Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

That is not the point. Matthew linked all events to the Second Coming. You are tearing Matthew apart to falsely interpret Luke.

Just a cursory look at Matthew 24 will tell you that isn't so. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus' announcement that the temple will be destroyed. He wouldn't be saying this unless it was relatively imminent. So he was asked when this would happen. And he answered by saying it would be preceded by birth pangs. Eventually he plainly said it would take place in "this generation," ie in his own generation. Nothing could be stated more clearly!

Luke did not tie the armies to the Second Coming. That is why Luke is about 66AD.

Right, Luke did *not* tie the Roman armies' coming to Jerusalem to his 2nd Coming. We agree on that. But Luke discusses both questions, the question of when the temple would come down and the question of when his Coming would take place. They were separate events. One would take place imminently, in that generation. And the other would take place after an entire age of Jewish tribulation which would only begin with the destruction of Jerusalem.

They were not supposed to plan an escape and settle land property issues. They were to immediately flee.

Not true. They were to plan.

Matt 24.20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.

But yes, Jesus did tell them to show urgency. When that becomes necessary, ie to make the flight, it will be closer to the actual arrival of Titus. First the prayer, and then the awareness of the coming of Titus. Prayer began after the coming and departure of Cestius Gallus. The fleeing began following that prayer with news of the coming of Titus.

20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.

Matthew is about the Second Coming, not 70AD.

That is clearly false, since all 3 synoptic Gospels have Jesus answering both questions, about when Jerusalem would fall and when he would Come Again.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There was no AoD in 70AD.

The only thing that happened was the temple and Jerusalem was destroyed.

The desolation and abomination is the 42 months given to Satan after the Second Coming.

Why do you want to point out so many AoD throughout history? Just calling every time Israel has trouble an AoD event does not make sense. You have not given a single reason why only one particular army can be the AoD.

I don't define the AoD as every time Israel has trouble. I define the AoD as a specific approach of a pagan army in the sacred vicinity of the temple to desolate/destroy it. This happened in the reign of Antiochus 4, and it happened again in the time of Titus. The 42 month reign of Antichrist is not said to be an AoD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

With all due respect, those who come down from their houses and don't look back, is a future generation that will witness the literal, visible, return of Jesus Christ in the heavens, and that didn't take place in 70AD

In fact it did happen in the period immediately prior to and in 70 AD. Those who lived much closer to that time than we do said so!

 

[Truth7t7]

In fact it did happen in the period immediately prior to and in 70 AD. Those who lived much closer to that time than we do said so!

No fact whatsoever, its your preterist opinion that is wrong

Matthew 24:15 AOD, Matthew 24:21 Great Tribulation, and Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming, these are future events unfulfilled

 

[Truth7t7]

The desolation and abomination is the 42 months given to Satan after the Second Coming.

Why do you want to point out so many AoD throughout history? Just calling every time Israel has trouble an AoD event does not make sense. You have not given a single reason why only one particular army can be the AoD.

You now have Satan hanging out with Jesus for 42 months "After" the second coming, big smiles to that claim, way out in left field

 

[covenantee]

No fact whatsoever, its your preterist opinion that is wrong

Matthew 24:15 AOD, Matthew 24:21 Great Tribulation, and Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming, these are future events unfulfilled

The flight of the Judean Christians disproves your futurist fantasy.

Thankfully, not one of them was a df.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No fact whatsoever, its your preterist opinion that is wrong

Matthew 24:15 AOD, Matthew 24:21 Great Tribulation, and Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming, these are future events unfulfilled

Those who've heard me repeatedly say I'm not a Preterist sometimes continue to claim this. They're rude and unworthy of conversation.

 

[Timtofly]

It's not what I *want* to do brother--it's what I *must* do if I want to be honest with myself about what I think Daniel said. Once again, Dan 9 spelled out an AoD in 9.26-27. And the context in vs. 26 is clear--it has to do with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in the time of Messiah. That happened in 70 AD, and the vast number of Church Fathers recognized this.

Why do you propagate your own opinion if only because you propagate what you believe is true? I'm no different.

Stating that there are 2 AoDs in the Bible is not propagating "so many AoDs throughout history!" Again, in the book of Daniel I believe there are only 2 AoDs, one in Dan 9.26-27, and the other in Dan 8, 11, and 12.7. The former represents the Roman armies, as Jesus explained in Luke 21. And the latter represents Antiochus 4.

There is not one mention of an AoD representing the Antichrist in the New Testament. If you wish to interpret it as such from the OT Scriptures, that is your prerogative. But nothing in the NT confirms that, including the Olivet Discourse. There is not one mention of Antichrist in the Olivet Discourse unless you are to read it into Jesus' mention of the AoD.

Nevertheless, when Jesus mentioned the AoD in his Discourse he said it would take place in "this generation," meaning his own generation. Therefore, I cannot agree that the AoD in any sense ever referred to Antichrist. At best, the AoD in Jesus' time may have alluded to an endtimes fulfillment of the same. But it is certainly not explicit.

