- May 19, 2007
- 1,874
- 94
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
For the inhabitants of Jerusalem and others that partook in the religious year celebrations, a quick look at the temple complex would reveal more than a certain lack of upkeep, it represented the general state of affairs between God and his people.
An apostate king would divert funds from the traditional temple toward any number of pagan shrines, temple prostitutes both male and female, idols and images.
Paying for two cattle per day didn't come cheap.
Its no coincidence that as part of many reforms, the temple and main altar would be restored to its original condition.
The ancient temple was by its many varied references a high security zone. Nobody could get past the temple guards, except the occasional mad king that tried to get into the inner sanctum.
These same guards where responsible for Joash's taking the throne.
The official listing of priests and their corresponding appointed tasks by turn is attested in the story of Zechariah and his son, John the Baptist.
Both before and after Antiochus...
With high walls, nobody except those within the temple complex witnessed what Antiochus did.
With the same high walls, Mannasseh could only have made his image so tall that it finally could be seen from outside.
Its been said before, when a gentile does something, God could care less.
When a Hebrew does it;
Moses
David
Jeroboam
Achab
The list goes on...
God has a way of destroying things that are now polluted.
Antiochus, if Daniel is to be folllowed, gets in with the help of a fifth column.
Funny, it doesn't result in desolation.
We can argue endlessly about that one...
There's not much to go on.
If both abomination and rebellion are what cause the desolation, as per two different chapters, it accounts once again for Apostate hebrew rulers and those that forsake the covenant.
Its actually a civil war.
Josephus describes the same in the judaen uprising, "son against father, daughter against mother, etc.,..."
Being that God establishes and follows precedent, if its happenend before, it will happen again.
Another part of Daniel describes a king who with the help of foreign gods...
Think about, if he's a gentile, who cares?
Yet if the context is applied to a hebrew, it changes everything.
For those that believe in verses, the more , the merrier...there are no less than 5 references to God's forsaking Shiloh.
There are no less than 3 references to how God would not forgive the sin of Mannaseh, resulting in the desolation of both city and sanctuary.
You have very few references to what is assumed to be a gentile named Antiochus, no explanations, but you do have a bad guy.
You have eight references in the OT that explain hebrew sacriledge and its ensuing desolation.
You even have a verse in Revelations that is directly linked to Samuel 2 where it mentions those that did not contaminate themselves with women.
Ask yourself, why is it there?
If it explains why desolation comes, how is it wrong?
If the abomination happens at the hand of a gentile at the centrally located altar, why does scripture describe the abomination as an image being set up on the wings of the temple?
Antiochus, - at the center.
Apostate Hebrew ruler, as in Mannassah, in the wings.
Antiochus,- unseen from the outside.
Mannassah, too obvious...
If the sacriledge and its desolation happens at the hands of a gentile, why doesn't it happen every time the gentiles get a hold of the temple treasures?
It didn't happen in 586 BCE.
It didn't happen with the Parthians, Pompey, Titus, or even in the second time the Romans desolated the sanctuary area in the 2d century AD.
When it comes to cause and effect, gentiles don't amount to much.
When it comes to Hebrews, ...too many instances where its documented.
An apostate king would divert funds from the traditional temple toward any number of pagan shrines, temple prostitutes both male and female, idols and images.
Paying for two cattle per day didn't come cheap.
Its no coincidence that as part of many reforms, the temple and main altar would be restored to its original condition.
The ancient temple was by its many varied references a high security zone. Nobody could get past the temple guards, except the occasional mad king that tried to get into the inner sanctum.
These same guards where responsible for Joash's taking the throne.
The official listing of priests and their corresponding appointed tasks by turn is attested in the story of Zechariah and his son, John the Baptist.
Both before and after Antiochus...
With high walls, nobody except those within the temple complex witnessed what Antiochus did.
With the same high walls, Mannasseh could only have made his image so tall that it finally could be seen from outside.
Its been said before, when a gentile does something, God could care less.
When a Hebrew does it;
Moses
David
Jeroboam
Achab
The list goes on...
God has a way of destroying things that are now polluted.
Antiochus, if Daniel is to be folllowed, gets in with the help of a fifth column.
Funny, it doesn't result in desolation.
We can argue endlessly about that one...
There's not much to go on.
If both abomination and rebellion are what cause the desolation, as per two different chapters, it accounts once again for Apostate hebrew rulers and those that forsake the covenant.
Its actually a civil war.
Josephus describes the same in the judaen uprising, "son against father, daughter against mother, etc.,..."
Being that God establishes and follows precedent, if its happenend before, it will happen again.
Another part of Daniel describes a king who with the help of foreign gods...
Think about, if he's a gentile, who cares?
Yet if the context is applied to a hebrew, it changes everything.
For those that believe in verses, the more , the merrier...there are no less than 5 references to God's forsaking Shiloh.
There are no less than 3 references to how God would not forgive the sin of Mannaseh, resulting in the desolation of both city and sanctuary.
You have very few references to what is assumed to be a gentile named Antiochus, no explanations, but you do have a bad guy.
You have eight references in the OT that explain hebrew sacriledge and its ensuing desolation.
You even have a verse in Revelations that is directly linked to Samuel 2 where it mentions those that did not contaminate themselves with women.
Ask yourself, why is it there?
If it explains why desolation comes, how is it wrong?
If the abomination happens at the hand of a gentile at the centrally located altar, why does scripture describe the abomination as an image being set up on the wings of the temple?
Antiochus, - at the center.
Apostate Hebrew ruler, as in Mannassah, in the wings.
Antiochus,- unseen from the outside.
Mannassah, too obvious...
If the sacriledge and its desolation happens at the hands of a gentile, why doesn't it happen every time the gentiles get a hold of the temple treasures?
It didn't happen in 586 BCE.
It didn't happen with the Parthians, Pompey, Titus, or even in the second time the Romans desolated the sanctuary area in the 2d century AD.
When it comes to cause and effect, gentiles don't amount to much.
When it comes to Hebrews, ...too many instances where its documented.
Last edited by a moderator:
