is the future Antichrist unique?

[Ed Parenteau]

The Holy Spirit indwells us because He is spirit, just as demons indwelt the one calling himself Legion. There's no case of a physical being indwelling another physical being.
We are a spiritual temple offering spiritual sacrifices.
1 Peter 2:4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
As to Revelation 6 and the martyrs who had been killed asking for vengeance, it doesn't say they were in and unnatural state. They just ask how long it would be, and Jesus promised them it would be just a little while longer.
So what do you think Jesus means by "little while"?
John 16:16 In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see ...
... to say, "In a little while you will see me ... more, and then after a little while you will see me ... then while will you NT: John 16:16 A little ...

John 16:16 - The Promise of the Holy Spirit

In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me.

biblehub.com

John 12:35 Then Jesus told them, "For a little while longer, the Light will be among you. Walk ...
... to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while ... have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in ... while who will You NT: John 12:35 Jesus therefore ...

John 12:35 - Jesus Predicts His Death

Then Jesus told them, For a little while longer, the Light will be among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going.

biblehub.com

John 13:33 Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and ...
... will be with you only a little longer. You will look ... Little children, yet a little while I am with you. ... while will with you NT: John 13:33 Little children ...

John 13:33 - Love One Another

Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you: 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'

biblehub.com

John 16:18 They kept asking, "Why is He saying, 'a little while'? We do not understand what He ...
... What does he mean by a little while'? We don't ... what he is saying." And what does he mean by ... were What while' NT: John 16:18 They said ...

John 16:18 - Grief to Joy

They kept asking, Why is He saying, 'a little while'? We do not understand what He is saying.

biblehub.com

John 14:19 In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I ...
... also will live. Yet a little while and the world will ... me no more, but you will see me. Because I ... while will world you NT: John 14:19 Yet a ...

John 14:19 - Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

In a little while the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live.

biblehub.com

John 7:33 So Jesus said, "I am with you only a little while longer, and then I am going to the ...
... will be with you only a little longer. Then I will ... am with you only a little while longer, and then I ... while who with you NT: John 7:33 Then Jesus ...

John 7:33 - Is Jesus the Christ?

So Jesus said, I am with you only a little while longer, and then I am going to the One who sent Me.

biblehub.com

 

[Jamdoc]

why do people want to be ghosts forever so badly...

Cryptoplatonism dug its claws in deep into Christian thought unfortunately.

 

[Timtofly]

It was all one conversation, extending over the course of a relatively short distance up a small mountain.

No. It was long discussions over 3 days and 2 evenings time frame.

We only got a small part of the conversation.

 

[RandyPNW]

No. It was long discussions over 3 days and 2 evenings time frame.

We only got a small part of the conversation.

How do you come to that conclusion? I'm sure it was an ongoing conversation, but what is your basis for separating what Jesus said in the Temple area and what he said on the Mt. of Olives? The geographical separation, or distance, was not significant. And there is no indication, as far as I can see, that the conversation changed from one place to another. In fact, the indication seems to be that they were dealing with the same central issue, namely the coming destruction of the Temple.

If you simply assume that the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus mentioned, had nothing to do with the Roman Army and its eventual destruction of the Temple, you run up against the problem of Dan 9, where that very thing is indicated, that the AoD is the "people of the coming Ruler," who will "destroy the city and the sanctuary." Just assuming the AoD is different from the Temple's destruction is insufficient evidence for your position, and argues your bias, assuming what you have yet to prove.

 

[Timtofly]

How do you come to that conclusion? I'm sure it was an ongoing conversation, but what is your basis for separating what Jesus said in the Temple area and what he said on the Mt. of Olives? The geographical separation, or distance, was not significant. And there is no indication, as far as I can see, that the conversation changed from one place to another. In fact, the indication seems to be that they were dealing with the same central issue, namely the coming destruction of the Temple.

If you simply assume that the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus mentioned, had nothing to do with the Roman Army and its eventual destruction of the Temple, you run up against the problem of Dan 9, where that very thing is indicated, that the AoD is the "people of the coming Ruler," who will "destroy the city and the sanctuary." Just assuming the AoD is different from the Temple's destruction is insufficient evidence for your position, and argues your bias, assuming what you have yet to prove.

Daniel 9 points out Jesus is both the Messiah and Prince to come. It was Jesus' people who destroyed and made the Temple an abomination. Even Josephus claims Titus was disgusted with the Jews and continued to level the city under his own orders to remove such abomination.

Titus and the Romans are never mentioned in Daniel 9.

You have no proof to say what was written in the Gospels was all that was mentioned over the course of 3 days. Luke tells us in chapter 21, that Jesus taught in the Temple daily starting early in the morning, but retired to the Mount of Olives in the evening, assuming 6pm started their evening and next day. Obviously early in the morning would have been 6am.

