Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Zao is life]

My arguments revealed a fatal flaw in your logic and you won't admit it.

Your arguments reveal a fatal flaw in your own logic and you won't admit it.

For example, Luke records Jesus saying that before the birth-pain signs the disciples will be persecuted. Matthew records that they will be delivered up to tribulation at the end of the age following the birth-pain signs.

Though you proudly claim that you understand that different eyewitnesses relate different things at times because "everyone understands it", the fact that you do not understand it is betrayed by your inability - almost total failure - to understand the gospels regarding the Olivet Discourse - which is glaringly obvious in your arguments and by the fact that you impose what Luke recorded Jesus saying about armies gathering against Jerusalem upon Matthew's record of what the Lord said about the abomination of desolation in the holy place

- and you do this despite the fact that Matthew used the word therefore to link what Matthew was recording Jesus talking about to the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the age following the birth-pain signs.

The truth is that some of the different gospel authors recorded things that others did not record, and the synoptic gospels, including the Olivet Discourse, are no different. Matthew and Mark did not record anything Jesus said about the wrath of God that would come upon Jerusalem, and Luke did not record anything about what Jesus said about the abomination of desolation,

If we put all three gospels together we get:

(a) One eyewitness relating what Jesus said (Matthew); and
(b) A second eyewitness (Peter) relating to Mark what Jesus said; and
(c) A non-eyewitness recording what many eyewitnesses related about what Jesus said (Luke).

So putting all three gospels together we get:

1. Jesus telling them that the temple was going to be destroyed (related by Matthew, by Peter, and by Luke's eyewitnesses, and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

2. Jesus and His disciples walking down from the Temple Mount, through the Kidron Valley, and up the Mount of Olives (recorded by Matthew and Mark but not mentioned by Luke).

3. The disciples asking:-
(i) When these things would be (recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke);
(ii) What the sign would be that these things are about to take place (recorded by Mark and Luke but not recorded by Matthew).
(ii) What the sign would be of Jesus' coming and of the end of the Age (related and recorded by Matthew but not recorded by Mark or by Luke).

4. Birth-pain signs (mentioned by Matthew, Mark and Luke).

5. A persecution that the disciples would experience before the birth pain signs (mentioned only by Luke. Not by Matthew or by Mark).

6. Tribulation that the disciples would experience at the end of the age following the birth-pain signs (not mentioned by Luke).

Are you going to impose what Matthew said about the disciples coming under tribulation at the end of the age following the birth-pain signs onto Luke's record too?

Or,

Rather than acknowledging the serious flaws and inconsistencies in your arguments, are you merely going to continue (as you have done) to be inconsistent and hypocritical, showing up the fact that you do not know what you are talking about because you impose what Luke records Jesus saying about the armies gathering against Jerusalem in the days when the wrath of God would come upon Jerusalem onto both Matthew and Mark's records?

This alone shows how ridiculous your arguments are, because to be consistent you have to impose the fact that Matthew records Jesus telling the disciples about tribulation they would experience following the birth-pain signs at the end of the age onto Luke's record, and in the process make Luke contradict himself the way you do -

- because Luke only records Jesus speaking about persecution that the disciples would experience before the birth-pain signs.

You are completely inconsistent with your approach, and have shown your hypocrisy and total lack of understanding up very clearly by your arguments -

- so rather than point that finger at me and others, you should learn to argue with only your argument, instead of continually accusing others of the "inconsistency, contradiction, repetition, and lack of understanding" - because those things are all nice and comfortable and at home in your own glass house.

7. Signs in the heavens at the time of the return of Christ in glory (mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Matthew and Mark did not write a commentary on what Luke wrote about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem when they wrote about the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Matthew is writing a commentary on what Matthew said - and billions of people who speak English or can speak English understand that Matthew's use of the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 links the abomination of desolation in the holy place to what Matthew said immediately before that about the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age in Matthew 24:9-14.

