proper Noun may have been what threw off Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who began to interpret 70 Weeks Prophecy and the Olivet Discourse as something not yet fulfilled in 70 AD. Since the Holy Place of the temple was not violated in 70 AD, but rather, destroyed, they may have thought this has a future application to Antichrist, who will "set himself in the temple of God?"

That is, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, may have thought the violation of the temple in Dan 9.27 and in the Olivet Discourse had to apply in its ordinary OT application, to the temple itself, and not to the Roman Army? And this would follow from a false use of the term "the holy place," as if it has to have application as a Proper Noun, and not in the more generalized use.

I should think, though, that the Proper Noun use of the term "the holy place" did not have to be used as such, particularly when applying to the NT era, when the Holy Place was no longer considered sacred. Instead, Jerusalem would be considered sacred, while Jesus was still speaking in the OT era, as the place where the temple at that time was still sacred and was located there.

In the same way, the word "abomination" had a more technical application to violations of the Law of Moses when the Old Covenant was in play. But the word itself did not have to be applied in the light of the Law. It was just the typical way the word was used as the Bible often referred to violations of the Law.

But when Jesus used the term "Abomination of Desolation" he was speaking of a NT application, when the Law would no longer be in effect. Nevertheless, Jesus, still speaking in the Old Covenant era, may have used the traditional sense of "committing sacrilege against the Law" to apply to the pagan Romans, who in 66-70 AD violated what had been traditional holy territory to destroy it. During the time Jesus spoke, when still under the Law, the pagan Romans were clearly identified as an "abomination," violating what had been, in Jesus' time, the Holy Place.

So in the NT application, when the Law was no longer in play, the Romans were the "abomination of desolation" because they violated the city of Jerusalem, which had been the OT site of the sacred temple. The fact the temple was no longer considered sacred in the NT era had no bearing on use of the words.

The temple was no longer sacred, but the language used would still identify it as the place that had been sacred. Jesus was speaking while still in the OT era, and identified these items using OT language of the temple. But the application was NT and no longer required application to the temple as a sacred object, nor to the Law, as still applicable.

In my view, all these words applied, in context, to the Roman incursion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They obtained their definitions from an OT context, but applied in the NT sense.

This is complicated, and is the product of a long period of debate on the subject. This is only for the "initiated." ;)

The Holy Place refers to the OT Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was located behind the veil.

Perhaps a third temple will be built in Jerusalem and fulfill the AOD.

However, in the NT Era, God established the Human Spirit as the Holy Place for His Presence to be made known.

Thus we have the Confirmation and Verdict = 1 Corinthians 3:16

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."

Which leads us to the "unforgiveable sin" = the soon coming Mark of the Beast

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Holy Place refers to the OT Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was located behind the veil.

Perhaps a third temple will be built in Jerusalem and fulfill the AOD.

However, in the NT Era, God established the Human Spirit as the Holy Place for His Presence to be made known.

Thus we have the Confirmation and Verdict = 1 Corinthians 3:16

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are."

Which leads us to the "unforgiveable sin" = the soon coming Mark of the Beast

I just made an argument that "the holy place" has a disputed application to the Holy Place of the temple. So that's what I was disputing, that the holy place has to refer to the Temple Holy Place. I don't believe that's true.

I know it is complicated, but in a nutshell, I would say that logically, "the holy place" does not *have to* apply to the room in the Temple called the "Holy Place." I would argue that "the holy place" does not have to refer to the Holy Place of the Temple simply because the term does not have to be used as a Proper Noun. Nor is "the holy place" only identified as the Temple under the OT era.

The "holy place" is just a term that nearly always was used in the OT era for the Temple, but is not always used in the OT era in that way. I was arguing that Jesus used the term while he was still under the Law, but applied his prophecy of the Temple's destruction to a time when the Temple was no longer holy.

The "holy place" then was just a place identified as once being holy, but now a place where what was once considered holy would cease to exist. So "the holy place" meant, for Jesus, the environs of Jerusalem, where the temple would be destroyed.

The Roman Army stood around Jerusalem, prepared to destroy the temple. That was the Abomination of Desolation "standing in the holy place," ie around the city of Jerusalem. They were arrayed like eagles around their prey, or meal.

But yes, the Church is the eternal temple of God, because we are eternally covered by the redemption that was provided by God's temple in heaven. We belong to Him, and are thus citizens of His home and representatives of His dwelling. He has actually come to live in us, to guarantee our place with Him forever.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The holy place in Mathew 24:15 is not the Holy of Holies but simply the entire area surrounding temple.
According to Strong's...