We only got a snippet, less than 15 minutes worth. And Luke's account was different, because it was all given in the Temple. Obviously there was a common theme. But Matthew did not address 70AD.

 

[RandyPNW]

Daniel 9 points out Jesus is both the Messiah and Prince to come. It was Jesus' people who destroyed and made the Temple an abomination. Even Josephus claims Titus was disgusted with the Jews and continued to level the city under his own orders to remove such abomination.

What you've done is turned my question in an opportunity to confuse your answer with your interpretation of Dan 9. My point was quite simple. Dan 9 mentions the "people of the ruler to come" who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary," which clearly took place in 70 AD when the Roman Army surrounded Jerusalem and eventually defeated it, destroying the Temple. This is what Jesus anticipated in the Olivet Discourse, which began in the Temple area and was elaborated on on the Mt. of Olives.

You said the different places Jesus spoke in, in the Temple area and on the Mt. of Olives, means that he spoke about 2 different matters in the different places. And yet, his proclamation in the Temple area that it would be destroyed is exactly what he elaborated on on the Mt. of Olives, when he discussed the Abomination of Desolation. In Dan 9, the people of the Ruler to come would decimate Jerusalem and the Temple, and Daniel called it the "Abomination of Desolation." In his Olivet Address, we are directed to Daniel's prophecy of the same, either by Jesus or by the authors of the Gospel, or by both. But you turn this whole matter into your own commentary on Dan 9!

Titus and the Romans are never mentioned in Daniel 9.

As I said, the "people of the Ruler to come" are mentioned in Dan 9, who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." This clearly is a prophecy of the Roman Army, which even Jesus interpreted as such in Luke 21! Many church scholars have interpreted it as such, and yet you find no evidence of this?? At least recognize the historical interpretations, instead of placing your own interpretation against them all!

You have no proof to say what was written in the Gospels was all that was mentioned over the course of 3 days. Luke tells us in chapter 21, that Jesus taught in the Temple daily starting early in the morning, but retired to the Mount of Olives in the evening, assuming 6pm started their evening and next day. Obviously early in the morning would have been 6am.

Someone can talk about something in the morning, and continue talking about it throughout the day, and conclude talking about it in the evening. What is your point? I have a feeling you're going to argue your beliefs no matter what the evidence, or the lack thereof?

 

[Timtofly]

At least recognize the historical interpretations, instead of placing your own interpretation against them all!

I have, using Josephus as an eye witness account.

 

[RandyPNW]

I have, using Josephus as an eye witness account.

Are you saying you quoted Josephus for his interpretation of Dan 9? I was talking about recognition of the historical interpretation of "the people of the Ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" in Dan 9.26.

From Benson Commentary:
And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ Josephus Daniel 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Daniel 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Josephus Daniel 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies...

 

[Timtofly]

Are you saying you quoted Josephus for his interpretation of Dan 9? I was talking about recognition of the historical interpretation of "the people of the Ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" in Dan 9.26.

From Benson Commentary:
And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ Josephus Daniel 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Daniel 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Josephus Daniel 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies...

Josephus was a Jewish Historian and knew his OT and the book of Daniel. Josephus was full aware of Hanukkah, and knew what an Abomination of Desolation entailed in regards to the Temple.

I don't recal Josephus stating Titus fulfilled Daniel 9. As pointed out, Josephus said even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews made their own Temple and Jerusalem an abomination and a desolation.

Last time I checked, Jews were not Romans and Titus was not their prince to come. Did the Romans effect the outcome? Sure, I never said they did not.

 

[RandyPNW]

Josephus was a Jewish Historian and knew his OT and the book of Daniel. Josephus was full aware of Hanukkah, and knew what an Abomination of Desolation entailed in regards to the Temple.

I don't recal Josephus stating Titus fulfilled Daniel 9. As pointed out, Josephus said even Titus was disgusted at how the Jews made their own Temple and Jerusalem an abomination and a desolation.

Last time I checked, Jews were not Romans and Titus was not their prince to come. Did the Romans effect the outcome? Sure, I never said they did not.

Yes, Josephus was an historian--not a Bible commentator. On the other hand, I quoted a Christian Bible commentator, J. Benson. In his discussion of Dan 9.26 he quoted Josephus to back up his use of the history of the time. I am *not* using Josephus to interpret the passage, but Benson's reference to Josephus, which he used to back up the history.

