The Abomination Of Desolation

[robycop3]

Jesus used "oikumene" in Matthew 24:14 when He declared that the Gospel will be preached in all the world. Several NT passages confirm this prophecy came true in the first century. He also used "oikumene" in Luke 21:26. So, yes, it's totally true.

No, it did NOT come to pass then. It was a long time before people in Australia, the Americas, etc.heard the Gospel.

 

[robycop3]

The Man of Sin (2 Thes 2:4-5) was probably Nero. Note that in verse 7 Paul says "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way". I know that you will argue that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer. I've heard it before, but I disagree. The "restrainer" was possibly the Roman civil government, or maybe Claudius, who was the Roman emperor when this was written.

The mystery of lawlessness was at work as soon as Jesus began His ministry. The first antichrists likely began on hat very day. And there's been false prophets since the first generations of men. And the Roman govt. would be a PROMOTER of antichrist, not a restrainer.

Jesus told his immediate audience how to understand Daniel's prophecy, not the words of Jesus which weren't written yet. That would just leave the disciples confused. Why complicate this simple truth with these fantasies?

It was JESUS who said "Let the reader understand", Look in any legitimate Bible version.

While it is an abomination for anyone to declare either himself or anything else as God, there was only one AOD (aside from the foreshadow of Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrifice). This happened in AD 70.

OK, then, please show it to us from history. Hint: it was NOT the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem.

 

[robycop3]

Another thing, Sir- We've been looking mostly at Daniel, Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 2, & Rev. 13. Now try this one for size:

Rev. 8:7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.
Now, please show us from history when this occurred.

 

[Lodic]

Matthew 24:14, ". . . And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. . . . ."
This is yet to be.

No, it did NOT come to pass then. It was a long time before people in Australia, the Americas, etc.heard the Gospel.

Obviously the gospel has not literally been preached to the entire world. To clear up this conundrum, go to the original Greek. The Greek word Jesus used was "oikumene", a word meaning "the land". This was the same word used when Caesar Augustus called for a census to tax the world. Consider Romans 1:8 16:26, Colossians 1:6, 1:23, and 1 Timothy 3:16 tell us the gospel was preached to all the world. In some cases, they used "kosmos", but they were obviously using hyperbole to indicate the whole Roman world.

 

[Lodic]

The mystery of lawlessness was at work as soon as Jesus began His ministry. The first antichrists likely began on hat very day. And there's been false prophets since the first generations of men. And the Roman govt. would be a PROMOTER of antichrist, not a restrainer.

You are mistaken, sir. Just as today's politics always pit those in power against each other, Claudius could easily have been the restrainer. It makes a lot more sense than your futurist fairy tales.

It was JESUS who said "Let the reader understand", Look in any legitimate Bible version.

Of course Jesus said "Let the reader understand". You are confused about what Jesus was referring to. Since He had just mentioned the prophecy of Daniel, Jesus obviously meant "let the reader of Daniel's prophecy understand".

OK, then, please show it to us from history. Hint: it was NOT the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem.

So you deny the truth of Luke 21:20-23, which is a parallel account of what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15-21.

Rev. 8:7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.
Now, please show us from history when this occurred.

As you've pointed out, Revelation uses symbolism. A third of trees and grass will never burn up. As before, this points to the destruction that the Roman armies brought to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

 

[robycop3]

Obviously the gospel has not literally been preached to the entire world. To clear up this conundrum, go to the original Greek. The Greek word Jesus used was "oikumene", a word meaning "the land". This was the same word used when Caesar Augustus called for a census to tax the world. Consider Romans 1:8 16:26, Colossians 1:6, 1:23, and 1 Timothy 3:16 tell us the gospel was preached to all the world. In some cases, they used "kosmos", but they were obviously using hyperbole to indicate the whole Roman world.

He meant the whole inhabited world. He died for the Japanese as well as the Jews. And "the end" hasn't yet come, of course.

 

[robycop3]

You are mistaken, sir. Just as today's politics always pit those in power against each other, Claudius could easily have been the restrainer. It makes a lot more sense than your futurist fairy tales.