Matthew's record is not a commentary of anything Luke recorded. The same goes for Mark's record. Luke's record is not a commentary on anything Mark or Matthew recorded. Your arguments imply that one gospel author commented on the things that another author recorded.

The kind of lack of logic that produces the faulty hermenuetics that link Matthew 24:15 or Mark 13:14 to Luke 21:23 is not worth arguing about.

I'm not wasting my time debating this with you anymore. There is no debate because your arguments carry no weight and whenever you get into a corner because your arguments are so flawed and show such a lack of understanding on your part, then you fall back into your old pathetically juvenile habit (which identifies your posts) of hurling stones from your own glass house about "repetitions and inconsistencies and lack of understanding" (etc etc etc),

and then you double-down on your illogical and flawed arguments.

It's a waste of time reading anything you say, let alone responding.​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your arguments reveal a fatal flaw in your own logic and you won't admit it.​

You are failing miserably at proving that, so there's nothing for me to admit. You won't even address how you are concluding that the question "what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" in Luke 21:7 is somehow an entirely different question than "what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" in Mark 13:4. So, you clearly have no interest in engaging in honest discussion.

It's a waste of time reading anything you say, let alone responding.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

 

[Timtofly]

Did the Judaean Christians literally flee?

What impelled them to literally flee?

And no, it had nothing to do with Antiochus. Luke identifies the AoD as the Roman armies. Antiochus was not a Roman, nor did he have Roman armies. Rome was his enemy.

And learn to read. Nowhere have I claimed that the temple was the holy place. That's a figment of dispensational delusionism.

They fled from the armies over 3 years before Jerusalem was even attacked. There was no AoD 3 years prior to 70AD. There was no AoD in 70AD. They had already fled and never came back.

Jerusalem destroyed was not the AoD. Jerusalem destroyed was not why any one fled. No one fled in 70AD. In fact the Romans let thousands from all over the empire enter Jerusalem for the Passover that year. Then they sealed them in, and many died. That is the opposite of fleeing.

You cannot even get Josephus and history correct. Josephus never mentioned an AoD in 70AD, and he would know.

 

[covenantee]

They fled from the armies over 3 years before Jerusalem was even attacked. There was no AoD 3 years prior to 70AD. There was no AoD in 70AD. They had already fled and never came back.

Jesus identified the Roman armies as the AoD already in His Olivet discourse more than 30 years before 70 AD.

They didn't suddenly become the AoD overnight.

Your claims are, as usual, false.

Jerusalem destroyed was not the AoD. Jerusalem destroyed was not why any one fled. No one fled in 70AD. In fact the Romans let thousands from all over the empire enter Jerusalem for the Passover that year. Then they sealed them in, and many died. That is the opposite of fleeing.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD by the AoD, the Roman armies.

The Judaean Christians had already fled.

They survived.

They weren't dispensational futurists.

They didn't listen to you.

You cannot even get Josephus and history correct. Josephus never mentioned an AoD in 70AD, and he would know.

The Judaean Christians listened to Jesus, not Josephus.

You should, too.

Josephus was ultimately granted Roman citizenship, and assisted the Roman army against the Jews.

His career (and life) would have swiftly and summarily ended if he had described the army that he was assisting as the "abomination of desolation".

He had more sense than any dispensational futurist.

 

[Timtofly]

So, it's very clear that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 despite your attempts to say otherwise.

How can they be parallel, when one was Jesus speaking to the general public at the Temple, and the other was in private on the Mount of Olives to His disciples?

Matthew was written to Hebrew Christians. Luke was an historical account to all both unbelievers and followers of Christ.

You are trying to match up different events with different words so you can only have one event. That is an interpretation, but not necessarily a correct interpretation. Even if everyone thinks like you do. The vast majority would be wrong.

 

[Timtofly]

They weren't dispensational futurists.

They were not preterist nor historist either.

Luke warned those who fled in 66AD, years before 70AD.

