The "Abomination that Maketh Desolate"

[Lafon]

Daniel 11:31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Desolate:
deserted, abandoned, devoid of inhabitants or visitors, destitute, dissolute, deprivation, depopulate, barren, void, empty, forsaken, stark (Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary, copyright 1986 by Merriam-Webster Inc)

Jesus said:
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;...) (Matthew 24:15) (see also Mark 13:14)

It is a commonly held belief that the phrases - “abomination that maketh desolate” and “abomination of desolation” - are references to the coming manifestation of the evil invisible spirit of Satan in human flesh [frequently called the “Anti-Christ”], an event which is prophesied throughout the Bible as one which is to transpire in the closing days of the present age.

Taking into consideration Webster’s definition of the word “desolate,” then one must pause and consider this important question: What entity (that is to say, thing with distinct and independent existence) shall the coming Anti-Christ “make desolate” following his manifestation in human flesh upon the earth, and through what means shall this exceptional “desolation” occur? Will it be a newly built Jewish temple in the city of Jerusalem that is to be rendered barren, void, empty, etc... (a belief common among many today), or do these phrases imply that the entire earth will be made "desolate" by the coming Anti-Christ?

What say ye? I would enjoy reading what some of the end-time prophecy “buffs” of this forum have to say concerning this matter. [And please, provide scriptural support for your views.]

[Beard]

abomination of desolation is the transgression of desolation because of sins/transgressions; notice it stands where it ought not, exalting itself against God or all that is worshipped, so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Rev. 11 speaks of a time, times, and dividing of time when the city shall be trodden under foot; at the same time God gives power to the church, the two witness so that they will prophesy a 1,260 days. We don't worry about the devil, we let the devil worry about us.... if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for the battle. the battle is the day of the battle of the Lord which we as the church must prepare for. Preparation (God will prepare or establish) is one of the two pillars of Solomon's temple being Jachin, the other Boaz meaning God will strengthen (same as Ezekiel). Jachin speaks of David who made preparation for the temple; and Boaz speaks of Solomon who built the temple...Solomon's temple was dedicated in Tishri (the 7th month) in contrast to Moses' tabernacle which was dedicated in the first month of Abib. There are two entirely different seasons, for it is in the month of Tishri or 7th month when Haggai (the Feast prophet) writes that the latter house will be greater than the former. The abomination of desolation stands behind many pulpits of today, not realizing the spiritual rather than the letter.

[gloryseeker]

Interesting question. Can I pose another question related to yours? Given the prophetic utterances you listed about the desolation how then does the following fit in:

Matt 24:36-38
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (KJV)

Eating, drinking, marrying sounds more like a party atmosphere than a desolate atmosphere. Obviously the Word is right that which you posted and also these words of Jesus.

How then do both occur?

[ApostolicTexas]

Daniel 11:31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Desolate:
deserted, abandoned, devoid of inhabitants or visitors, destitute, dissolute, deprivation, depopulate, barren, void, empty, forsaken, stark (Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary, copyright 1986 by Merriam-Webster Inc)

Jesus said:
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;...) (Matthew 24:15) (see also Mark 13:14)

It is a commonly held belief that the phrases - “abomination that maketh desolate” and “abomination of desolation” - are references to the coming manifestation of the evil invisible spirit of Satan in human flesh [frequently called the “Anti-Christ”], an event which is prophesied throughout the Bible as one which is to transpire in the closing days of the present age.

Taking into consideration Webster’s definition of the word “desolate,” then one must pause and consider this important question: What entity (that is to say, thing with distinct and independent existence) shall the coming Anti-Christ “make desolate” following his manifestation in human flesh upon the earth, and through what means shall this exceptional “desolation” occur? Will it be a newly built Jewish temple in the city of Jerusalem that is to be rendered barren, void, empty, etc... (a belief common among many today), or do these phrases imply that the entire earth will be made "desolate" by the coming Anti-Christ?

What say ye? I would enjoy reading what some of the end-time prophecy “buffs” of this forum have to say concerning this matter. [And please, provide scriptural support for your views.]


I would like to add..the audience of this whole chapter 24 is the disciples..This is Jesus telling THEM what THEY will see in THEIR lifetime :)

[Sister Alvear]

their lifetime?

[ApostolicTexas]

their lifetime?

Yes..Please look at Matthew 24 and notice all the personal pronouns..YOU

vs 1-And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.{who came to him?}

vs 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto YOU, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. {Jesus speaking to who?..disciples}

vs 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
{Discisples came to him and said..TELL US} and the rest of the chapter unfolds with Jesus telling THEM..again look at the YOU's throughout}

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive YOU. Jesus speaking to who?

Please read the rest of this chapter even though I am sure you have read this countless times..but notice all the YOU's as this is Jesus speaking to his disciples..even in the popular verse 15

When YE{disciples} therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

They were to see this happen in THEIR lifetime..it is very interesting I would think..

[Sister Alvear]

Dear Texas Friend...you must be of the same group of Elder Bloom. I personally feel different about this subject however I do not feel it is a heaven or hell issue for we will know exactly what it means at some point. May God bless you and please pray for us on the mission field.

[ApostolicTexas]

Dear Texas Friend...you must be of the same group of Elder Bloom. I personally feel different about this subject however I do not feel it is a heaven or hell issue for we will know exactly what it means at some point. May God bless you and please pray for us on the mission field.

I can agree that it is NOT a salvational issue..and I respect your feelings but at the same time I believe the scriptures speak for themselves.Go to any bookstore in America and you will see the shelves for "end times"just full and about every author and their uncle has wrote a book about what they think will happen.What you will not find is a book on what DID happen and what is found in Matthew 24.Those personal pronouns {YOU's} are hard to ignore and many people have been taught to slide themselves into those verses instead of allowing those scriptures to speak for themselves..I respect anyone who disagrees but it is not me they are disagreeing with it is in their own bible as well..The scriptures had an original audience and we fail to look through the eyes of that 1st century church.I cannot say I am total agreement with Elder Blume but we do see some things the same..

Your ministry will be in my prayers.God Bless

[Sister Alvear]

Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?
Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question)

[ApostolicTexas]

Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?
Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question)

Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?
Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question)

Sister Alvear..God Bless your heart.I really appreciate what you do in the field and you hold my dearest respect.I believe you are serious when you ask this question and I hope you believe that I am serious in my responses.I love the Lord and I do not want to mis-lead anyone but I also believe we have the written Word of God to stand on and by saying that I believe it is up to us to read this book and allow it to interpret itself and allow the Word to explain.One of the hardest things I had ever experienced in my walk with God was realizing the originality of the scriptures and by what I mean is..realizing to whom the original audience was..I was taught to open the Bible to the NT and believe when I read scripture..such as the Epistles and believe this was Paul writing directly and personally to me.This is how I used to read scriptures.But please allow me to give a good example..Look at 1 Cor 15:1-6


Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Do you see it?..If I was to read this verse As it is..it is saying some of the witnesses who saw Christ after He arose from the dead..was still alive unto this day..Now you and I both know we do not have witnesses walking on this earth today..who are older than 2,000 years old..But if were to read and understand the concept that scripture is "audience revelant"it would not be hard to understand that this was Paul speaking to the Church in Corinth some 2000 years ago..back to your question...


Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?

My anwser is...YES..this is what I believe..I am reading what was said to someone else..Matthew 24 alone is full of personal pronouns where Jesus spoke directly to his audience the disciples..


Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question

my anwser again is yes...However....When we allow scripture to interpret scripture..We can know Jesus gave Peter the keys to the KOG..We can read where PEter went to each group of people found in scripture..the Jew,Samaritan,Gentile..and to each group HE opened the door to salvation..We can also read what Paul told the Church in Ephesus..2:20..

We know the message Peter gave is Acts 2:38..and we also know the promise is to ALL that are AFAR off..and we can read in John 17:20


Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

This scripture plainly tells us that the Apostles were going to be responsible for preaching the message Jesus gave them to proclaim..It is amazing today that millions do not see it.We as Apostlics know the Apostles were part of the foundation and we are to be built upon their teaching..so when We read Acts 2:38..yes that was Peter speaking to THAT crowd THAT DAY but we should also be able to understand that this is the salvation message..and we need to obey the original plan and message Jesus gave to his apostles for the entire world..{Jn 17:20}.