1) place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space
a) an inhabited place, as a city, village, district
a place (passage) in a book
2) metaph.
a) the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly
opportunity, power, occasion for acting

Acts 6:13, Acts 21:28, and Mt. 24:15 uses two words for holy place (hagios and topos). Read those passages carefully and notice the context and you'll see clearly that those two words indicate 'the entire temple area'.

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all [men] every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

The temple AREA is what's mentioned in all of the verses above. Not the inner court.

The only two places the Holy of Holies "one word" is used in the NT is Hebrews 9:25 and 9:12. It's clear that when one word is used for Holy place "hagion," it means the Holy of Holies.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Hebrews 9:10-12 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Bingo! Dear Wrecked, you don't know how long I argued this point with a so-called "language expert" on another Christian forum. He/she (she wouldn't say which) argued forever without ever acknowledging my points. And they are quite complicated--I'm not saying that she had bad arguments--just that she refused to acknowledge mine.

She rightly pointed out that *every* use of the word "the holy place," with the article "the," referred in the OT Scriptures to the Holy Place of the Temple. In other words, every application of the term "the holy place" was used as a Proper Noun.

But my argument is quite legitimate, though she failed to acknowledge it, that the term "the holy place" did not *have* to be used as a Proper Noun. Indeed, many terms used as Proper Nouns do not *have* to be used as such. And so, "the holy place" could refer to the city of Jerusalem, or it could be used, as a Proper Noun, for the Holy Place of the Temple.

What she was right about was the fact that *every* use of "the holy place" referred to the Holy Place of the Temple in the OT Scriptures. And that was because the term was primarily used in connection with the Temple, since the OT Scriptures largely concerned the Law of Moses and temple law. The term was used 100% as such because that was how it was used--not that it *had* to be used as such.

However, my point was based on several facts.
1) "Holy place," without the article "the," is used in the OT Scriptures for things outside of the Temple. The city of Jerusalem, for example, could be identified as a "holy place." THE holy place is, however, focused on the Temple while the Law was the primary OT perspective.

2) Jesus did use the term "the holy place" with the article "the" in connection with the city of Jerusalem in his Olivet Discourse. This was NT Scriptures, but spoken while still under the Law, when "the holy place" predominantly applied to the Temple. Jesus clearly made an exception for the application of "the holy place" in order to apply it to Jerusalem.

Luke 21 clearly identifies what the other Gospel authors indicated was the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place. Jesus there indicates that it was a pagan Roman Army standing around the city of Jerusalem. And so, Jesus, still under the OT, identified the AoD as the city of Jerusalem--not the Holy Place of the Temple!

My theory is that the few Church Fathers who viewed the 70 Week Prophecy and the Olivet Discourse as future, applying to Antichrist, did so out of the failure to see "the holy place" as applicable to Jerusalem. They thought, understandably, that "the holy place" applied to the Temple.

As such, the Roman siege, they thought, could not have fulfilled the prophecy of committing sacrilege in the Holy Place of the Temple. The Romans did not commit sacrilege in the Temple--they destroyed it!

They believed "the holy place" referred to the Temple where "Antichrist will take his seat" (2 Thes 2) and "stand in the holy place of the Temple. God bless anybody who is persistent enough to understand all this!

Thanks much!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't know about the OT usage but you are right. People need to understand that in both Greek and Hebrew the use of the article - or no article - helps us determine what's right. ESPECIALLY when the article is used with words like ALL, EARTH, WORLD. etc.

I don't know where you stand on things and you'll likely disagree with this but here goes...

Among the verses the 'prophecy experts' use to support the rebuilding of another temple in East Jerusalem is Mathew 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."

They also use Daniel 9 and 2 Thes. 2:4.

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

I find 2 Thes. 2 both fascinating and puzzling.

The word temple in 2 Thes. 2 is 'naos' and that word is the one used to imply a heathen temple.
1) used of the temple at Jerusalem,
2) any heathen temple or shrine

That word is also used in the book of Acts to describe the temple that the idol stood in.

Keep in mind that on the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem now stands an Islamic complex which "sits upon" Herod's and Solomon's Temple. This is God's only personally claimed piece of real estate on earth.

The word God is theos and its primary meaning of that word is of any god or goddess. It is also used to describe the one true God.

The article "THE" is missing in the KJV when I looked at 2Thes. 2:4 in the Interlinear the article 'the' IS in it. (as well as other bible translations)

KJV
"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of (THE) God, shewing himself that he is God."

The TR also shows the word god capitalized twice - and twice NOT capitalized.

Considering the following...

The word "TEMPLE" is "any heathen shrine or temple.
The word THE is NOT in the KJV but IS in the interlinear.
The interlinear capitalized the word God twice and twice it didn't.
My conclusion is that this is how the verse should be presented....

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called god, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the heathen temple of the god (Allah), shewing himself that he is God.

Other than the Millennial Temple no other temple needs to be rebuilt for this prophecy to pass.

Yea, we probably disagree on this, but it is possible that Antichrist will take his seat in *the* heathen temple in Old Jerusalem, as you say. I've been there, and could've gone in, but chose not to, referring to the Dome of the Rock. I went to Jerusalem in '76 by myself, and spent an entire week there following tours around. ;) I stayed in an Arab youth hostel.

I don't hate either Arabs or Moslems though. My wife's brother married a Moslem woman and had Moslem children. But I do think Islam is an AntiChristian religion, and Antichrist could very well proclaim himself "God" in a Muslim temple.

But I don't think Paul had that in mind when he wrote that Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God. At that time, the only temple in Paul's mind was the Jewish temple, which still stood.

Since Paul knew that the temple had lost its sacred character I imagine the only temple Antichrist could take his seat in would be, like you say, in a heathen temple. I just don't know that Paul had in mind a heathen temple, since no prophecy seems to indicate that? The only prophecy of Antichrist I know of is in Dan 7, and no temple is mentioned there!

But look at this....
Dan 7.9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

Notice that the revelation depicts God as *taking His seat* among thrones where judgment was decided, ultimately condemning the Antichrist in favor of the Son of Man coming from heaven to establish His Kingdom on earth. This is where I believe that Paul got his language of Antichrist "taking his seat" in the temple, to counter God taking the seat of Deity.

In claiming to be God, Antichrist does this....

Dan 7.25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

Antichrist is pitting himself not only against the Deity of God, and against His Kingdom, but also he "speaks against the Most High and oppresses His holy people, trying to change the set times and the laws." For Paul, this is Antichrist claiming to be God and "taking his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself God."

In other words, by opposing God and His laws, Antichrist is taking his seat in God's temple, which by Paul's time was no longer God's temple. Rather, God's temple is in heaven, being supplanted on earth by Antichristianity. As Antichrist tries to change God's laws, he is actually supplanting the temple of God on earth, which is no longer physical, but spiritual.

I suppose Antichrist may try to oppose God's laws and defile God's temple by taking his seat in a Muslim temple....
But I don't know!! ;) I just don't think the Bible indicates that that was specifically what Paul had in mind?

 

[Timtofly]

I just made an argument that "the holy place" has a disputed application to the Holy Place of the temple. So that's what I was disputing, that the holy place has to refer to the Temple Holy Place. I don't believe that's true.

I know it is complicated, but in a nutshell, I would say that logically, "the holy place" does not *have to* apply to the room in the Temple called the "Holy Place." I would argue that "the holy place" does not have to refer to the Holy Place of the Temple simply because the term does not have to be used as a Proper Noun. Nor is "the holy place" only identified as the Temple under the OT era.

The "holy place" is just a term that nearly always was used in the OT era for the Temple, but is not always used in the OT era in that way. I was arguing that Jesus used the term while he was still under the Law, but applied his prophecy of the Temple's destruction to a time when the Temple was no longer holy.

The "holy place" then was just a place identified as once being holy, but now a place where what was once considered holy would cease to exist. So "the holy place" meant, for Jesus, the environs of Jerusalem, where the temple would be destroyed.

The Roman Army stood around Jerusalem, prepared to destroy the temple. That was the Abomination of Desolation "standing in the holy place," ie around the city of Jerusalem. They were arrayed like eagles around their prey, or meal.

But yes, the Church is the eternal temple of God, because we are eternally covered by the redemption that was provided by God's temple in heaven. We belong to Him, and are thus citizens of His home and representatives of His dwelling. He has actually come to live in us, to guarantee our place with Him forever.

Jerusalem was not a holy place ever, especially not after the Cross.

Besides if you read Josephus, the Chief Priest already discussed the issue with Pilate when he came to Palestine. He already desecrated their "holy place" with his ensigns and troops. Then he gave into their demands to not have a revolt at that point.

No one is pointing out that Jerusalem and the Temple had already been desecrated, before Jesus had completed His earthly ministry. Nothing changed about that point, so that can not be a 70AD concern, or Josephus would have stated it.