No, it makes no sense at all.Claudius' only action against Christians & Jews in general was to expel those he considered troublemakers from the city of Rome.(Collier's Encyclopedia) And since the beast hasn't yet come, the restrainer is still restraining.

Of course Jesus said "Let the reader understand". You are confused about what Jesus was referring to. Since He had just mentioned the prophecy of Daniel, Jesus obviously meant "let the reader of Daniel's prophecy understand".

That's NOT what Jesus said. But, saying you were right, the reader understands from Daniel and history what the first type of the AOD was & what the coming one will be, as set forth in 2 Thess:2:4-5 & Rev. 13.

So you deny the truth of Luke 21:20-23, which is a parallel account of what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15-21.

That event was not, nor did it cause, the AOD. The AOD hasn't occurred yet.

As you've pointed out, Revelation uses symbolism. A third of trees and grass will never burn up. As before, this points to the destruction that the Roman armies brought to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

That's not what the Revelator showed John. But you deny His words by saying it'll never happen!

As I said, you believe Gentry over JESUS! You need to stop that apostasy at once!

 

[37818]

Obviously the gospel has not literally been preached to the entire world.

So literally Matthew 24:14 is a yet to be fulfilled event.

 

[robycop3]

So literally Matthew 24:14 is a yet to be fulfilled event.

Right! "The end" has certainly not yet come!

 

[Lodic]

He meant the whole inhabited world. He died for the Japanese as well as the Jews. And "the end" hasn't yet come, of course.

Who Jesus died for is not in question. The question is "the end of what?" You are assuming this points to the end of the world, but Jesus didn't say that. I believe He refers to the end of the Old Covenant system.

No, it makes no sense at all.Claudius' only action against Christians & Jews in general was to expel those he considered troublemakers from the city of Rome.(Collier's Encyclopedia) And since the beast hasn't yet come, the restrainer is still restraining.

To the contrary, it makes perfect sense. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, the Roman civil government pretty much kept the Jewish hierarchy from persecuting the Jewish Christians. Roman restraint meant that the high priest could no longer use his authority to call for imprisonment, persecution, and death of Christians (Acts 4:1-22, Acts 5:17-42, Acts 7:54-60). Since Scripture is our guide, and the Book of Acts records several times where the Roman government restrained Jewish aggression against the church, it's obviously the Roman government. Since the Beast was Nero, this lines up perfectly with history.

That's NOT what Jesus said. But, saying you were right, the reader understands from Daniel and history what the first type of the AOD was & what the coming one will be, as set forth in 2 Thess:2:4-5 & Rev. 13.

How do you know for sure that Jesus did not mean "the reader of Daniel", especially since He wouldn't tell His immediate audience to read something that wouldn't be written for around 20 years. When we study Daniel's prophecy, we see that the "prince" (or ruler) who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9:26). In verse 27, He (the Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, but will bring an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the week. Jesus fulfilled this at the Cross. Verse 27 continues "and on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate". This desolation was fulfilled by General Titus when he surrounded Jerusalem, as Luke 21:20 tells us.

That's not what the Revelator showed John. But you deny His words by saying it'll never happen!
As I said, you believe Gentry over JESUS! You need to stop that apostasy at once!

That's exactly what was revealed to John. Instead of saying it will never happen, I am saying it already happened. This is not a matter of believing anyone over Jesus. It's taking Scripture to mean exactly what it says.

 

[Lodic]

So literally Matthew 24:14 is a yet to be fulfilled event.

In the sense that Jesus described it, yes. The gospel was preached throughout the "world" (or land) of the Roman Empire. Obviously the gospel hasn't been preached throughout the entire world yet. Since that happened, it's easy to see how the rest of the Olivet Discourse also came to pass in AD 70.

 

[37818]

In the sense that Jesus described it, yes. The gospel was preached throughout the "world" (or land) of the Roman Empire. Obviously the gospel hasn't been preached throughout the entire world yet. Since that happened, it's easy to see how the rest of the Olivet Discourse also came to pass in AD 70.

No.

 

[robycop3]

Who Jesus died for is not in question. The question is "the end of what?" You are assuming this points to the end of the world, but Jesus didn't say that. I believe He refers to the end of the Old Covenant system.

Jesus ushered in the New Covenant at the
"Last Supper". He sealed it with His death. "The end" will be the end of this "age".