It is interesting that we as believers do not have a hard time believing AND accepting the fact that the OT is history.We know when we read the OT we are reading the story of Israel..it is history..YET you and I can still turn to the Psalms to find comfort,Proverbs to find wisdom,We can read in Judges about the heroics of Sampson and in Samuel the story of David and his mighty men and the rest of the story about Israel..we have no problem of believing and understanding this about the OT but for some reason when it comes to the NT we get side tracked and have a hard time accepting that the NT also is history..yet we can STILL gain incredible insight and wisdom from that 1st century church..I hope I have helped some :)

[Falla39]

In Luke 21:20-27, Luke's account of the passages in Matt.24 and Mark 13.

In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus has just commended the poor widow that gave
the two mites. Some brought up the subject of the temple, how it was adorned with
goodly stones and gifts. Jesus says as for these things you are beholding, the days are
coming, in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown
down. He is asked, Master (Teacher) when shall thee things be and what sign will there
be when these things shall come to pass.

Jesus tells them to take heed (notice) that no one deceives you, that many would come
in his name, declaring to be Christ and the time was drawing near. And go
not after those that were claiming to be Christ.

Jesus tells them other things, including the fact that there would be those who would
lay hands on them and persecute them, delivering them up to the synagogues,(jewish)
and into prisons, and they would be brought before kings and rulers for his name sake.

(Sounds exactly like what happened in the book of Acts.) He told them to not meditate
in their hearts what they would say for he would give them a mouth and wisdom that the
gainsayers would not be able to resist. They would be betrayed by their families and friends
and some (high priests and scribes, Saul of Tarsus, etc.) of them would they cause to
be put to death. He told them they would be hated by all men for his name sake. Then
he made a strange statement! "BUT there shall not an hair of your head perish". That
in their patience possess you your souls.

NOW NOTICE beginning with the 20th verse, "And when You shall see Jeresalem com-
passed
(surrounded) (1): to enclose on all sides : envelop <the crowd surrounded her>
(2): to enclose so as to cut off communication or retreat.
with armies, then know that the desolution thereof is nigh (near).

Vs.21, Jesus told them what to do: Let them that are in Judaea flee to the mountains;
and let (allow, permit) them that are in Jerusalem get out; and let them that are the
countries enter thereinto.

Vs.22, For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be
fulfilled. Read the rest of the chapter.

In Matt.24:29,30, Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sign of
the Son of man in heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

Vs.30 And then shall appear the SIGN of the Son in the heaven: and then shall all the
tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory.

(What did Jesus tell the high priest he would see! Matt. 26:63,64. He knew
what Jesus was telling him.)

Vs. 34, Verily (Truly) I say unto you, THIS generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled.

Rev.14:13, "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the
dead which die in the Lord from henceforth (from now on): Yea, saith the Spirit,
that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Vs.14, And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud ONE sat like unto the
Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the
cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap: for the harvest
of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the
earth was reaped.

And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Vs.18, And another angel came out from the alter, which had power over fire; and cried
with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in ty sharp sickle, and
gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel
thrust in his sickle into the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of
God.

Vs.20. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the
winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred
furlongs.

For three and one half years, God poured out His wrath upon those who rejected and spurn-
ed the Son He sent to same them. It happened to that wicked generation. The wicked unbe-
lieving generation of that day.

God never leaves Himself without witness! Did He have John write these things before-
hand that we might know what happened after the destruction of Jerusalem,
after the fact!!!

God sent His Son, the heir to save the inheritance, but the wicked men left in charge
killed the heir, wanting the inheritance for themselves. (King Herod, the unbelieving jews.
But those that received Jesus, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even as
many as believed on his name. They are still fighting over there for the land that belongs
to the heir and his name is JESUS!! The earth is the LORD's and the fulness therein.

Just some thoughts as I endeavor to follow on to know the Lord in a greater measure!
The OT and NT tell us that "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord." HOW?? By
the Spirit (Father). Does God want to homeschool HIS children! Just a thought. The
Father (Spirit) in Christ Jesus, taught him. He only DID and SAID the things
his Father told him to do and say! What's our problem! Does not the same Spirit dwell in us!

If you don't agree, let's agree to disagree. I don't say I am 100% right but with the help
of my Teacher (Holy Ghost), I will get it right. I am not the teacher, just the student
at this point.

Blessings,

Falla39

[mfblume]

Now that sister Falla39 has revived this topic, I noticed Sis Alvear last commented on how she did not think YOU applied directly to the people in that day in Matt 24. I must point out that the context of YOU in Matt 23 through 24 does indeed indicate it was directly to those people alone in that day. Context is the factor. Matt 23 differentiated the people of that day to whom Jesus spoke, from their ancestors of the same nation by using the words THIS GENERATION. Jesus did not change that distinction when He used it in Matth 24, the very next chapter. THIS GENERATION in verse 34 is the same group of people that it meant in 23:36. Therefore, the use of the word YOU also must be limited to those people of that day.

And the following version of the Bible shwos this plainly!

Matthew 23:36 CEV I can promise that you people living today will be punished for all these things!

Matthew 24:34 CEV I can promise you that some of the people of this generation will still be alive when all this happens.

Matthew 24:34 GNB Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died.

[jimmyrrs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Alvear
Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?
Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question)

Sometimes I get lost among all the post. To put it in simple terms, in Acts 2:38 Peter was speaking to a group of people at the moment. I was not there. Yet, the message is the same today. It has not changed. So when I preach Acts 2:38 am I not preaching to a group of people at the moment?

[Falla39]

Acts 2:38, 39:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye (you) shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you (Jews), and your (Jewish) children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Peter concluded by telling those present to save themselves from that unto-
ward (corrupted) (NIV) generation. That "corrupted" generation was judged
at the end of that age.

God sent the Word made flesh to that generation first.
Jesus said the Jews required a sign and the only sign that was given was that
of Jona three days in the belly of the whale. It was symbolic of Jesus being three
days in the earth. He came unto his own and his own received him not, but to as
many as did receive him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even
to them that believe on his name. That happened when Paul told the unbelieving
Jews that since they didn't count themselves worthy, he now turned to the gentiles
for, said he, they will believe.

Yes, that corrupt generation was judged at the end of that age. 70AD.

Blessings,

Falla39

[jimmyrrs]

Acts 2:38, 39:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye (you) shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you (Jews), and your (Jewish) children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Peter concluded by telling those present to save themselves from that unto-
ward (corrupted) (NIV) generation. That "corrupted" generation was judged
at the end of that age.
Blessings,

Falla39

Dear Brother or Sister,

I enjoy learning what other people think and believe and how they view the Bible.
Please explain the statement in red. At the end of what age?

[Falla39]

Dear Brother or Sister,

I enjoy learning what other people think and believe and how they view the Bible.
Please explain the statement in red. At the end of what age?

Bro. Jimmyrrs,

What I am basically referring to is the destruction of old natural Jerusalem,
the end of lawkeeping and animal sacrifices. The temple had become some-
thing that God never intended. Jesus really tore things up when he went
into the temple and accused those there, of using the temple as a "den of
theives". Jesus said his house was to be called a house of prayer for all
people, but you have made it "a den of theives".

The end of the Old Covenant, the entering in of the New Covenant with
better things, better promises, etc.

The last chapter of Rev., 22: 17, sounds like an invitation. "And the Spirit
(Father) and the bride say, Come. And let (allow, permit) him that heareth
say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take
the water of life freely.

An entrance or invitation into the everlasting Kingdom of God. The Church.

These are some thoughts as I study to shew myself approved of God,
a worker that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.

Blessings,

Sis. Falla39

[jimmyrrs]

Ok, Thanks for the reply.

[mfblume]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Alvear
Would that mean that every time the Bible used YOU or YOUR it meant to those at that moment?
Would that not mean Acts 2:38 applies only to those Peter spoke to? ( I am seriously asking this question)

Sometimes I get lost among all the post. To put it in simple terms, in Acts 2:38 Peter was speaking to a group of people at the moment. I was not there. Yet, the message is the same today. It has not changed. So when I preach Acts 2:38 am I not preaching to a group of people at the moment?

Agreed. That is why I said CONTEXT determines whether or not the YOU in any given verse is referring only to a people in that moment of the speaking or to anyone. Matth 24:34 limits the YOU in Matt 24 to the people living at that time Jesus spoke.