Josephus clearly pointed out that even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews themselves had desecrated their own city and Tenple. So the Roman armies were already a day late and never even got to do the job that Jesus' own people already accomplished.

The city under seige for 5+ months was enough. The rebellious Jews did the rest.

 

[David in NJ]

Yea, we probably disagree on this, but it is possible that Antichrist will take his seat in *the* heathen temple in Old Jerusalem, as you say. I've been there, and could've gone in, but chose not to, referring to the Dome of the Rock. I went to Jerusalem in '76 by myself, and spent an entire week there following tours around. ;) I stayed in an Arab youth hostel.

I don't hate either Arabs or Moslems though. My wife's brother married a Moslem woman and had Moslem children. But I do think Islam is an AntiChristian religion, and Antichrist could very well proclaim himself "God" in a Muslim temple.

But I don't think Paul had that in mind when he wrote that Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God. At that time, the only temple in Paul's mind was the Jewish temple, which still stood.

Since Paul knew that the temple had lost its sacred character I imagine the only temple Antichrist could take his seat in would be, like you say, in a heathen temple. I just don't know that Paul had in mind a heathen temple, since no prophecy seems to indicate that? The only prophecy of Antichrist I know of is in Dan 7, and no temple is mentioned there!

But look at this....
Dan 7.9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

Notice that the revelation depicts God as *taking His seat* among thrones where judgment was decided, ultimately condemning the Antichrist in favor of the Son of Man coming from heaven to establish His Kingdom on earth. This is where I believe that Paul got his language of Antichrist "taking his seat" in the temple, to counter God taking the seat of Deity.

In claiming to be God, Antichrist does this....

Dan 7.25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

Antichrist is pitting himself not only against the Deity of God, and against His Kingdom, but also he "speaks against the Most High and oppresses His holy people, trying to change the set times and the laws." For Paul, this is Antichrist claiming to be God and "taking his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself God."

In other words, by opposing God and His laws, Antichrist is taking his seat in God's temple, which by Paul's time was no longer God's temple. Rather, God's temple is in heaven, being supplanted on earth by Antichristianity. As Antichrist tries to change God's laws, he is actually supplanting the temple of God on earth, which is no longer physical, but spiritual.

I suppose Antichrist may try to oppose God's laws and defile God's temple by taking his seat in a Muslim temple....
But I don't know!! ;) I just don't think the Bible indicates that that was specifically what Paul had in mind?

the Antichrist will take his seat in humans when they receive his Mark = the unforgivable sin

MOB Technology implanted/tattooed/DNA Altering is the link to satan that is the permanent sin of balspheming the Holy Spirit.

This will coincide with a temple in Jerusalem to finalize the Jews rebellion against God.

This will conclude with Zechariah ch14 and Matthew 23:37-39

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jerusalem was not a holy place ever, especially not after the Cross.

That's just silly. The OT Scriptures refer to Jerusalem as a holy city. That is a "holy place." There are other Scriptures that indicate this.

Psalm 46.4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells.

Besides if you read Josephus, the Chief Priest already discussed the issue with Pilate when he came to Palestine. He already desecrated their "holy place" with his ensigns and troops. Then he gave into their demands to not have a revolt at that point.

No one is pointing out that Jerusalem and the Temple had already been desecrated, before Jesus had completed His earthly ministry. Nothing changed about that point, so that can not be a 70AD concern, or Josephus would have stated it.

Josephus clearly pointed out that even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews themselves had desecrated their own city and Tenple. So the Roman armies were already a day late and never even got to do the job that Jesus' own people already accomplished.

The city under seige for 5+ months was enough. The rebellious Jews did the rest.

Josephus may not have been here trying to identify the AoD. The point was that the Romans, in desecrating Jerusalem with their idolatrous presence, became an "abomination." So when the Roman Army arrived at Jerusalem to desolate it, they could be identified as the "Abomination of Desolation."

 

[Randy Kluth]

the Antichrist will take his seat in humans when they receive his Mark = the unforgivable sin

MOB Technology implanted/tattooed/DNA Altering is the link to satan that is the permanent sin of balspheming the Holy Spirit.

This will coincide with a temple in Jerusalem to finalize the Jews rebellion against God.

This will conclude with Zechariah ch14 and Matthew 23:37-39

I guess we'll see? Certainly some of this is explicitly biblical. The part about the temple is somewhat ambiguous to me.

 

[David in NJ]

I guess we'll see? Certainly some of this is explicitly biblical. The part about the temple is somewhat ambiguous to me.