To the contrary, it makes perfect sense. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, the Roman civil government pretty much kept the Jewish hierarchy from persecuting the Jewish Christians.

The Romans stood by if the Jews executed someone for "heresy" by stoning, or simply sticking a sword into them. Crucifixions, decapitations, death by archery or javelin squad was done only by the Romans, after a Roman trial. Remember, to have the Romans crucify Jesus, the Jews accused Him of claiming to be their king, while the Jews claimed to have no king but Caesar.

Roman restraint meant that the high priest could no longer use his authority to call for imprisonment, persecution, and death of Christians (Acts 4:1-22, Acts 5:17-42, Acts 7:54-60). Since Scripture is our guide, and the Book of Acts records several times where the Roman government restrained Jewish aggression against the church, it's obviously the Roman government. Since the Beast was Nero, this lines up perfectly with history.

I read all the verses you cited carefully, & NOT ONE of them says anything about Roman authority! The authority mentioned is either the Sanhedrin or the priesthood.

And for the umpteenth time, I have posted **PROOF** that Nero was NOT the beast! Why do you persist in that LIE from Gentry's garbage after it's been PROVEN to be a lie?

How do you know for sure that Jesus did not mean "the reader of Daniel", especially since He wouldn't tell His immediate audience to read something that wouldn't be written for around 20 years. When we study Daniel's prophecy, we see that the "prince" (or ruler) who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9:26). In verse 27, He (the Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, but will bring an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the week. Jesus fulfilled this at the Cross. Verse 27 continues "and on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate". This desolation was fulfilled by General Titus when he surrounded Jerusalem, as Luke 21:20 tells us.

For the sake of discussion, I'll pretend you're right that Jesus was referring to Daniel. So, what DID Danny write?
Daniel 9:26“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Notice he didn't say the PRINCE would be the destroyer; it would be his PEOPLE. And the PLURAL desolations were of the city & the temple.

Jesus knew His words would be written, & that He would preserve them for ever. That's why He mentioned the reader to His disciples.

That's exactly what was revealed to John. Instead of saying it will never happen, I am saying it already happened. This is not a matter of believing anyone over Jesus. It's taking Scripture to mean exactly what it says.

But it's very, VERY obvious that it has NOT yet happened!

 

[robycop3]

Lodic, how can you (or any other preterist) expect me to take you seriously when you keep repeating a lie-that Nero was the beast-gleaned from Dr. Gentry's stuff? I have posted FACTS, framed by SCRIPTURE, that **PROVE** Nero was NOT the beast?

Once more, here's a quick repeat of those facts:

Daniel 7 says a king shall arise from among 10 kings that are over some of the peoples that made up the Roman empire(after it was ended) and shall subdue 3 of them. The others shall willingly give this one king their power & authority, becoming his vassals. Certainly, this didn't happen with Nero. He was APPOINTED to Caesarship by his uncle Claudius Caesar, & confirmed by the Senate. He hadn't even aspired to become Caesar, & spent most of his time in acting, playing music, & engaging in all sorts of sexual debauchery, rather than governing. (No, he didn't fiddle while Rome burned; he joined a bucket brigade!) But he did NOT overthrow any other rulers.

Scripture says the beast will not recognize any other god but himself, but for at least a while, he will worship(or pretend to worship) a "god of fortresses", & also "a god which his fathers did not know" & every fortress he attacks will fall to him. It was well-known that Nero worshipped the usual Roman pantheon of gods/goddesses.

In 2 Thess.2:4-5, Paul wrote that the beast/man of sin will enter the temple(meaning the temple in Jerusalem) and declare himself God, NERO NEVER DID EITHER ONE! He was never in Jerusalem in his life!

The clincher: Scripture PLAINLY says that the beast & the false prophet will be cast alive into the lake of fire. History plainly shows that Nero DIED. A band of at least 7 men had been sent by Gen. Galba to arrest him. When they found him dying from a sword stab, they tried to save his life, but failed. They, plus Epaphroditus, the scribe whom Nero commanded to stab him, all saw his death. (NOT the same Epaphroditus mentioned by Paul in Philippians)

There's no symbolizing those plain words of Scripture: Rev. 19: 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Remember, the TRUE beast MUST meet EVERY Scriptural criterion written about him, TO THE LETTER, without the smallest detail left out! Nero didn't even come CLOSE! there are other things which the true beast will do, bit thse are the major ones. Only ONE is needed to prove Nero wasn't the beast!