[SonsOfTheOil]

very well put..good point and very accurate...if we followed the same rules thru out the entire bible we would keep ourselves out of alot of mess.:)

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a fitting article on this topic.http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=190

[Lafon]

I have always held to the belief that it is extremely dangerous to approach a particular scriptural matter, or phrase, as a "Schematist," that is to say, one who forms an opinion, or concludes a matter concerning a thing in a specific manner, and then seeks to make everything else that has been written concerning it to conform to their preconceived views, or beliefs.

For instance, should one embrace a belief in the flawed teachings about a "triune God," then that individual will attempt to make every passage of the Bible which refers to the Godhead in such a way that it lends support to their biased views, all the while failing to recognize the deficiency of their understanding. I fear that this is the manner in which many have attempted to interpret the words of our Lord as found recorded in Matthew 24.

Should one approach the specific issues raised by the questions which I have tendered here for discussion in such a manner (as some, such as ApostolicTexas and Brother Mike Blume have done), and in so doing have concluded that the things spoken about by Jesus have already taken place, and in like manner apply this same manner of interpreting the contents of the scriptures to the contents of Exodus 20, then it might also be concluded that the commandments listed there were applicable ONLY to those Israelites who were alive during that period wherein they were given.

Is it proper to conclude that because the LORD God used such words as "you," within the 10 commandments that we must conclude that such were applicable, or restricted, ONLY to those in attendance at the time they were uttered? Of course not! In fact, it is sheer folly and absurdity to even imagine that such were the case. If one followed this pattern of interpreting the contents of the scriptures, and go through the Bible eliminating all of the places wherein such words are found (based upon the flawed belief that in such instances the things referred to did not apply to this present generation), then that which would remain would become so confusing as to render it void and utterly useless.

Why do some fail to recognize the implications of the words of Romans 4:17, wherein we are told that because God is eternal, and therefore not restricted to the limitations of time as we mortal humans are, that He is able to "...calleth those things which be not as though they were"?

Why do some tenaciously embrace the flawed belief that simply because our Lord used words such as "you, ye, thee," etc., within the record of the response which He uttered in response to the inquiry of the chosen apostles regarding the specific "sign" (singular), that would be indicative of the immenincy of His "coming" and "the end of the age," that such things were to apply ONLY to them and the people who were living during their generation? If such a concludion were indeed true, then I would be inclined to question why it was even necessary that this matter be made an integral part of the Bible, for what relevancy would it bear upon we who are alive today?

IMHO every passage of the sacred Writ must be considered to be applicable to the people of every generation, else it is applicable to none! A strong statement, huh? Indeed! for if such were the case then mankind is in a much greater state of distress than one could even imagine.

[Sister Alvear]

I tend to agree with the above post...
However I am not a Bible teacher and much of this stuff seems so complicated to me. I have been so busy lately I haven´t had much time to post but I do think a lot along these lines...It is very serious and I do pray that God prepares us all for whatever might be ahead.

[mfblume]

I have always held to the belief that it is extremely dangerous to approach a particular scriptural matter, or phrase, as a "Schematist," that is to say, one who forms an opinion, or concludes a matter concerning a thing in a specific manner, and then seeks to make everything else that has been written concerning it to conform to their preconceived views, or beliefs.

For instance, should one embrace a belief in the flawed teachings about a "triune God," then that individual will attempt to make every passage of the Bible which refers to the Godhead in such a way that it lends support to their biased views, all the while failing to recognize the deficiency of their understanding. I fear that this is the manner in which many have attempted to interpret the words of our Lord as found recorded in Matthew 24.

Should one approach the specific issues raised by the questions which I have tendered here for discussion in such a manner (as some, such as ApostolicTexas and Brother Mike Blume have done), and in so doing have concluded that the things spoken about by Jesus have already taken place, and in like manner apply this same manner of interpreting the contents of the scriptures to the contents of Exodus 20, then it might also be concluded that the commandments listed there were applicable ONLY to those Israelites who were alive during that period wherein they were given.

I am completely for the thought of ensuring we do not approach something with preconceived notions. And the issue I have with Matt 24 is not at all an outcropping of preconception. Neither is it a result of reading words like "YOU". You did not read my posts in order to say what you did here.

In fact, I believed full-blown futurism for many years until I noticed some timetexts in the Gospels concerning the words of judgment. Matt 16 ends speaking to disciples and saying they shall not taste death until they see the son of man coming in the clouds. That limits the issue to those people. Matthew 23 spoke to the people of that day, as the translations attest, when referring to that generation, and distinguished them from their ancestral fathers, letting us know he is specifying a particular people and in that context.

Matthew 24:34 KJV Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus said all those events, not some of them, would occur in one generation. And the temple destruction that was included in the ALL THESE THINGS list.

Jesus carried His cross as the women wept for him, and he told them they should weep for themselves and their children since they would cry fro rocks and mountains to fall on them, and that is the sixth seal of Rev 6.

Over and over again TIMETEXTS were introduced into the discussions by Jesus. And that makes the issue entirely different than what you are proposing. One has to be unaware of those references in order to say the events were not to occur in their lifetimes only.

Is it proper to conclude that because the LORD God used such words as "you," within the 10 commandments that we must conclude that such were applicable, or restricted, ONLY to those in attendance at the time they were uttered? Of course not!

I agree! However, it is not just a matter of YOU, but rather TIMETEXTS that are involved int he discussions of Matt 24 and elsewhere. Unfortunately, tradition will now cause the reader of my post to twist the timetext statements and carry them away into rather unreasonable extents, since that is the real culprit we are dealing with in the differences of beliefs here. Not the pronouns YOU etc.

[ronharvey]

Isaiah 66:3 "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations."

Seems to me (for 30+ years now) that the continuation of offering sacrifices after the crucifixion was the abomination that made Jerusalem desolate.

It is also interesting to note that nearly all students of prophecy neglect to compare Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 to their listening audience and note they are OUT OF SEQUENCE proving they are NOT written in chronological order.

Jesus was simply answering 3 questions.
1. When shall these things be?
2. What shall be the sign of thy coming?
3. What shall be the sign of the end of the world?

The sign of his coming and the end of the world (cosmos: present system) is the same sign e.g. the destruction of the Temple.

Matthew 24:2 "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Matthew 24:3 "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

The disciples asked Jesus 3 questions, the entire discourse are the answers to these 3 questions.

How they were skewed to mean some time 2000 years later is beyond sound reasoning.

That they wanted to know and Jesus said for THEM to take heed should tell the reader WHO is the intended listeners.

Jesus summed it up in Luke 21

Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

That the prophets did not make all prophecies to Israel, Nor to Judah has messed up the study of prophecy because nearly all "Prophecy Teachers" lump all prophecies together as though the tribes were never divided.

There were prophecies to The Northern Tribes of Israel and specific prophecies to Judah, neither of which were to be fulfilled in the other.

paying simple attention to these glaring details makes reading the bible a new and different book to those who are interested in rightly dividing the word when studying the subject of prophecy.

Ron.

[Falla39]

Isaiah 66:3 "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations."

Seems to me (for 30+ years now) that the continuation of offering sacrifices after the crucifixion was the abomination that made Jerusalem desolate.

It is also interesting to note that nearly all students of prophecy neglect to compare Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 to their listening audience and note they are OUT OF SEQUENCE proving they are NOT written in chronological order.

Jesus was simply answering 3 questions.
1. When shall these things be?
2. What shall be the sign of thy coming?
3. What shall be the sign of the end of the world?

The sign of his coming and the end of the world (cosmos: present system) is the same sign e.g. the destruction of the Temple.

Matthew 24:2 "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Matthew 24:3 "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

The disciples asked Jesus 3 questions, the entire discourse are the answers to these 3 questions.

How they were skewed to mean some time 2000 years later is beyond sound reasoning.

That they wanted to know and Jesus said for THEM to take heed should tell the reader WHO is the intended listeners.

Jesus summed it up in Luke 21

Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

That the prophets did not make all prophecies to Israel, Nor to Judah has messed up the study of prophecy because nearly all "Prophecy Teachers" lump all prophecies together as though the tribes were never divided.

There were prophecies to The Northern Tribes of Israel and specific prophecies to Judah, neither of which were to be fulfilled in the other.

paying simple attention to these glaring details makes reading the bible a new and different book to those who are interested in rightly dividing the word when studying the subject of prophecy.

Ron.

Bro. Harvey,

In your opinion, how would my post#11 differ from this one.