I never said the AC was an AoD. That is as bad as saying armies are the AoD. Daniel 9:27 is not an AoD.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

This does not mention setting up an AoD. That is a faulty conclusion based on your calling verse 26 an AoD.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Neither verse point out an AoD being set up.

When the Assyrians and Babylonians destroyed Israel and caused the first Hebrew diaspora, that was desolation but no AoD was set up. Just destroying Jerusalem in 70AD was not an AoD, but again a diaspora and desolation.

No! An AoD is when Satan or a FP controls Israel from their very temple and sets up a satanic cult instead of the daily sacrifice. There is a huge difference. One leaves people under the control of abominations and desolations. The other removes any means of control period.

What happened in 70AD was not an act of control over them. It was only destruction and the area made desolate.

Even the mosque currently in Jerusalem is not an AoD. It is not a form of subjugation over those Israelites living in Israel. I think Muslims would even refute your point it is abomination and desolation.

The future AoD will subjugate the entire earth with abominations and desolations. Those on earth will be controlled via the mark. The spiritual identification stating one is no longer named in the Lamb's book of life. That would be a physical and spiritual reality.

All you can point out is an historical event which is pointless, because it does not effect any one living today. It is an attempt to impose a belief of what might have happened. There is no proof nor even a logical reason to make such a point. It merely exist as as a thought argument.

 

[Truth7t7]

Those who've heard me repeatedly say I'm not a Preterist sometimes continue to claim this. They're rude and unworthy of conversation.

Your teachings are 100% preterist in 70AD historical fulfillment, you can deny this all you want

I'm futurist, your preterist, it's that simple

 

[Timtofly]

There are no conclusions more conclusive than those sourced in the indisputable and unassailable fulfillments of the prophetic Holy Scriptures' "things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1), whose divine declarations "...cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Still not proof, only ideological posturing.

 

[Truth7t7]

It's not what I *want* to do brother--it's what I *must* do if I want to be honest with myself about what I think Daniel said. Once again, Dan 9 spelled out an AoD in 9.26-27. And the context in vs. 26 is clear--it has to do with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in the time of Messiah. That happened in 70 AD, and the vast number of Church Fathers recognized this.

Why do you propagate your own opinion if only because you propagate what you believe is true? I'm no different.

Stating that there are 2 AoDs in the Bible is not propagating "so many AoDs throughout history!" Again, in the book of Daniel I believe there are only 2 AoDs, one in Dan 9.26-27, and the other in Dan 8, 11, and 12.7. The former represents the Roman armies, as Jesus explained in Luke 21. And the latter represents Antiochus 4.

There is not one mention of an AoD representing the Antichrist in the New Testament. If you wish to interpret it as such from the OT Scriptures, that is your prerogative. But nothing in the NT confirms that, including the Olivet Discourse. There is not one mention of Antichrist in the Olivet Discourse unless you are to read it into Jesus' mention of the AoD.

Nevertheless, when Jesus mentioned the AoD in his Discourse he said it would take place in "this generation," meaning his own generation. Therefore, I cannot agree that the AoD in any sense ever referred to Antichrist. At best, the AoD in Jesus' time may have alluded to an endtimes fulfillment of the same. But it is certainly not explicit.

Once again and again, God's words below silences your preterist claims in 70AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:27

The "Future" figure seen below will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Truth7t7]

The flight of the Judean Christians disproves your futurist fantasy.

Thankfully, not one of them was a df.

Scripture clearly teaches that the generation seen in Matthew 24 was to be a future generation,that would see the AOD, great tribulation, and second coming, it's that simple

 

[covenantee]

Still not proof, only ideological posturing.

Infinitely more proof than can ever be furnished by df's vacuous cultic fantasies and fallacies.

 

[covenantee]

Scripture clearly teaches that the generation seen in Matthew 24 was to be a future generation,that would see the AOD, great tribulation, and second coming, it's that simple

The Judean Christians didn't believe you.

They obviously knew what you deny.

It's that simple.

 

[covenantee]

Once again and again, God's words below silences your preterist claims in 70AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:27

The "Future" figure seen below will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

We'd like to see Merriam-Webster's translation of Daniel 9:27's Hebrew.

How about it?

 

[Timtofly]

Just a cursory look at Matthew 24 will tell you that isn't so. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus' announcement that the temple will be destroyed. He wouldn't be saying this unless it was relatively imminent. So he was asked when this would happen. And he answered by saying it would be preceded by birth pangs. Eventually he plainly said it would take place in "this generation," ie in his own generation. Nothing could be stated more clearly!



Right, Luke did *not* tie the Roman armies' coming to Jerusalem to his 2nd Coming. We agree on that. But Luke discusses both questions, the question of when the temple would come down and the question of when his Coming would take place. They were separate events. One would take place imminently, in that generation. And the other would take place after an entire age of Jewish tribulation which would only begin with the destruction of Jerusalem.



Not true. They were to plan.

Matt 24.20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.

But yes, Jesus did tell them to show urgency. When that becomes necessary, ie to make the flight, it will be closer to the actual arrival of Titus. First the prayer, and then the awareness of the coming of Titus. Prayer began after the coming and departure of Cestius Gallus. The fleeing began following that prayer with news of the coming of Titus.

20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.



That is clearly false, since all 3 synoptic Gospels have Jesus answering both questions, about when Jerusalem would fall and when he would Come Again.

Jesus never mentioned the destruction in Matthew 24:4-34 once. If He had, you would quote the verse.

Jesus was not talking about 70AD in Matthew 24 nor in Matthew 25. At least not in His answer. He never answered how you think He should of. Jesus gave the church information they needed at the very end, not the first century. That is according to Matthew. Luke on the other hand did give some useful information for those in the first century. What happened in 66AD was documented by Josephus. Josephus did not tie 70AD to anything from those whom we would associate as being Christians.

Since it was documented by Josephus what transpired with Antiochus Epiphanes, one would think Josephus would be acknowledgeable and would clearly point out your case. Except he did not. Now if you think Josephus was biased and his bias got the best of him, why would 66AD be different from 70AD? Can you prove he was cherry picking his bias?

Josephus already recorded an event that would resemble the army as being an AoD example. It happened back when Pilate was put in control. So as pointed out, Josephus would have made a deal out of 70AD if he recognized an AoD. Why would he allow the army as being an AoD in one case but not make the same accusation in another case?

Josephus was an eye witness on the scene. Are you going to just dismiss that fact? I keep pointing out that an AoD is a point of subjugation. 70AD was not subjugation. It was a failed revolt to over throw almost a century of subjugation. It was over in 70AD, not the beginning. The rebellion literally desolated all of Palestine. For quite some time Israel was not even a recognizable group of people, but scattered to the 4 winds for a second time.

I don't define the AoD as every time Israel has trouble. I define the AoD as a specific approach of a pagan army in the sacred vicinity of the temple to desolate/destroy it. This happened in the reign of Antiochus 4, and it happened again in the time of Titus. The 42 month reign of Antichrist is not said to be an AoD.

The temple nor Jerusalem were destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes. Not the same as 70AD.

Once again, armies surrounding or approaching Jerusalem is not an AoD. Setting up an idol in a fully functioning temple keeping Israel under subjugation is an AoD.

 

[Truth7t7]

We'd like to see Merriam-Webster's translation of Daniel 9:27's Hebrew.

How about it?

Strong’s Definitions
כָּלָה kâlâh, kaw-law'; from H3615; a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:—altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.

 

[Timtofly]

You now have Satan hanging out with Jesus for 42 months "After" the second coming, big smiles to that claim, way out in left field

No. Jesus is with the 144k on Mount Zion.

The 42 months is not a normal part of time. It is an interruption just like Daniel 9:27 points out. God allows a time of utter desolation and abomination. It only lasts for 42 months.

Do you think Daniel 9:27 is referring to the fulness of the Gentiles, the church age, the last 1992 years?

Do you not think it is a "last half" of a "7 year" period? That it will happen or may happen?

Why would you even suggest Jesus co-reigns with Satan? Even if in heaven do you not yourself maintain Jesus is completely in charge. How is that possible when during those 42 months, Satan is given more control than ever in history? You yourself need to define this 42 months and explain why Satan has 100% control. The Second Coming is neither here nor there in that regards. According to you neither Satan nor Jesus are currently present on earth, no?

 

[Timtofly]

Those who've heard me repeatedly say I'm not a Preterist sometimes continue to claim this. They're rude and unworthy of conversation.

It is only your insistent argument that Matthew 24 is about 70AD. That is the whole Preterist argument. If you continue to claim the AoD is the armies mentioned in Luke, your attempt to claim Matthew is an army instead of an actual AoD as written, people will continue to point out you are in error.

The AoD is when Satan and the FP set up an image in Jerusalem to subjugate humanity for 42 months. The armies in Luke is referring to 66AD. Not seeing this distinction is the only point of contention. Do you rule out a future 42 month period when there is total abomination and desolation?

 

[Truth7t7]

No. Jesus is with the 144k on Mount Zion.

The 42 months is not a normal part of time. It is an interruption just like Daniel 9:27 points out. God allows a time of utter desolation and abomination. It only lasts for 42 months.

Do you think Daniel 9:27 is referring to the fulness of the Gentiles, the church age, the last 1992 years?

Do you not think it is a "last half" of a "7 year" period? That it will happen or may happen?

Why would you even suggest Jesus co-reigns with Satan? Even if in heaven do you not yourself maintain Jesus is completely in charge. How is that possible when during those 42 months, Satan is given more control than ever in history? You yourself need to define this 42 months and explain why Satan has 100% control. The Second Coming is neither here nor there in that regards. According to you neither Satan nor Jesus are currently present on earth, no?

The 42 months takes place at the future tribulation, yes the antichrist filled with Satan has control of the world through deception

The two witnesses of Revelation chapter 11 will rule the earth through plagues, a remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh of Egypt

Does it look like the Beast and his Kingdom has full control seen below in Rev 16:10-11, absolute pain from the plagues of the two witnesses

Revelation 16:10-11KJV
10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Exodus 9:10-11KJV
10 And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast.
11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.