 

[Lodic]

No.

As they say, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lodic]

Jesus ushered in the New Covenant at the
"Last Supper". He sealed it with His death. "The end" will be the end of this "age".

You are partly right. The "end" was the end of the Old Covenant age.

I read all the verses you cited carefully, & NOT ONE of them says anything about Roman authority! The authority mentioned is either the Sanhedrin or the priesthood.
And for the umpteenth time, I have posted **PROOF** that Nero was NOT the beast! Why do you persist in that LIE from Gentry's garbage after it's been PROVEN to be a lie?

The Sanhedrin and the priesthood needed the blessings of the Roman civil government to persecute and execute their enemies. For the umpteenth time, you have never proven that Nero was not the beast. Just because you believe it to be untrue doesn't make it to be a lie. As Pence told Harris in their debate, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Daniel 9:26“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Notice he didn't say the PRINCE would be the destroyer; it would be his PEOPLE. And the PLURAL desolations were of the city & the temple.

If the "prince" was Titus, the "people" were his armies. Whether desolations was singular or plural doesn't change the final result - they brought a final desolation on Jerusalem and the Temple.

Jesus knew His words would be written, & that He would preserve them for ever. That's why He mentioned the reader to His disciples.

You often present some pretty sound arguments, but this is not one of them. You have to consider audience relevance when you study Scripture. How did the original audience understand what was said? If your theory was true, it would have left them wondering what He was talking about. Yet, none of them questioned Jesus about "reader of what" - because they understood what you should - Jesus referred to the readers of Daniel's prophecy.

Lodic, how can you (or any other preterist) expect me to take you seriously when you keep repeating a lie-that Nero was the beast-gleaned from Dr. Gentry's stuff? I have posted FACTS, framed by SCRIPTURE, that **PROVE** Nero was NOT the beast?

I'll turn the question around. How can you expect me to take you seriously when you keep repeating the same fairy tale? Your basic argument is "this hasn't happened yet, so that can't be what the prophecy means". You lead with your conclusions, then change what Scripture actually means to fit your views. That is eisegesis, not exegesis.

You've proven that you know history quite well. If only you could apply the same skill and knowledge to interpreting Scripture.

There's no symbolizing those plain words of Scripture: Rev. 19: 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Agreed. I'm not sure about the exact details, but that doesn't make the Preterist view false. The Preterist view fits all the other prophecies, so this detail won't change my mind. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Beast was Rome / Nero. I am absolutely convinced that the "Futurist" view of prophecy is filled with errors due to misinterpretations and reading into the text something. I do not argue for the sake of arguing, but I do not like to let false teachings go unchallenged.

 

[37818]

The Preterist is deemed false for a number of reasons. Denial of the Revelation millennium for one. Revelation 20:2-7. Revelation 22:18-19.

 

[Lodic]

The Preterist is deemed false for a number of reasons. Denial of the Revelation millennium for one. Revelation 20:2-7. Revelation 22:18-19.

If I may ask, how do you see the Preterist view as denial of the millennium? I have never denied the reality of the millennium, but I don't believe it's a literal thousand years either. What would be the purpose of a rebuilt temple and bringing back circumcision and animal sacrifices?

One part of the Abrahamic covenant that many "futurists" seem to pass over is the everlasting nature of the covenant of circumcision. Like the guarantee of national existence and the land promises which are said to be everlasting covenants, the covenant of circumcision is also said to be “everlasting” Genesis 17:13-14 say that circumcision was to be an "everlasting covenant". Because the covenant of circumcision is said to be everlasting, this means that Jews born during the millennium must be circumcised because any “uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant”. The literal interpretation of Bible prophecy and the everlasting nature of the Abrahamic covenant as proclaimed by the "futurist" view demands the perpetual validity and practice of physical circumcision. Since the "futurist" view that the land covenant is everlasting and still requires a future fulfillment, the everlasting nature of the covenant of circumcision must also require a future fulfillment if we are to be consistent.