Something to ponder:

God sent to the Jewish People their Messiah, whom they rejected, and thus sealed their eternal fate(same for Gentiles).

God will give the Jewish People over to the 'messiah' which they cried out for "give us Barabas" = a murderer (same for Gentiles).

God continues to SAVE both Jew and Gentile and Place them in the ARK, which is CHRIST.

Soon to be fulfilled Zechariah ch14 & 2 Thessalonians ch2 where God draws the nations against Jerusalem and their messiah.

When all their hope is gone......Matt 23:39 = you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

 

[Timtofly]

That's just silly. The OT Scriptures refer to Jerusalem as a holy city. That is a "holy place." There are other Scriptures that indicate this.

Psalm 46.4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells.

Josephus may not have been here trying to identify the AoD. The point was that the Romans, in desecrating Jerusalem with their idolatrous presence, became an "abomination." So when the Roman Army arrived at Jerusalem to desolate it, they could be identified as the "Abomination of Desolation."

Josephus knew more about his people and the history of the 500 years prior to the time of Christ than we even can today. I am questioning the point you don't agree with Josephus, but are claiming to understand the first century, better than he did.

Who says the Romans came to make Jerusalem desolate? They came to stop the revolt of the Jews against the empire. Then there was civil unrest in the Empire itself when 4 different emperors happened in the span of a year. Jesus just knew that His own people would make things even worse. There was no Abomination of Desolation necessary in the first century.

Satan himself will be responsible for the Abomination of Desolation. How can you place Satan in any part of 70AD? Even Paul equated these events as happening at the Second Coming, not an historical event in the first century.

Why would Psalms 46 be about earthly Jerusalem? It could have been referring to that heavenly city.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Josephus knew more about his people and the history of the 500 years prior to the time of Christ than we even can today. I am questioning the point you don't agree with Josephus, but are claiming to understand the first century, better than he did.

This is a diversion but simple to answer. Josephus was much smarter than me and closer, in history, to the events he talked about. So he would know better.

But I know more about Christianity than he did because he was not a Christian. So who do you think is more qualified to interpret Jesus' Olivet Discourse--Josephus or me? That answer would be "me."

Who says the Romans came to make Jerusalem desolate? They came to stop the revolt of the Jews against the empire. Then there was civil unrest in the Empire itself when 4 different emperors happened in the span of a year. Jesus just knew that His own people would make things even worse. There was no Abomination of Desolation necessary in the first century.

I haven't once questioned that there was a Jewish rebellion, and that Roman armies were sent to suppress it. Of course they were!

But to answer your question, Jesus said the Romans came to make Jerusalem desolate. That is plain particularly in the Luke 21 account. He said armies would surround Jerusalem. And the Gospels agree that it would take place in the generation of Jesus' Disciples.

Satan himself will be responsible for the Abomination of Desolation. How can you place Satan in any part of 70AD? Even Paul equated these events as happening at the Second Coming, not an historical event in the first century.

Paul did not identify the Abomination of Desolation as being endtime. Nor are we told anything about Satan in this regard, though indeed I'm sure he was involved in the pagan Roman mobilization in 70 AD.

Why would Psalms 46 be about earthly Jerusalem? It could have been referring to that heavenly city.

Psalms 46 is very plainly and explicitly about earthly Jerusalem. The context requires it.

 

[Timtofly]

This is a diversion but simple to answer. Josephus was much smarter than me and closer, in history, to the events he talked about. So he would know better.

But I know more about Christianity than he did because he was not a Christian. So who do you think is more qualified to interpret Jesus' Olivet Discourse--Josephus or me? That answer would be "me."

I haven't once questioned that there was a Jewish rebellion, and that Roman armies were sent to suppress it. Of course they were!

But to answer your question, Jesus said the Romans came to make Jerusalem desolate. That is plain particularly in the Luke 21 account. He said armies would surround Jerusalem. And the Gospels agree that it would take place in the generation of Jesus' Disciples.

Paul did not identify the Abomination of Desolation as being endtime. Nor are we told anything about Satan in this regard, though indeed I'm sure he was involved in the pagan Roman mobilization in 70 AD.

Psalms 46 is very plainly and explicitly about earthly Jerusalem. The context requires it.

If you are going to involve Paul then all of Paul would have already been fulfilled, even a second coming. The man of sin is in conjunction with the Second Coming. That is the difference between the Abomination of Desolation, and just desolation.

Luke 21 is about the desolation as a result of the Jewish revolt and consequential desolation of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24 and 25 is about the Second Coming and Satan being handed the throne that Jesus as King will set up at the Second Coming.

70AD has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, the Church, nor literally anything written about in the NT. It was Josephus who gave us every sordid detail of 70AD. Not once was this year described in the NT. Jerusalem was still a city, and not permanently abandoned as desolate for another 60 years. It was a remodeled fort camp for the Roman armies.

And of course Josephus knew more about an Abomination of Desolation than you ever will. Because it dealt with Israel, not the church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you are going to involve Paul then all of Paul would have already been fulfilled, even a second coming. The man of sin is in conjunction with the Second Coming. That is the difference between the Abomination of Desolation, and just desolation.

Luke 21 is about the desolation as a result of the Jewish revolt and consequential desolation of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24 and 25 is about the Second Coming and Satan being handed the throne that Jesus as King will set up at the Second Coming.

70AD has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, the Church, nor literally anything written about in the NT. It was Josephus who gave us every sordid detail of 70AD. Not once was this year described in the NT. Jerusalem was still a city, and not permanently abandoned as desolate for another 60 years. It was a remodeled fort camp for the Roman armies.

And of course Josephus knew more about an Abomination of Desolation than you ever will. Because it dealt with Israel, not the church.

Josephus is irrelevant with respect to the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I'm not interested in discussing him--I'm not in any disagreement with him. My disagreement is with you.

Matt 24 is addressing the 70 AD desolation of the temple as much as Luke 21 is. They are different versions of the exact same Discourse!

So I don't agree with you that this Discourse didn't talk about the 70 AD desolation of Jerusalem. The author refers us back to Dan 9.26-27 where the desolation of the city and the sanctuary is mentioned and is called the "Abomination of Desolation." It was to be fulfilled right after the end of the 70 Weeks, which was completed at the time Jesus died.

But you're welcome to your own view. I don't see enough substance in our disagreement to indicate there will be a change of mind, either in you or in me.

 

[Timtofly]

Josephus is irrelevant with respect to the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I'm not interested in discussing him--I'm not in any disagreement with him. My disagreement is with you.

Matt 24 is addressing the 70 AD desolation of the temple as much as Luke 21 is. They are different versions of the exact same Discourse!

So I don't agree with you that this Discourse didn't talk about the 70 AD desolation of Jerusalem. The author refers us back to Dan 9.26-27 where the desolation of the city and the sanctuary is mentioned and is called the "Abomination of Desolation." It was to be fulfilled right after the end of the 70 Weeks, which was completed at the time Jesus died.

But you're welcome to your own view. I don't see enough substance in our disagreement to indicate there will be a change of mind, either in you or in me.

Well if you remove Josephus from the point then nothing in the OD was fulfilled in 70AD. There is nothing that happened that year recorded in Scripture. Jerusalem could have been made desolate in 320AD for that matter.

I don't think you can combine verse 26 and 27 to say one single event. Nor combine Luke's version with Matthew's version, as they do not even read in the same flow of thought.

70AD was several generations removed from 30AD. Jesus was 30 in 27AD. If he had children then, even they would be older than Jesus was in 30AD by 70AD. In 70AD the next generation would have been 43 years of age, and any grandchildren would be at least 13 years old. That is not considered "right after" the end of the 70 weeks. The 70 weeks are not over, because it will be completed when Jesus is declared King of all nations on earth at the 7th Trumpet.

Jesus was cut off and not declared King over the nations to this day. Jesus is the Prince to come, not the "Prince that came and finished" the job almost 2,000 years ago. Jesus as King will personally oversee the promises in Daniel 9:24.

We have Revelation 10 that declares that point.

"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

That is the mystery of Daniel 9:24-27. No one agrees when the 70 weeks are completed. Not even Daniel's people would comprehend that the fulness of the Gentiles would be included in this promise. That is why the controversy is so great. Even you are stuck on 70AD as being the total fulfillment of these verses. But 70AD has literally nothing to do with the completion or fulfillment, other than Jerusalem would be left desolate because of Daniel's people. The Prince to come has not been fulfilled until Revelation 10:5-7 happens.

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

Except we see, a few days later Satan is handed that throne, and the AoD is established in Revelation 13. The 3rd woe happens at the 7th Trumpet. The 3rd woe is God allowing Daniel 9:27 to take place.

If you think Matthew 24 is describing 70AD, then your 70AD is describing the 7 Trumpets, 7 Thunders, and 7 vials as well. Since you reject Josephus and declare your own understanding to trump the historical record. Because only the 7th Trumpet is when Daniel 9 is finished and completed.