Blessings,

Falla39

[crakjak]

I can agree that it is NOT a salvational issue..and I respect your feelings but at the same time I believe the scriptures speak for themselves.Go to any bookstore in America and you will see the shelves for "end times"just full and about every author and their uncle has wrote a book about what they think will happen.What you will not find is a book on what DID happen and what is found in Matthew 24.Those personal pronouns {YOU's} are hard to ignore and many people have been taught to slide themselves into those verses instead of allowing those scriptures to speak for themselves..I respect anyone who disagrees but it is not me they are disagreeing with it is in their own bible as well..The scriptures had an original audience and we fail to look through the eyes of that 1st century church.I cannot say I am total agreement with Elder Blume but we do see some things the same..

Your ministry will be in my prayers.God Bless

While, M. Blume does a good job on this subject, I also recommend a book by John L. Bray called "Matthew 24, Fulfilled" one of the most authoritative on the subject. It is however now out of printed, but is soon to be reprinted, you might find one on the internet.

[Lafon]

If you don't agree, let's agree to disagree.


While intending no disrespect whatsoever because of the publication of this statement, I feel compelled to state that I am greatly grieved every time I witness such being stated by a proponent of Oneness Apostolic Pentecostalism. And this is based upon my understanding of the following significant passages of scripture:

"...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27)

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." (II Corinthians 13:11)

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth." (Luke 11:17)

I ask - should we conclude from statements such as these that it is permissable for God's chosen people to embrace beliefs concerning a particular matter which stand in opposition to another, or contradicts the sound principles found contained in His written word?

Would you be willing to drink a glass of water taken from a well in which someone had emptied a container of raw sewage, although the presence of such corruption might not be detectable either by smell or taste? I think not, albeit anyone might partake of such water while yet ignorant of the presence of such contaminants?

As for me I simply refuse to "go along with the crowd" with regards to that which the majority has accepted and embrace as truth concerning any matter, unless, of course, such beliefs can be unquestionably authenticated by a multiplicity of sound biblical passages pertaining to that particular matter. Following more than 48 years of being deceived through the subtle tactics of false teachers while a member of the "mainline professing Christian community," I have learned to prayerfully, and carefully examine the words of others before allowing the things which they assert as truth to become an integral element of my fundamental beliefs.

Just some thoughts about this matter that I have felt led to express. While, as stated, I mean no disrespect to Sis. Falla for her statement regarding this matter, I stand adamantly opposed to embracing such a position when it comes to anything pertaining to the sound principles of God's written word. In essence, we MUST all speak the SAME thing, and this so that there will be NO divisions among God's chosen people, His church. Only by adhering to this can we truly become the UNIFIED body which He intends for His bride to be!

Regards,
Lafon

[Timmy]

Yes, but the Holy Spirit will eventually straighten her out. Or you. I guess. :tease

[Lafon]

Timmy, I certainly hope so!

[mfblume]

Yes, but the Holy Spirit will eventually straighten her out. Or you. I guess. :tease

Best post of the day!!!! Amen!

[mfblume]

While intending no disrespect whatsoever because of the publication of this statement, I feel compelled to state that I am greatly grieved every time I witness such being stated by a proponent of Oneness Apostolic Pentecostalism. And this is based upon my understanding of the following significant passages of scripture:

"...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27)

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." (II Corinthians 13:11)

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth." (Luke 11:17)

I ask - should we conclude from statements such as these that it is permissable for God's chosen people to embrace beliefs concerning a particular matter which stand in opposition to another, or contradicts the sound principles found contained in His written word?

Would you be willing to drink a glass of water taken from a well in which someone had emptied a container of raw sewage, although the presence of such corruption might not be detectable either by smell or taste? I think not, albeit anyone might partake of such water while yet ignorant of the presence of such contaminants?

As for me I simply refuse to "go along with the crowd" with regards to that which the majority has accepted and embrace as truth concerning any matter, unless, of course, such beliefs can be unquestionably authenticated by a multiplicity of sound biblical passages pertaining to that particular matter. Following more than 48 years of being deceived through the subtle tactics of false teachers while a member of the "mainline professing Christian community," I have learned to prayerfully, and carefully examine the words of others before allowing the things which they assert as truth to become an integral element of my fundamental beliefs.

Just some thoughts about this matter that I have felt led to express. While, as stated, I mean no disrespect to Sis. Falla for her statement regarding this matter, I stand adamantly opposed to embracing such a position when it comes to anything pertaining to the sound principles of God's written word. In essence, we MUST all speak the SAME thing, and this so that there will be NO divisions among God's chosen people, His church. Only by adhering to this can we truly become the UNIFIED body which He intends for His bride to be!

Regards,
Lafon

You imply a very circular argument, Lafon. You say we must be in agreement and imply that you are right because you are right, since you offered no proof of Fall's error.

[Lafon]

You imply a very circular argument, Lafon. You say we must be in agreement and imply that you are right because you are right, since you offered no proof of Fall's error.

Where is it found in the scriptures that disparity of beliefs concerning any matter is acceptable with God? Quite to the contrary, for many passages could be noted wherein we are warned (and in some rather strong terms too) to be of the SAME mindset (of one accord) regarding all things.

I did not address Sis Falla's arguments regarding any matter, simply (and only) the statement which she made that inferred that it is permissible for God's chosen people to embrace differing opinions/views concerning a matter. I refute such an assertion/suggestion, and most especially when it is made by a fellow member of the kingdom of God!

[Timmy]

You imply a very circular argument, Lafon. You say we must be in agreement and imply that you are right because you are right, since you offered no proof of Fall's error.

Second best post of the day! :toofunny

That was my point, exactly, of course, except that it applies to both sides of this and all other contentious issues. Both sides may think they have solid proof (well, other than Falla's teachable attitude, which is admirable), but neither one does. The Bible will always be ambiguous, allowing anyone to justify their favorite interpretations, even where the doctrines are very important. Lafon's dream of unity will never be realized.

[Timmy]

Where is it found in the scriptures that disparity of beliefs concerning any matter is acceptable with God? Quite to the contrary, for many passages could be noted wherein we are warned (and in some rather strong terms too) to be of the SAME mindset (of one accord) regarding all things.

I did not address Sis Falla's arguments regarding any matter, simply (and only) the statement which she made that inferred that it is permissible for God's chosen people to embrace differing opinions/views concerning a matter. I refute such an assertion/suggestion, and most especially when it is made by a fellow member of the kingdom of God!

So you disagree about disagreeing. :thumbsup

[mfblume]

Where is it found in the scriptures that disparity of beliefs concerning any matter is acceptable with God? Quite to the contrary, for many passages could be noted wherein we are warned (and in some rather strong terms too) to be of the SAME mindset (of one accord) regarding all things.
I never said disparity of belief was acceptable to God. But God does have patience and gives us time to lead us into all truth. But your view of all the verses that teach we need to agree are coupled with your assumption you are right.

[ronharvey]

Where is it found in the scriptures that disparity of beliefs concerning any matter is acceptable with God? Quite to the contrary, for many passages could be noted wherein we are warned (and in some rather strong terms too) to be of the SAME mindset (of one accord) regarding all things.

I did not address Sis Falla's arguments regarding any matter, simply (and only) the statement which she made that inferred that it is permissible for God's chosen people to embrace differing opinions/views concerning a matter. I refute such an assertion/suggestion, and most especially when it is made by a fellow member of the kingdom of God!

Here is your point:

Acts 15:39 "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;"

I suppose Paul and Barnabas were lost for many years after this.

Proverbs 18:19 "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."

But, just because it doesn't SAY it, does not imply it is not so...

1 Thessalonians 2:2 "But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention."

Here, God approves it.

Paul tells us to avoid them when they are FOOLISH...

Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"

Paul went nose to nose with Peter...

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

Doctrinally Peter's conduct was plainly wrong and was swaying others to mimic his actions, so Paul rebuked Peter is front of everyone.

Paul teaches such...

1 Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

2 Timothy 4:2 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

It is ok to disagree, just to agree to disagree is not wrong. To disagree disagreeably is where it is wrong.

Ron

P.s. You must agree 100% with this post or you cannot come to my Birth Day party this year :dance

[ronharvey]

Bro. Harvey,

In your opinion, how would my post#11 differ from this one.

Blessings,

Falla39

By and large; where do YOU believe the difference is?