Galatians 5:1-6 shows that circumcision came to an end at the Cross. Romans 2:28-29 tells us that circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. In the "futurist" view, a covenantal Jew is someone who must be marked outwardly in the flesh given the demands of the Abrahamic covenant.

As I understand it, the millennium is focused on the Jews. This view requires a rebuilt temple, sacrifices, and circumcision. Jesus said "it is finished" (John 19:30). Revelation 20 is the only place in the entire Bible where a thousand years is used to describe the reign of Christ. However, this passage does not say that Jesus reigns on the earth, a temple will be built, and animals will be sacrificed.

 

[37818]

. . . I don't believe it's a literal thousand years . . . .

Revelation 20 is the only place in the entire Bible where a thousand years is used to describe the reign of Christ.

False. Revelation 11:15, ". . . 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. . . ." The kingdoms of this world will otherwise not even see the kingdom of God. John 3:3, Revelation 21:27.

 

[robycop3]

You are partly right. The "end" was the end of the Old Covenant age.

1 Cor. 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
So you see the NC was introduced by Jesus at the "Last Supper" & sealed with Jesus' death.

The Sanhedrin and the priesthood needed the blessings of the Roman civil government to persecute and execute their enemies.

For the umpteenth time, you have never proven that Nero was not the beast. Just because you believe it to be untrue doesn't make it to be a lie. As Pence told Harris in their debate, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Why, I HAVE, TOO so proven ! ! I p[osted a list of things attributed to the true beast that Nero didn't do or undergo. The MOST-TELLING is that he was NOT cast alive into hell, His death is a historical fact! The TRUE beast will be cast alive into hell AT JESUS' RETURN! As Jesus did NOT return in Nero's time, he could NOT have been the beast! Please get that garbage outta your head !

If the "prince" was Titus, the "people" were his armies. Whether desolations was singular or plural doesn't change the final result - they brought a final desolation on Jerusalem and the Temple.

But it was NOT the AOD.

You often present some pretty sound arguments, but this is not one of them. You have to consider audience relevance when you study Scripture. How did the original audience understand what was said? If your theory was true, it would have left them wondering what He was talking about. Yet, none of them questioned Jesus about "reader of what" - because they understood what you should - Jesus referred to the readers of Daniel's prophecy.

OK, say you're right about that. We understand Danny's prophecy about the AOD to have been fulfilled the 1st time by Antiochus Epiphanes & his statue of Zeus in the temple. So, according to Jesus' words, we are to watch for a similar event to fulfill Jesus' words. And that event did NOT occur before the temple was destroyed. Remember, Danny said it eould be PLACED & SET UP, & no such thing happened in the old temple.

I'll turn the question around. How can you expect me to take you seriously when you keep repeating the same fairy tale? Your basic argument is "this hasn't happened yet, so that can't be what the prophecy means". You lead with your conclusions, then change what Scripture actually means to fit your views. That is eisegesis, not exegesis.

YOU do exactly what you say I do. You say "the whole world" doesn't mean "the whole world". You say "It's already happened" & then try to shoehorn some other event into Scripture to show fulfillment. THAT HIPPO WON'T FLY!

You've proven that you know history quite well. If only you could apply the same skill and knowledge to interpreting Scripture.


Agreed. I'm not sure about the exact details, but that doesn't make the Preterist view false. [/quote]
Yes, it DOES. It OBVIOUSLY didn't happen to Nero!

The Preterist view fits all the other prophecies, so this detail won't change my mind.

Then you must believe Gentry over JESUS.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Beast was Rome / Nero.

I've posted a great many shadows & doubts you refuse to accept, but can't disprove. And you don't "know" Nero was the beast; you're just GUESSING because your guru Gentry said he was, despite the words of JESUS proving he WASN'T.

I am absolutely convinced that the "Futurist" view of prophecy is filled with errors due to misinterpretations and reading into the text something. I do not argue for the sake of arguing, but I do not like to let false teachings go unchallenged.

No, you spread false teachings by taking Gentry & others like him at their word without checking it out for yourself.

Rev. 8:8 Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
Cn you tell us from history when THIS happened?