Matthew warned those who would be on earth after the Second Coming.

Neither Luke nor Matthew had an eschatology bias. They were quoting Jesus, and told us where Jesus was at the time of the quote. Luke pointed out Jesus was at the Temple. Matthew pointed out Jesus was on the Mount of Olives.

Is your opinion better than the actual written Word of God?

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus identified the Roman armies as the AoD already in His Olivet discourse more than 30 years before 70 AD.

They didn't suddenly become the AoD overnight.

Your claims are, as usual, false.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD by the AoD, the Roman armies.

The Judaean Christians had already fled.

They survived.

They weren't dispensational futurists.

They didn't listen to you.

The Judaean Christians listened to Jesus, not Josephus.

You should, too.

Josephus was ultimately granted Roman citizenship, and assisted the Roman army against the Jews.

His career (and life) would have swiftly and summarily ended if he had described the army that he was assisting as the "abomination of desolation".

He had more sense than any dispensational futurist.

So your point is that Jesus said the AoD had already been set up while he was growing up, and they all should be fleeing for decades?

So why did Christians keep coming back to Jerusalem every year and then kept fleeing every time they saw the Romans walking around Jerusalem in your scenario?

So if Josephus was wrong, then Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70AD? How can you trust history, if you cannot trust the historist like your self who bias their eschatology with the writings of historical guesswork?

Josephus would never say the Roman Armies are the AoD. Because that was not an historical fact. The Jews already expressed to Pilate that he was wrong in setting up ensigns in Jerusalem, which would be an act of abomination and Pilate removed those ensigns at their request. Human soldiers are not setting up an AoD. You are historically incorrect, and erroneous in your biased interpretation of Scripture.

Josephus did not have to have an excuse as a traitor to accurately tell us the historical facts. Not every thing he wrote was for the Flavious dynasty. All you are doing is trashing your own source of historical knowledge, to make a rather absurd point, that no one in the first century would have made. Setting up ensigns to show one's own spiritual entity was victorious had been an ongoing historical fact for thousands of years in the pagan rituals of all nations.

That was the process of an act of AoD. Not just because a lot of soldiers camped out in a garrison that the Jews themselves built for their welcomed foreign invaders.

You only use Josephus to suit your points that can be backed up like 70AD was a bad year for Jerusalem, but then deny what was actually an ancient tradition for thousands of years, that was also addressed by Josephus, because it contradicts your private interpretation that you got from others as their private interpretation hundreds of years after the historical facts already happened.

No, we don't need the historical record, because there is enough evidence in Scripture to point out you are wrong. But you are wrong historically and in your interpretation of Scripture.

And ignoring the facts makes that your bias. Most agree that many fled in 66AD, even many early church fathers agree with that point, so your point that they fled has nothing to do with 70AD at all. Even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews destroyed their own city, and desecrated their own temple. So Jesus' own people did most of the work for the Romans internally for months, while Titus was sitting back in his tent waiting for the end. But don't let facts get in the way. You seem dead set in your views.

 

[covenantee]

So your point is that Jesus said the AoD had already been set up while he was growing up, and they all should be fleeing for decades?

So why did Christians keep coming back to Jerusalem every year and then kept fleeing every time they saw the Romans walking around Jerusalem in your scenario?

So if Josephus was wrong, then Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70AD? How can you trust history, if you cannot trust the historist like your self who bias their eschatology with the writings of historical guesswork?

Josephus would never say the Roman Armies are the AoD. Because that was not an historical fact. The Jews already expressed to Pilate that he was wrong in setting up ensigns in Jerusalem, which would be an act of abomination and Pilate removed those ensigns at their request. Human soldiers are not setting up an AoD. You are historically incorrect, and erroneous in your biased interpretation of Scripture.