Jesus being cut off, points out the 70 weeks are not finished. Only as the Prince to come will this 70 weeks be over.

Being Messiah is being the Christ. Being the Prince is being declared King per the 7th Trumpet.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well if you remove Josephus from the point then nothing in the OD was fulfilled in 70AD. There is nothing that happened that year recorded in Scripture. Jerusalem could have been made desolate in 320AD for that matter.

No, history records that in 70 AD Jerusalem fell to the Romans. I didn't say Josephus didn't record history. I said I don't have an issue with him.

I don't think you can combine verse 26 and 27 to say one single event. Nor combine Luke's version with Matthew's version, as they do not even read in the same flow of thought.

Actually, that's exactly what I do. I combine Dan 9.26 and 27 to indicate that the "abomination" is set up against the temple, since the "people of the ruler to come" would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." They are describing a single event--the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

Luke and Matthew both described the same thing, recording the same Discourse. Of course they are the same thing! They were the same Discourse!

70AD was several generations removed from 30AD. Jesus was 30 in 27AD. If he had children then, even they would be older than Jesus was in 30AD by 70AD. In 70AD the next generation would have been 43 years of age, and any grandchildren would be at least 13 years old. That is not considered "right after" the end of the 70 weeks. The 70 weeks are not over, because it will be completed when Jesus is declared King of all nations on earth at the 7th Trumpet.

It depends on how you define "generation." I think Jesus was referring to his own time, to those born in his time. If children were born at the time Jesus said this, in about 29 AD, then they would only be just over 40 years old when Jerusalem was destroyed--a single generation. More importantly, Jesus was suggesting that the current children of those who rejected him would see this judgment--deservedly so, since they would carry on the sins of those who rejected him.

Jesus was cut off and not declared King over the nations to this day. Jesus is the Prince to come, not the "Prince that came and finished" the job almost 2,000 years ago. Jesus as King will personally oversee the promises in Daniel 9:24.

I see the "ruler to come" as the Roman leader who ordered an army to attack Jerusalem and destroy the temple. That is what Dan 9.26 indicates to me.

We have Revelation 10 that declares that point.

"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

That is the mystery of Daniel 9:24-27. No one agrees when the 70 weeks are completed. Not even Daniel's people would comprehend that the fulness of the Gentiles would be included in this promise. That is why the controversy is so great. Even you are stuck on 70AD as being the total fulfillment of these verses. But 70AD has literally nothing to do with the completion or fulfillment, other than Jerusalem would be left desolate because of Daniel's people. The Prince to come has not been fulfilled until Revelation 10:5-7 happens.

I think the 70th Week ended the 70 Weeks prophecy with Christ doing the 6 things it was suggested he would do. At his death in the last Week animal sacrifices were delegitimized, which happened when Christ, the true sacrifice, was killed. That ended the 70 Weeks Prophecy. The last Week did not even need to be completed.

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."

Except we see, a few days later Satan is handed that throne, and the AoD is established in Revelation 13. The 3rd woe happens at the 7th Trumpet. The 3rd woe is God allowing Daniel 9:27 to take place.

Can't agree on your timing. For me, the 7th Trumpet brings in the Kingdom of Christ for a thousand years. Antichrist rules for 3.5 years just prior to that. The gathering to Armageddon is a mobilization of Eastern armies to Israel--no telling how long that will take, but it will happen after the 3.5 years of testimony by the 2 Witnesses, the same 3.5 years that Antichrist is at the height of his power.

If you think Matthew 24 is describing 70AD, then your 70AD is describing the 7 Trumpets, 7 Thunders, and 7 vials as well. Since you reject Josephus and declare your own understanding to trump the historical record. Because only the 7th Trumpet is when Daniel 9 is finished and completed.

I never said I reject Josephus. Why do you keep saying that? But no, I don't think Matthew is talking about the "7 trumpets, 7 thunders, and 7 vials. He recorded Jesus' Olivet Discourse, which detailed signs leading up to the 70 AD devastation of Jerusalem. They were "birth pains," specifically preceding the coming of Roman forces to Jerusalem to ransack it.

I'm fine with you sharing your view. This is mine.

 

[Timtofly]

I see the "ruler to come" as the Roman leader who ordered an army to attack Jerusalem and destroy the temple. That is what Dan 9.26 indicates to me.