My point was that historical commentators interpreted the passage to refer to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. You stated your view with zero acknowledgment of historical interpretations of this kind.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, Josephus was an historian--not a Bible commentator. On the other hand, I quoted a Christian Bible commentator, J. Benson. In his discussion of Dan 9.26 he quoted Josephus to back up his use of the history of the time. I am *not* using Josephus to interpret the passage, but Benson's reference to Josephus, which he used to back up the history.

My point was that historical commentators interpreted the passage to refer to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. You stated your view with zero acknowledgment of historical interpretations of this kind.

I gave you the account of Josephus who was the historion all others quote. Would you skip over the source, to go with an interpretation thousands of years later?

Josephus did do a commentary on the OT, as that was his historical account of the OT. You quoted a person who was quoting from the commentary of Daniel as that was how Josephus presented his OT history as a commentary. Benson never said Josephus made a comment either way, because Josephus never did. You posted the comments of Josephus. Only Benson pointed out the two flavors of interpretation. Josephus had no comment, not even about Titus as you should have observed in your own post. For one, Titus was not even a prince at the time. Why would Josephus expound on a point that would compromise Titus as a Roman citizen? From a Roman perspective, only the emperor Vespasian as a father could grant Titus such a title serving under his father, and more so after the victory over the Jews. So one is stretching this Prince part to the breaking point, even against Roman customs.

I already pointed out several times in more than one thread that Josephus already said the Jews complained about the Romans with their ensigns as seen as an abomination. Back when Pilate became governor. But that was not what Josephus said about 70AD. He said the Jews had already made both their temple and city an abomination and a desolation. Josephus never said Titus fulfilled Daniel 9:26-27. Perhaps God granted Titus the privilege as Josephus points out. But still the verse in Daniel does not even say the Prince destroys Jerusalem and the sanctuary.

"and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

The Jews are the people of the prince that shall come. The Jews destroyed their own city and the sanctuary. Daniel 9:26 never says the prince to come destroys Jerusalem. Titus was so disgusted, he wanted to clean up the place by leveling the city and starting over. Then he left to serve under his father, and left Jerusalem a desolate place, with a Roman garrison. Obviously the Jewish leadership killed and the Jews scattered.

You do realize that the seige lasted from April to September, 4 months, 3 weeks, plus some days. The bad part was that a large influx of Passover pilgrims from all over the empire and other places had just arrived and got stuck in the carnage of the civil war that raged on inside the city with no escape from the Jews nor the Romans.

It was not just your typical army comes, city starves, while army removes wall quickly. If the Jews had banded together, they may have had a shorter seige, and surrendered. They were too busy fighting each other to even worry about the Romans. It is still not clear who even started the fire that destroyed the Temple. Titus told the Romans not to set it on fire. It may have been a leader who disobeyed, but was never held accountable. It may have been a zealot Jew? Titus ordered the fire to be put out, but after 4 months and 3 weeks every one was so crazy minded on both sides they went into a frenzy instead of getting water and attempting to stop the fire. The Romans wanted all the gold they thought was in the temple.

Commentators also want that to be the reason no stone was left unturned. But still not what Josephus actually wrote. Part of the walls and towers were left in place according to Josephus. All part of the temple complex. The Temple complex was the last fortified part of the city to be captured. Jerusalem itself already burned and destroyed.

The reason the Romans were there was not just to take back control of Jerusalem. It was to stop the Civil War itself. It would be like England sending in 20,000,000 troops to stop the American Civil War. Which army would get the actual credit for all the damage done in the war?

No one is denying the Romans were there. Many are denying that the Jews destroyed themselves. And of course Josephus was slanted to give Titus a lot of credit. That is who Josephus was writing for even though it was about the Jewish Wars. Josephus was not a Christian defending whether prophecy was fulfilled or not. The Commentators only made points where he could have mentioned prophecy fulfilled, but did not. Josephus never met Jesus, and as a devout Jew was antagonistic towards this whole new sect of Christianity forming around him. As a general in the Jewish army, he defected to the Romans and made some prophetic comment about one becoming emperor, so was promised he could save 70 individuals from the city from being killed or enslaved. Obviously he later wrote down the account from memory.

Now to take what Matthew gives us which applies to Revelation 13, 17, and 18 leaves us with either a double fulfillment or simply Matthew is talking about the Second Coming, and Luke is talking about 66AD. Luke 21 never explicitly even states an army destroys Jerusalem. Matthew 24 never even implies Jerusalem is left desolate, destroyed, nor attacked by an army period. Yes they asked when, but Jesus never mentions a destruction. Jesus said the temple would become a place of the abomination of desolation. Meaning it would not be destroyed but used for the wrong purpose other than what the Temple was supposed to be. That is when Satan takes over and rules from this Temple as God. That Temple will not be destroyed, nor that Jerusalem. Obviously as written in Daniel about Antiochus Epiphanes, the temple will have to be cleansed like at Hanukkah.