And please, call me; Hey You! :highfive

All my friends do! :chat

Ron

[Falla39]

Bro. Lafon,

What I really meant to say was, "While we may disagree, let's agree to not
be disagreeable". Can we not disagree without having a bad or disagreeable
spirit! I can love and still disagree and respect your right or priviledge to dis-
agree. Hopefully that explains my thoughts on this.

It is very hard to listen and dialogue with someone who presents their position
in a harsh or unkind manner. I am certainly not speaking of compromise either!
Not to say anyone has done this. Just making a statement of fact!

Blessings,

Falla39

[Falla39]

By and large; where do YOU believe the difference is?

And please, call me; Hey You! :highfive

All my friends do! :chat

Ron

LOL!! I guess I was wondering if we were not basically saying
the same thing?:friend

Blessings,

Falla39

[Falla39]

Ps. 133:1,2,3;
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even
Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion:
for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life forevermore.

Eph. 4:1-3;
I,Therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy
of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another
in love;
Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Vs.13, Till we ALL come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God. unto a perfect (mature,full grown)man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ:

Blessings to all the precious brothers and sisters on this forum, in Jesus Name!

Falla39

[mfblume]

Second best post of the day! :toofunny

That was my point, exactly, of course, except that it applies to both sides of this and all other contentious issues. Both sides may think they have solid proof (well, other than Falla's teachable attitude, which is admirable), but neither one does. The Bible will always be ambiguous, allowing anyone to justify their favorite interpretations, even where the doctrines are very important. Lafon's dream of unity will never be realized.

That is true. God's word is designed and laid out specially so that people will find what they WANT to find. So we always need to pray to be honest and for the Lord to correct if we are wrong, because everyone is right in their own eyes. Only God can break through and inform us about the reality of it.... IF WE SEEK HIM for that end.

[ronharvey]

LOL!! I guess I was wondering if we were not basically saying
the same thing?:friend

Blessings,

Falla39

I believe we are basically.

I just wanted to note mainly that most Prophecy proponents make a grave error because they fail to mention the the order of events of each writer is different.

Not because the gospel writers got it wrong, couldn't remember, or otherwise.

Because they were just reporting the answers Jesus gave to the 3 questions there was no need to elaborate on time frames.

Jesus was so plain that he was speaking to the Apostles how it became misconstrued to mean he was speaking to a generation of people 2000 years later is beyond sound reason. :snapout

Ron

[mfblume]

One common error people make is to somehow suggest the conversation in Matthew 24 was no the same on found in Luke 21. Luke 21 clealry replaces the words "abomination that maketh desolate" with "Jerusalem compassed with armies".

Luke 21:20-21 KJV And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (21) Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

Matthew 24:15-16 KJV 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:) (16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


The argument to claim they are not the same conversation is to distance the believer from thinking this all occurred before AD70. They claim Luke 21 is indeed and quite clearly events that occurred up to AD70, but they say Matt 24 cannot be so. The truth is, Matthew wrote of the same conversation Luke did. They are not two different conversations.

[Falla39]

I believe we are basically.

I just wanted to note mainly that most Prophecy proponents make a grave error because they fail to mention the the order of events of each writer is different.

Not because the gospel writers got it wrong, couldn't remember, or otherwise.

Because they were just reporting the answers Jesus gave to the 3 questions there was no need to elaborate on time frames.

Jesus was so plain that he was speaking to the Apostles how it became misconstrued to mean he was speaking to a generation of people 2000 years later is beyond sound reason. :snapout

Ron

Yes, I truly believe Jesus was speaking to his Apostles about that "corrupt"
or untoward generation of that time. The three accounts in Matt.24, Mark 13,
and Luke 21 are basically the same scene. Luke gives a different sign of the
armies compassing (surrounding) Jerusalem where Matt. or Mark gives other
signs of "the abomination of desolation". It would happen over a three and one half yrs period. The total destruction of the temple and Jerusalem as
Jesus had said. That is my understanding with not one stone left upon another. Like a plowed field.

Blessings,

Falla39

[ronharvey]

One common error people make is to somehow suggest the conversation in Matthew 24 was no the same on found in Luke 21. Luke 21 clealry replaces the words "abomination that maketh desolate" with "Jerusalem compassed with armies".



The argument to claim they are not the same conversation is to distance the believer from thinking this all occurred before AD70. They claim Luke 21 is indeed and quite clearly events that occurred up to AD70, but they say Matt 24 cannot be so. The truth is, Matthew wrote of the same conversation Luke did. They are not two different conversations.

I have heard for many years that the "eagles" in Matt 24:28 actually mean large bird e.g. vultures.

Matthew 24:28 "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

However I find in the Greek there is a word for vultures and the word for eagles is different.

The symbol of the Roman Armies as well as Rome itself is the Eagle.

That there are carcases doesn't necessitate that the bird eagle now be a vulture to have the verse make sense.

How did the prophecy teachers miss that one? :snapout

Ron

[Falla39]

Yes, but the Holy Spirit will eventually straighten her out. Or you. I guess. :tease


Dear Timmy,

I'm counting on it!:nod

Blessings,

Falla39

[Falla39]

That is true. God's word is designed and laid out specially so that people will find what they WANT to find. So we always need to pray to be honest and for the Lord to correct if we are wrong, because everyone is right in their own eyes. Only God can break through and inform us about the reality of it.... IF WE SEEK HIM for that end.

Profound words! Jesus wants us to ask, seek and knock, so that we may
receive, find and the door will be opened unto us. After He had walked and
talked with His disciples on a day to day basis, they still did not understand
everything. After His death, burial and resurrection, He continued to teach,
appearing here and there, further explaining the words He had spoken to
them while He was yet with them. That all things must be fulfilled, which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concern-
ing him. This Wonderful "God with us" THEN opened He their understanding,
(WHY?), that they might understand the scriptures. He wanted His followers
to UNDERSTAND!

This Wonderful Father is not waiting to condemn us, nor is He waiting to destroy us because of our misunderstanding each other. This WONDERFUL GOD came to save us and give us life more abuntantly! That's why I go directly to HIM when I need an answer!! MY FATHER KNOWS EVERYTHING!! My Father can DO anything but lie and fail! When I was a "child" I never realized what a WONDERFUL Father I had!
My late father passed on just after my 50th birthday. That will be 19 yrs.
ago this month. More and more I appreciate the things Dad did to make sure
I knew this Wonderful heavenly Father. Dad never pointed to himself, but to
his Father! That's why my confidence was in Dad's Father when he left. I
had seen Dad and Mom trust in Him all my life. I knew I could trust in HIM
too!
Just some thoughts this brisk October morning!

Falla39

[Pressing-On]

Yes, I truly believe Jesus was speaking to his Apostles about that "corrupt"
or untoward generation of that time. The three accounts in Matt.24, Mark 13,
and Luke 21 are basically the same scene. Luke gives a different sign of the
armies compassing (surrounding) Jerusalem where Matt. or Mark gives other
signs of "the abomination of desolation". It would happen over a three and one half yrs period. The total destruction of the temple and Jerusalem as
Jesus had said. That is my understanding with not one stone left upon another. Like a plowed field.

Blessings,

Falla39
It has been my understanding that the "not one stone left upon another" is in reference to the Jews hiding their gold as their way of a banking system. The reason the temple was destroyed and every stone taken down was to extract the gold.

[Falla39]

It has been my understanding that the "not one stone left upon another" is in reference to the Jews hiding their gold as their way of a banking system. The reason the temple was destroyed and every stone taken down was to extract the gold.

Hi. Sis. PressingOn,

I have read something to that effect also.
My thoughts were the fact that Jesus said it. In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus
has come near the city and in beholding Jerusalem, weeping over it, saying
if they had only known the things which belonged unto their peace. But now
those things were now hid from their eyes. He began to speak the things
that would befall the city. Vs.44. "And shall lay thee even with the ground,
and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Pressing-On]

[/B]

Hi. Sis. PressingOn,

I have read something to that effect also.
My thoughts were the fact that Jesus said it. In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus
has come near the city and in beholding Jerusalem, weeping over it, saying
if they had only known the things which belonged unto their peace. But now
those things were now hid from their eyes. He began to speak the things
that would befall the city. Vs.44. "And shall lay thee even with the ground,
and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Blessings,

Falla39
Amen! So powerful for them and so sad they couldn't see it.

[Falla39]

Amen! So powerful for them and so sad they couldn't see it.