Then you don't accept Josephus. No where did Josephus confirm that the Romans fulfilled Daniel 9 in 70AD. Josephus points out quite graphically how the Jews locked up in Jerusalem under siege for 4 months literally destroyed themselves and their city. The Romans just completed what the Jews themselves started. They all could have surrendered the city at the very beginning, and thrown themselves at the mercy of Titus. The city would have been left in tack, as a tribute to Titus and would have been made an abomination of desolation. Jerusalem was not surrendered, and the Jews did all the hard work of abomination and desolation during the seige, not the Romans. The Romans just made sure the city would be left desolate, and was only a stronghold camp for the Roman Army for the next 60 years.

You are adding to the historical record with your own ideology. You are writing your own history, and disregarding what any one at that time wrote.

There is nothing in the 4 Gospels that require you to conflate what was written in each account. We were never given the totality of the OD. We only have bits and pieces, and cannot just assume each Gospel was repeating the same thing. Jesus taught in the Temple and on the mount of Olives over the course of several days. What can be read in Scripture is not a summary of a 15 minute discussion. Nor a summary of several days. Luke and Matthew are not talking about the same event. Luke mentions the events of the first century as spoken in the OD. Matthew gives us the events pertaining to the Second Coming as given in the OD.

Jerusalem was left desolate in the first century. Jerusalem will not be left desolate at the Second Coming. In fact Jerusalem will be turned into a thriving city that will continue for a thousand years. So Matthew is not mentioning the desolation of Jerusalem at all.

The same applies to Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27. One deals with the first coming. The other deals with the Second Coming. Jesus was Messiah in the first century. Jesus will be pronounced King during the Second Coming events at the 7th Trumpet. So the Prince to come deals with Jesus changing things around again at the Second Coming.

Titus was not announced emperor at any time from 66AD to 70AD. Josephus would not know nor would any one the whole year called 70AD if Titus would ever be emperor. That Titus completed the campaign did not mean Titus would be emperor. In fact, Titus was sent by his father, the emperor, to finish what was started. Vespasian would be the only "Prince" in this time period. Titus was a general of the Roman Army, not a Prince.

The verse does not read: the person who would eventually be a Prince. It reads the Prince to come. Yes Jesus was already King at the Cross and Resurrection. But also the Prince to come, to actually rule over the earth from Jerusalem, that is only declared at the 7th Trumpet, not a declaration involving 70AD.

You seem to imply my view or your view. I am just pointing out the facts. How is Josephus' view my view? I certainly never told Josephus what to write, at least not that I can remember. It is my view, without changing what Josephus wrote, but his view, not mine. If your view lines up with Josephus, it would not be at odds with what I posted. Josephus never wrote that the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem for 4 months in 70AD was the Abomination of Desolation.

Daniel 9:27 is not a conjunction of two events separated by 40 years. Daniel 9:27 is described in Revelation 10-13. You only get your interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 by combining Matthew 24 with Luke 21. They were seperate accounts for a reason. Otherwise God would have only placed 1 Gospel into the NT instead of 4. Your view says that verse 26 happened in 70AD, and then Gabriel backtracks in verse 27 to the Cross. The view I see is that the Cross and 70AD were covered in the verse 26, and 27 happens at the Second Coming the return of the Prince.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Then you don't accept Josephus.

Once again, this has *nothing* to do with Josephus! He may have documented some of this, but he did not attempt to interpret Jesus' Olivet Discourse! He was not a Christian.

Jerusalem was not surrendered, and the Jews did all the hard work of abomination and desolation during the seige, not the Romans. The Romans just made sure the city would be left desolate, and was only a stronghold camp for the Roman Army for the next 60 years.

Actually the Romans did the "desolating" and the ones who stood in the holy place, ie Jerusalem, as an "abomination" was the Roman Army.

I can't make sense of your complaint. Nothing that I've said contradicts Josephus. You just seem to have a different meaning for the words I'm using.

 

[Timtofly]

Once again, this has *nothing* to do with Josephus! He may have documented some of this, but he did not attempt to interpret Jesus' Olivet Discourse! He was not a Christian.

Yet your point is not about Christianity at all. It is about the Jews and Josephus is a Jew who knew his OT.

You have yet to even prove your position comes from a Christian perspective. Jesus never once claimed the Roman armies were an abomination of desolation.

That is not a Christian point of view. That was not even the point Josephus made. That is clearly a modern day interpretation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yet your point is not about Christianity at all. It is about the Jews and Josephus is a Jew who knew his OT.

You have yet to even prove your position comes from a Christian perspective. Jesus never once claimed the Roman armies were an abomination of desolation.

That is not a Christian point of view. That was not even the point Josephus made. That is clearly a modern day interpretation.

None of that is true. You can tell tales all day long if you want. It's a free world.