Josephus did not have to have an excuse as a traitor to accurately tell us the historical facts. Not every thing he wrote was for the Flavious dynasty. All you are doing is trashing your own source of historical knowledge, to make a rather absurd point, that no one in the first century would have made. Setting up ensigns to show one's own spiritual entity was victorious had been an ongoing historical fact for thousands of years in the pagan rituals of all nations.

That was the process of an act of AoD. Not just because a lot of soldiers camped out in a garrison that the Jews themselves built for their welcomed foreign invaders.

You only use Josephus to suit your points that can be backed up like 70AD was a bad year for Jerusalem, but then deny what was actually an ancient tradition for thousands of years, that was also addressed by Josephus, because it contradicts your private interpretation that you got from others as their private interpretation hundreds of years after the historical facts already happened.

No, we don't need the historical record, because there is enough evidence in Scripture to point out you are wrong. But you are wrong historically and in your interpretation of Scripture.

And ignoring the facts makes that your bias. Most agree that many fled in 66AD, even many early church fathers agree with that point, so your point that they fled has nothing to do with 70AD at all. Even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews destroyed their own city, and desecrated their own temple. So Jesus' own people did most of the work for the Romans internally for months, while Titus was sitting back in his tent waiting for the end. But don't let facts get in the way. You seem dead set in your views.

I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Neither do you.

So your point is that Jesus said the AoD had already been set up while he was growing up, and they all should be fleeing for decades?

That's your point, not mine. The Roman armies already existed years before Jesus came. Jesus identified the signal for the Judaean Christians to flee. Read about it.

So why did Christians keep coming back to Jerusalem every year and then kept fleeing every time they saw the Romans walking around Jerusalem in your scenario?

That's your scenario, not mine. When did the Christians "keep coming back to Jerusalem every year and then kept fleeing every time they saw the Romans walking around Jerusalem"?

Josephus would never say the Roman Armies are the AoD. Because that was not an historical fact.

It was a fact, he was part of it, and I told you why he wouldn't say it.

He had far more sense than any dispensational futurist.

 

[covenantee]

They were not preterist nor historist either.

Luke warned those who fled in 66AD, years before 70AD.

Matthew warned those who would be on earth after the Second Coming.

Neither Luke nor Matthew had an eschatology bias. They were quoting Jesus, and told us where Jesus was at the time of the quote. Luke pointed out Jesus was at the Temple. Matthew pointed out Jesus was on the Mount of Olives.

Is your opinion better than the actual written Word of God?

Today the Judaean Christians would be recognized as both historicist and preterist because: 1. The prophesied associated events and their fulfillments occurred historically; and 2. The prophesied associated events and their fulfillments occurred before 70 AD.

And they blow your opinions out of the water.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus identified the Roman armies as the AoD already in His Olivet discourse more than 30 years before 70 AD.

They didn't suddenly become the AoD overnight.

Your claims are, as usual, false.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD by the AoD, the Roman armies.

The Judaean Christians had already fled.

They survived.

They weren't dispensational futurists.

They didn't listen to you.

The Judaean Christians listened to Jesus, not Josephus.

You should, too.

Josephus was ultimately granted Roman citizenship, and assisted the Roman army against the Jews.

His career (and life) would have swiftly and summarily ended if he had described the army that he was assisting as the "abomination of desolation".

He had more sense than any dispensational futurist.

Haha. Yeah, if they were dispensational futurists, they would have all stayed behind waiting for God to take them away and they would have all been killed or taken prisoner. Thank God they were not dispensational futurists and took Jesus seriously and did what He told them to do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can they be parallel, when one was Jesus speaking to the general public at the Temple, and the other was in private on the Mount of Olives to His disciples?

And where is your proof to back this up?

 

[Timtofly]

And where is your proof to back this up?

In Luke 21, Jesus never left the Temple. That is proof enough for me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Luke 21, Jesus never left the Temple. That is proof enough for me.

Where does it say that? Or are you just assuming that?

 

[Timtofly]

Where does it say that? Or are you just assuming that?

If Jesus left, it would say that. You are the one assuming Jesus left.