AMEN! Every city that has the Name of Jesus preached in it should
fear! Especially if they choose to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Hugs,

Falla39

[Pressing-On]

AMEN! Every city that has the Name of Jesus preached in it should
fear! Especially if they choose to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Hugs,

Falla39

Amen!!! Love reading your posts, Sister Falla!!!!!

[Falla39]

Amen!!! Love reading your posts, Sister Falla!!!!!

Sis. PressingOn,

Thank you! Let you in on a little secret! I follow your political
posts because it definitely appears you keep up with it. I can
follow your posts and keep a good idea of what's going on! How
bout that!:friend

Hugs,

Falla39

[Pressing-On]

Sis. PressingOn,

Thank you! Let you in on a little secret! I follow your political
posts because it definitely appears you keep up with it. I can
follow your posts and keep a good idea of what's going on! How
bout that!:friend

Hugs,

Falla39

Lord, what pressure!!!!! Thank you though. :friend I'll try my best!

[ronharvey]

Lord, what pressure!!!!! Thank you though. :friend I'll try my best!

And just think, if America votes wrong this election, we'll have our own Obama-nation that maketh desolate (pun intended).

Ron

[Pressing-On]

And just think, if America votes wrong this election, we'll have our own Obama-nation that maketh desolate (pun intended).

Ron

:ursofunny :ursofunny

[pkdad]

The Abomination that maketh desolate already took place according to Preterist view, this was 'Antiochus Epiphanies', in 167 BC desecrating the temple killing a pig and trying to force Jews to eat it. This does not work with the prophesy of Daniel however. Daniel 12:11 states the abolition of the daily sacrifice must occur and then the desolation takes place. This is the prophesy concerning the Anti-Christ. Daniel 9:27 says he (anti-christ) will make a covenant with Israel for 7 years and commit the desolation in the middle of those years, Antiochus did not do this. There was no Covenant (treaty). July17 AD 70 Titus of Rome destroyed the temple and the daily sacrifice ceased, yet again no 7 year treaty or peace accord.
Matthew 24:15 Jesus speaks to this prophesy, but refers us to the prophet Daniel, "that who so readeth let him understand". Not only Daniel but Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ and he absolutely meant all scripture of this prophesy. Jesus foretold of the destruction of the Temple. He also said he would rebuild it! And he did! It is the Church with every member being "the Temple of the Holy Ghost!
When one takes the mark of the beast, there is no more sacrifice, and the Holy Ghost will dwell there no more, desolation...Daniel 11:31 "they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate". This refers to those minions of the Ant-Christ, they will place the Abomination. And then he (Satan) will stand in the Holy place, possessing that soul along with the apostate church! Jesus said in Matthew 24 14"and this gospel shall be preached in all the world and then shall the end come". vs 15 " and when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation"...After the gospel is preached in all the world... will we see the abomination of desolation set up and only in these end-times is the Gospel reaching the entire world! The Temple and daily sacrifices literally is not what must occur for this prophesy to be fulfilled. Jesus did not fulfill the expectations of the scholars of his day, it was spiritual fulfillment that the prophets of old did not see nor the masters of Israel contemporary. If you are looking for a physical fulfillment, you will miss the typology as they did when Christ said he will raise up the temple in three days!

[mfblume]

The Abomination that maketh desolate already took place according to Preterist view, this was 'Antiochus Epiphanies', in 167 BC desecrating the temple killing a pig and trying to force Jews to eat it. This does not work with the prophesy of Daniel however. Daniel 12:11 states the abolition of the daily sacrifice must occur and then the desolation takes place. This is the prophesy concerning the Anti-Christ. Daniel 9:27 says he (anti-christ) will make a covenant with Israel for 7 years and commit the desolation in the middle of those years, Antiochus did not do this. There was no Covenant (treaty). July17 AD 70 Titus of Rome destroyed the temple and the daily sacrifice ceased, yet again no 7 year treaty or peace accord.

Preterists do not take the abomination of 9:27 to be that of Antiochus Epiphanes. We say Antiochus was mentioned in 11:31 and 8:11, and perhaps 12:11. But not 9:27. 11:31 and 9:27 are totally different issues and events. We do believe 12:11 can refer to both Antiochus or Rome's invasion of Israel. Scholars agree the angel may have meant both.

Futurists have mingled prophecies together that are not explicitly stated to be associated in the bible, itself, for so long that they think the bible does explicitly associate them. So they mingle 9:27 with 11:31. Even some futurists, like Marvin Treece, KNOW that 11:31 and 8:11 was Antiochus and not the same issue as 9:27.

Also, Dan 9:27 does not say antichrist makes a covenant with Israel, it says HE shall make a covenant. And HE is the PRINCE THE MESSIAH of verse 25 and 26 if one follows grammar properly.

The seven year association with a covenant spoke of JESUS CHRIST, who began his ministry and made CONFIRMED, NOT CREATED, a covenant with Israel. Israel had the Gospel preached to them 3.5 years before and 3.5 years after the cross. 7 Years. In the midst was the cross which stopped sacrifices, according to Heb 9 through 10.

Dan 9:27 says CONFIRM a covenant and not make one. Futurists twist this to say antichrist CREATES a covenant.

Matthew 24:15 Jesus speaks to this prophesy, but refers us to the prophet Daniel, "that who so readeth let him understand".

That is Dan 9:27, not 11:31
Not only Daniel but Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ and he absolutely meant all scripture of this prophesy. Jesus foretold of the destruction of the Temple. He also said he would rebuild it! And he did! It is the Church with every member being "the Temple of the Holy Ghost!

He said the destruction of the temple would occur in the generation who would see Matt 24 fulfilled. And they did, 2000 years ago.

When one takes the mark of the beast, there is no more sacrifice, and the H
oly Ghost will dwell there no more, desolation...Daniel 11:31 "they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate". This refers to those minions of the Ant-Christ, they will place the Abomination. And then he (Satan) will stand in the Holy place, possessing that soul along with the apostate church! Jesus said in Matthew 24 14"and this gospel shall be preached in all the world and then shall the end come". vs 15 " and when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation"...After the gospel is preached in all the world... will we see the abomination of desolation set up and only in these end-times is the Gospel reaching the entire world! The Temple and daily sacrifices literally is not what must occur for this prophesy to be fulfilled. Jesus did not fulfill the expectations of the scholars of his day, it was spiritual fulfillment that the prophets of old did not see nor the masters of Israel contemporary. If you are looking for a physical fulfillment, you will miss the typology as they did when Christ said he will raise up the temple in three days!

Nothing in the abomination of desolation prophecy says anything about the mark of the beast,. We have to incorrectly associate Dan 9 with Rev 13 to do that. The bible did not do that, but erring students did that.

My opinion, anyway.

[ronharvey]

The Abomination that maketh desolate already took place according to Preterist view, this was 'Antiochus Epiphanies', in 167 BC desecrating the temple killing a pig and trying to force Jews to eat it.




This does not work with the prophesy of Daniel however. Daniel 12:11 states the abolition of the daily sacrifice must occur and then the desolation takes place.

Daniel 12:11 "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."

I don't see how this verse ties in to Daniel 9:27 seeing this (Daniel 12:11) was indeed a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanies' desecration of the temple by getting a young priest to offer a pig on the alter of God and killing the priests that were faithful to the High Priest. The word 'days' is from the Hebrew "morning and evenings" which referred to the morning and evening sacrifices (2 a day) which is 645 days. That was the exact time frame the Maccabees had to drive out the desolater from the time they took away the daily sacrifices to the restoration of them was 645 days.


This is the prophesy concerning the Anti-Christ. Daniel 9:27 says he (anti-christ) will make a covenant with Israel for 7 years and commit the desolation in the middle of those years,

Daniel 9:27 "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"

Basic English grammar tells us this covenant already existed "the covenant" not "a covenant."

The fact this one will CONFIRM it shows it is already in existence.

Daniel 9:4 "And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;"

Daniel 11:22 "And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince (High Priest) of the covenant."

That would make it Christ, not an anti-Christ.

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts."



Antiochus did not do this. There was no Covenant (treaty). July17 AD 70 Titus of Rome destroyed the temple and the daily sacrifice ceased, yet again no 7 year treaty or peace accord.

And, there won't be either.


Matthew 24:15 Jesus speaks to this prophesy, but refers us to the prophet Daniel, "that who so readeth let him understand". Not only Daniel but Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ and he absolutely meant all scripture of this prophesy.

Daniel 9:27 "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"

This is reference to the Crucifixion of Christ in the middle of the week (3.5 years) causing the sacrifice system to CEASE. And for the overspreading of abominations (e.g. the continuing of the sacrifices being offered up) he (Christ) shall make it (Jerusalem/Temple) desolate, even until the consumation (e.g. the end)


Jesus foretold of the destruction of the Temple. He also said he would rebuild it! And he did! It is the Church with every member being "the Temple of the Holy Ghost!

His reference was not this specifically but I see where you got it from.
It is an extension of a couple verses (John 2:9, Mark 14:58).


When one takes the mark of the beast, there is no more sacrifice, and the Holy Ghost will dwell there no more, desolation...Daniel 11:31 "they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate". This refers to those minions of the Ant-Christ, they will place the Abomination. And then he (Satan) will stand in the Holy place, possessing that soul along with the apostate church!

I believe I also read this in II Hezekiah 15:6.


Jesus said in Matthew 24:14 "and this gospel shall be preached in all the world and then shall the end come". vs 15 " and when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation"...

These verses are not in a chronological order, as attested to by the start of verse 15; "When ye therefore shall see..." not "and when..."

Adding the word 'and' changes the meaning.


After the gospel is preached in all the world... will we see the abomination of desolation set up and only in these end-times is the Gospel reaching the entire world!

Really? Where does it say that?


The Temple and daily sacrifices literally is not what must occur for this prophesy to be fulfilled. Jesus did not fulfill the expectations of the scholars of his day, it was spiritual fulfillment that the prophets of old did not see nor the masters of Israel contemporary. If you are looking for a physical fulfillment, you will miss the typology as they did when Christ said he will raise up the temple in three days!

He referred to his physical body according to John the Apostle.
John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body"


Ron

[mfblume]

Amen, Ron.

[pkdad]

One English translated verb cannot change meaning in the Hebrew text. This is where preterism along with their misapplication of chronology misses it. Daniels visions are not in order as John's revelation is neither.
Just as many mad men and false Christs' tried to fulfill prophesy, Antiochus is one of them. The literal abomination he committed flys in the face of many principles Jesus taught to straighten out the "touch not, taste not, etc... of the Law! ie..."not what enters a man unclean" or regarding Sabbath violation etc...The desecration is not pigs and carnal happenings ...it will be spiritual pertaining to Apostasy in the end-times that the 1948 fulfillment began the countdown to the "false/Anti-Christ person and or system.

The only physical desecration is abortion, same sex marriage, human cloning, DNA re-engineering etc... and as the Church falls further into Apostasy by "heaping to themselves teachers, having itching ears."

As Famine is a sign of the end...Amos tells us it will not be of no food or water but of the "hearing" of the word! So once again a physical "Type and Shadow" pointing to the "spiritual" FULFILLMENT!

[mfblume]

One English translated verb cannot change meaning in the Hebrew text. This is where preterism along with their misapplication of chronology misses it. Daniels visions are not in order as John's revelation is neither.

Chronology of the visions has nothing to do with the issue. Futurism makes its biggest blunder in putting a gap in the 70 weeks of Daniel when nothing in the Bible says that. And whereas the New Testament says almost the exact words found in Dan 9:27 when it says sacrifices cease due to Christ's death, nothing in the New testament says anything about some antichrist causing sacrifices to cease.

So futurism has two strikes against it.

1) Daniel never said anything about a gap - (talk about chronology!)

2) Futurism has no New Testament reflection of their thought that antichrist causes sacrifices to cease, while the New Testament DOES associate Christ's death with the cessation of sacrifices in Dan 9:27 when we read Hebrews 10.

Just as many mad men and false Christs' tried to fulfill prophesy, Antiochus is one of them.

He did not TRY. He just fulfilled parts of Daniel 8 and 11 without knowing about it! :)

I know the prophecies in Daniel are not chronologically written, as evidenced by my claims that Dan 8 is about Antiochus as well as Daniel 11, but Daniel 9 is about the first century.

The literal abomination he committed flys in the face of many principles Jesus taught to straighten out the "touch not, taste not, etc... of the Law! ie..."not what enters a man unclean" or regarding Sabbath violation etc...The desecration is not pigs and carnal happenings ...it will be spiritual pertaining to Apostasy in the end-times that the 1948 fulfillment began the countdown to the "false/Anti-Christ person and or system.

It has already been 60 years since '48. If it goes another 60 years will people still say 1948 was the magic year?


The only physical desecration is abortion, same sex marriage, human cloning, DNA re-engineering etc... and as the Church falls further into Apostasy by "heaping to themselves teachers, having itching ears."

As Famine is a sign of the end...Amos tells us it will not be of no food or water but of the "hearing" of the word! So once again a physical "Type and Shadow" pointing to the "spiritual" FULFILLMENT!

These claims have no foundation, brother.

Let me ask you and all futurists something. Have you ever seriously considered you may be wrong and preterism may be right? In reading all our thoughts, have you ever considered we may be onto something,, instead of thinking of how we are wrong when you read? Are you open to the thought futurism may be wrong?

One futurist to whom I spoke admitted that at first when I spoke, he was not looking to see if I was right but looking for what he felt was an obvious flaw to find. Not many are that honest to admit it, but they do the same thing. This brother soon abandoned futurism.

[Withdrawn]

One futurist to whom I spoke admitted that at first when I spoke, he was not looking to see if I was right but looking for what he felt was an obvious flaw to find. Not many are that honest to admit it, but they do the same thing. This brother soon abandoned futurism.

Yep... me too! :friend

[ronharvey]

I don't know what you call me, I just believe what the Bible says without trying to put a spin on it.

Ron

[mfblume]

It has already been 60 years since '48. If it goes another 60 years will people still say 1948 was the magic year?

To add to this, let me ask futurists at what point past 1948 will futurists admit prophecy cannot have regarded 1948? Where do we draw the line, and how many years are allowable to say 1948 is part of prophecy before the allowable time elapses? If the end does not come in 70 years past 1948, does that invalidate 1948 as part of prophecy or not? If not 70 years, then how many years will prove 1948 to not be part of prophecy?

Let me put it this way: From 1948 onward, by what year must the end have come?

Anyone, anyone?

[mfblume]

No one? no one?

[Lafon]

Let me put it this way: From 1948 onward, by what year must the end have come?

Anyone, anyone?


I would be hesitant to say that May 14, 1948 (the day in which the nation of Israel again declared themselves a member nation among the nations of the world), is the same day in which God has decreed that the final generation of man inhabiting the earth began, nor do I discount this entirely. After all, we are not to know the moment in which God has determined that final day of that last generation would be, only that we are made aware of the signs which are indicative of the nearness of the end.

Will May 14, 2018 (that is to say, 70 years from 1948) be day in which the Lord returns (in bodily form) to the land of Israel? Certainly no one can say that this is true, at least with any certainty, but on the other hand, it surely must be somewhere near that time period.

We find it stated in the closing portion of Hosea chapter 5, and continuing into the opening passages of chapter 6, that God said He would return to His place for two days (that is to say, 2,000 years), and in the third day He would return. And while we are not told when during the 3rd day His coming would take place, should we not conclude from such statements that His coming is near?

Just some thoughts about the matter of the time period during which I believe the Lord will return to the earth as He promised.

[mfblume]

I would be hesitant to say that May 14, 1948 (the day in which the nation of Israel again declared themselves a member nation among the nations of the world), is the same day in which God has decreed that the final generation of man inhabiting the earth began, nor do I discount this entirely. After all, we are not to know the moment in which God has determined that final day of that last generation would be, only that we are made aware of the signs which are indicative of the nearness of the end.

Will May 14, 2018 (that is to say, 70 years from 1948) be day in which the Lord returns (in bodily form) to the land of Israel? Certainly no one can say that this is true, at least with any certainty, but on the other hand, it surely must be somewhere near that time period.

So, for instance, if time goes past 2028, then one must agree 1948 was completely out of the ballpark when it comes to prophecy? That is what I am trying to ascertain.

We find it stated in the closing portion of Hosea chapter 5, and continuing into the opening passages of chapter 6, that God said He would return to His place for two days (that is to say, 2,000 years), and in the third day He would return. And while we are not told when during the 3rd day His coming would take place, should we not conclude from such statements that His coming is near?

