Christology and Preterism Part 2

LOL! ROFLOL! You quote Jamieson, FAUSSET, and Brown then use it to call Fausset a liar! You are a riot!

 

Why not post what Fausset really wrote on the subject?

-----Begin Quoted Material

"The idol (See ABOMINATION) of the desolator," or "the idol that causeth desolation." Abomination refers especially to such idolatry only as is perpetrated by apostates from Jehovah (2Ki_21:2-7; 2Ki_23:13). Josephus (B. J., 4:6, sec. 3) refers to the Jews' tradition that the temple would be destroyed "if domestic hands should first pollute it." The Lord quotes Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11, in Mat_24:15 "the abomination of desolation," as the sign of Jerusalem's coming destruction. Daniel makes the ceasing of the sacrifice and oblation the preliminary to it.

Jewish rabbis considered the prophecy fulfilled when the Jews erected an idol altar, described as "the abomination of desolation" in 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_6:7. This was necessarily followed by the profanation of the temple under the Old Testament antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes. He built an idolatrous altar on the altar of burnt offering to Jupiter Olympius, and dedicated the temple to him, and offered swine's flesh.

The divine law is that where the church corrupts herself, the world, the instrument of her sin, is made also the instrument of her punishment (Mat_24:28; Rev_17:3; Rev_17:16). The bringing of the idolatrous, Roman, image crowned standards into the temple, where they were set over the E. gate, and sacrificed to, upon the destruction of Jerusalem under the Roman Titus, 37 years after Jesus' prophecy (A.D. 70), is not enough to meet the requirements of the term "abomination," unless it were shown that the Jews shared in the idolatry. Perhaps the Zealots perpetrated some abomination which was to be the sign of the nation's ruin. They had taken possession of the temple, and having made a profane country fellow, Phannias, their high priest, they made a mock of the sacred rites of the law.

Some such desecration within the city, "in the holy place," coinciding with Cestius Gallus' encampment without, "in a holy place," was the sign foretold by Jesus; noting it, the Christians fled from the city to Pella, and all escaped. The final fulfillment is future. The last antichrist, many think, is about to set up an idol on a wing of the restored temple (compare Mat_4:5; Joh_5:43) in the latter half of the last, or 70th, of Daniel's prophetic weeks; for the former three and a half days (years) of the prophetic week he keeps his covenant with the Jews; in the latter three and a half breaks it (Zec_11:16-17; Zec_11:12; Zec_11:13; Zec_11:14; Daniel 9; 11). The Roman emperor Hadrian erected a temple to Jupiter upon the site of the Jewish temple; but probably "the consummation to be poured upon the desolate" is yet future.

------------

End quoted material

 

Once again I seem to have overestimated you, and for that I apologize. I assumed (apparently wrongly) that you had access to a decent library, but that seems not to be the case.

It is pretty much understood when quoting the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary the reference "JFB" is sufficient to identify the source. When quoting the Fausset Bible Dictionary the reference "Fausset" is sufficient to identify the source.

So, as you and your groupies seem to abhor paper and ink libraries for some odd reason I will find an on-line source for you to read.

Here we go. Only took about .2 seconds to find it. Try it some time. You may like it.

Abomination of Desolation - Fausset's Bible Dictionary - Bible Dictionary - StudyLight.org

 

The point is that when you don't know what you are talking about it is a good time to stop talking.

 

When I don't know what I am talking about, unlike you.

Once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to understand rather simple concepts. The issue is not searching and comparing scriptures but whether or not slavishly translating the same Greek word into the same English word is good translation technique, or something only a person grossly ignorant of translation technique would suggest, or support.

Yes, of course. Anyone who knows something you don't know or has an opinion different than yours is automatically "pompous" in your fevered estimation.

 

Yes, of course. Your ability to exegete the Hebrew and Greek far surpasses the abilities of the scholarly commentators so why listen to anyone, just assume you already know everything you need to know.

By the way, the idea "I already know all about that" is the greatest hindrance to learning that exists in the mind of man.

So, may I assume you also reject all the great Confessions of faith because you have a bible? You eschew The Westminster Confession of Faith and all that it teaches?

You reject the Heidelberg Confession because you have a bible?

You reject the Canons of Dordt because you have a bible?

And as a Baptist you reject the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith, Keach's Catechism, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, because you have a bible?