No. I say that honestly. Saying one day = one thousand years in Hosea's prophecy is foundationless. I can take that scripture and teach Christ's resurrection that occurred on a literal third day and more correctly apply Hosea to our victory through the cross, I honestly think.

Just some thoughts about the matter of the time period during which I believe the Lord will return to the earth as He promised.

The Lord will return, but we have to rightly divide the Word and use passages that are meant to be understood as speaking of His future return and not "returns" that already occurred in the lifetimes of listeners present, as in Matt 16:28, or other passages that have nothing to do with His coming in any form.

Of course you may be right and I wrong. :)

[mfblume]

So, for instance, if time goes past 2028, then one must agree 1948 was completely out of the ballpark when it comes to prophecy? That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Bump

[ronharvey]

Bump

Bump - Bump!

Ron

[mfblume]

Bump - Bump!

Ron

Yogi bear again, huh? lol

[kritter3]

Let me ask you and all futurists something. Have you ever seriously considered you may be wrong and preterism may be right? In reading all our thoughts, have you ever considered we may be onto something,, instead of thinking of how we are wrong when you read? Are you open to the thought futurism may be wrong?

I have never seriously considered preterism at all. I have considered that preterists may be on something. I would just imagine that with preterism comes a great risk. If events begin to occur that evidently fulfill futuristic prophecy in the Scripture, preterists would have to scramble to cast those events in a coincidental light. That would simply be dishonest.

One such claim is that the events of 70AD, which, according to the scripture, is a time of tribulation such as never was or ever shall be. I find it preposterous to compare 70AD with many modern times of tribulation, namely the death of 6 million Jews in the holocaust. Please don't try.

Otherwise, I'm completely open.

[Sam]

...
Eating, drinking, marrying sounds more like a party atmosphere than a desolate atmosphere. Obviously the Word is right that which you posted and also these words of Jesus.

How then do both occur?

Eating, drinking, and marrying are not condemned. It is not wrong to eat, nor to drink, nor to get married. Jesus was just saying that life will be going on as usual.

[mfblume]

I have never seriously considered preterism at all. I have considered that preterists may be on something. I would just imagine that with preterism comes a great risk. If events begin to occur that evidently fulfill futuristic prophecy in the Scripture, preterists would have to scramble to cast those events in a coincidental light. That would simply be dishonest.

But that is only a hypothetical possibility. Until things actually do come to pass the way futurism says, and not just speculations that perhaps something MAY BE fulfillment of prophecy, this is not basis upon which to treat preterism as risky.

One such claim is that the events of 70AD, which, according to the scripture, is a time of tribulation such as never was or ever shall be. I find it preposterous to compare 70AD with many modern times of tribulation, namely the death of 6 million Jews in the holocaust. Please don't try.

Have you ever considered what is more significant to God when Jesus used the term GREAT? I mean, God's bride, Jerusalem, forsook Him and claimed a pagan Caesar who claimed godhood to be her king instead, and then murdered her true Groom, Jesus. I would think a man would be more concerned over his bride's experiences and infidelity and murderous acts than someone else, no matter how outwardly worse the acts of others might have been

[kritter3]

Have you ever considered what is more significant to God when Jesus used the term GREAT? I mean, God's bride, Jerusalem, forsook Him and claimed a pagan Caesar who claimed godhood to be her king instead, and then murdered her true Groom, Jesus. I would think a man would be more concerned over his bride's experiences and infidelity and murderous acts than someone else, no matter how outwardly worse the acts of others might have been.

From what you have written, I understand your definition of great tribulation to be the infidelity of God's people in the days of Caesar. The Old Testament shows a continual cycle of whoredom regarding the people of God. God's judgement was poured out many times on the Jews for their infidelity. It does not appear that God was surprised by the rejection. Your reference to the great tribulation also does not take into account the gentile church which is as much the bride of Christ as the Jews.

Also, how do you determine that the infidelity was for a time, times, and the dividing of time (3.5 years)?

[mfblume]

From what you have written, I understand your definition of great tribulation to be the infidelity of God's people in the days of Caesar. The Old Testament shows a continual cycle of whoredom regarding the people of God. God's judgement was poured out many times on the Jews for their infidelity. It does not appear that God was surprised by the rejection. Your reference to the great tribulation also does not take into account the gentile church which is as much the bride of Christ as the Jews.

Also, how do you determine that the infidelity was for a time, times, and the dividing of time (3.5 years)?
I claim Jerusalem was Christ's bride, and that when we read He came unto His own and His own received Him not, it is considering Jerusalem and Israel as His bride. But although God divorced Israel time and time again under Old Covenant, He always took her back. But he said something in Matt 23 that indicated she crossed the line in the first century when she would crucify those sent to her and scourge God's people in her synagogues. This meant a cutting off forever. And the church is the Bride INSTEAD of Israel, rather than gentiles getting into the same body as Israel was who rejected Christ. God divorced Jerusalem and Israel and His death caused His freedom to marry a new bride, the church. And He "ain't" going back to the old bride. She "filled the cup", as He put it, that day two thousand years ago.

I do not believe the infidelity was for three and one half years, but that the vengeance upon her that would occur at the end of that generation would be for three and one half years. It was a three and one half year siege against Jerusalem that ended in AD70 at the end of that generation, for the sake of stretching it out as long as He could to see her repent. And the references in Revelation that they repented not, are indications the wrath came to move her to repent, but she refused.

[rava61]

Wow - never heard it in that manner before, are you sure you understand what is going on there?

RV

[rava61]

Exactement, monsieur - bon!
RV

[rava61]

The "abomination that maketh desolate' that Paul is talking about is the Man of Sin or Anti-Christ setting himself up in the Temple in Jerusalem and demanding to be worshiped.
RV

[mfblume]

The "abomination that maketh desolate' that Paul is talking about is the Man of Sin or Anti-Christ setting himself up in the Temple in Jerusalem and demanding to be worshiped.
RV

I disagree, but I do understand that is the futurist perspective. Paul said nothing about the man of sin causing sacrifices to cease in 2 thess 2. The only connection is reference to a temple and a man in it. I wondered if 2 Thess 2 could refer to 1 cor 6:13, 19, since both passages refer to temple and destruction by the Lord. Bit either way, nothing in 2 Thess 2 mentions cessation of sacrifices.

My thoughts, anyway.

[rava61]

OK - what does the ceasation of sacrifices have to do with it? He's talking about the action of the 'Man of Perdition', right?

RV

[mfblume]

OK - what does the ceasation of sacrifices have to do with it? He's talking about the action of the 'Man of Perdition', right?

RV

Here is where I am coming from. From my futurist days, it was taught that the abomination of desolation was caused by the son of perdition in 2 Thess 2. It was also claimed in that form of eschatology that the son of perdition was the same one who caused sacrifices to cease according to Daniel 9:27. I now believe that this idea was in error in confusing the desolator as the one who caused sacrifices to cease. Dan 9:27 never did say the desolator caused sacrifices to cease, but rather was a person totally apart from the one who causes sacrifices to cease.

In reality, you are correct. There is nothing about the son of perdition that causes sacrifices to cease. But futurism teaches there is. I just thought you were of the futurist persuasion that makes the desolator and the causer of the sacrifices to cease one and the same person, who is the son of perdition in 2 Thess 2.

What I teach is that the verse in Dan 9:27 shows Jesus cited as the one causing the sacrifices to cease after 3.5 years of his ministry when he died on the cross. That is what Heb 10 claims as the cause for sacrifices to cease.

The abomination of desolation Jesus referred to in Matt 24 was mentioned in Dan 9:27, but would not occur in the 70 weeks of Daniel, but afterwards.

So, what are your thoughts on who causes sacrifices to cease according to Dan 9:27?

God bless!

[ElderM]

Open discussion room on Paltalk on fulfilled prophecy Apostolic Pentecostals envited.
Saturday night 8pm est
Room: Mathew24fufilled
Password: 2009

[mfblume]

Open discussion room on Paltalk on fulfilled prophecy Apostolic Pentecostals envited.
Saturday night 8pm est
Room: Mathew24fufilled
Password: 2009

This will be from a full preterist perspective.

[Godsdrummer]

Amen
falla39 and mfblume guess ya all know which way I lean But I call it kingdom theology the Kingdom of God is hear today and we are it.