And no, I don't think Josephus was saying Titus is that Prince to come. And Josephus would never say that Jesus would fulfill that prophecy either. So a commentator is just trying to force the writings of Josephus in the same manner they force Daniel 9 to say what they want that chapter to say. Even Benson refuses to see the Jews did it. He said the Romans would later become "christians" thus the Messiah's people. If Jesus is the Messiah, then the Jews were His people coming and going. Jesus was both a Jew and the Christ.

Jesus is the Prince with the Covenant, the Atonement Covenant, the New Testament, not some man made 7 year treaty a person trumped up out of the blue. Nor do I think the Messiah and Prince part were specifically separated by God to stop some daily sacrifice in the temple so an abomination of desolation would span the time between the first and second comings of Jesus as Christ and King.

Daniel 9:27 covers the week of days of the 7th Trumpet, and that week is split in half to allow Satan to set up the AoD in the Temple where Jesus was just announced King over every nation per the 7th Trumpet.

That 42 months given to Satan stops the Covenant altogether. There is no Atonement for sin during those 42 months. People will receive the mark as their name is removed from the Lamb's book of life, or they will be beheaded. That is all that will happen. Those beheaded later stand in judgment and receive their salvation and eternal reward by ruling with Christ for a thousand years and not being tossed into the LOF.


Matthew 24 is about the Second Coming and Revelation 13. Luke 21 is about 66AD at which time many would flee from the area to avoid both the Civil War, and the later destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, where the Romans also come and literally clean up the mess, leaving Jerusalem a footnote in history for hundreds of years as a desolate place to be. That 66AD was 3.5 years from the tragedy that happened, is coincidental. But could cover part of Revelation 12 where they were protected in the wilderness. To me, the remnant Jews do escape the 42 months given to Satan, but are waiting on the sea of glass, which is in heaven. There is no final chapter to those escaping in 66AD. They remained displaced for all time. They were never given a happy ending. Those escaping in Matthew 24 will return and reign with Christ on those white horses in Revelation 19.

 

[RandyPNW]

I gave you the account of Josephus who was the historion all others quote. Would you skip over the source, to go with an interpretation thousands of years later?

As I said, Josephus is not a Bible commentator, but an historian. You don't go with an historian and treat him as a Bible commentator when he is an historian. You go with a Bible commentator, in particular with someone thousands of years later with access to as much information and as much scholarly commentary as possible.

But I didn't have to go with Benson. As I said, his view is but an example of historical commentaries. The Church Fathers also viewed this essentially the same or in a similar way. And that was the point--not who you're citing, but rather, your failure to acknowledge other established views.

Instead, you put forward your own view as if it stands over them all. You are certainly welcome in presenting your own view. But you should acknowledge that there are other valid perspectives, and not present your own view as if it is the only legitimate proposal. The history is one thing. Fitting that history into the language of the passage is another thing entirely.

You quoted a person who was quoting from the commentary of Daniel as that was how Josephus presented his OT history as a commentary.

Not true. I quoted a person who cited an historian who confirmed the history he was presenting, indicating that the history fit the language contained in the passage. He wasn't citing Josephus' interpretation of the passage, but his history as related to his own interpretation of the passage as a Bible commentator.

Since you continue to cite Josephus as if he interprets Daniel, I won't comment. I'm not giving any credibility to Josephus with respect to the interpretation of Dan 9. Josephus is only being referred to as an historian--not as a Bible commentator.

Are you arguing the history or are you arguing the interpretation of Dan 9? I can't tell. You continue to refer to Josephus. I'm referring to historical commentators.

The Jews are the people of the prince that shall come.

You keep giving your opinion. But my point was that based on the same presentation of this history by Josephus respected scholars and commentators have a different interpretation of the passage than you do. I'm not saying that your view is necessarily wrong--only that you act as if only your view is validated by Josephus when many commentators who disagree with you seek validation by Josephus as well.

Since you have yet to even understand or to acknowledge my point, it seems pointless to argue this with you any more. If you can't acknowledge the fundamental point I'm making, how can we get any deeper into the argument over the interpretation?

 

[Timtofly]

As I said, Josephus is not a Bible commentator, but an historian. You don't go with an historian and treat him as a Bible commentator when he is an historian. You go with a Bible commentator, in particular with someone thousands of years later with access to as much information and as much scholarly commentary as possible.

But I didn't have to go with Benson. As I said, his view is but an example of historical commentaries. The Church Fathers also viewed this essentially the same or in a similar way. And that was the point--not who you're citing, but rather, your failure to acknowledge other established views.

Instead, you put forward your own view as if it stands over them all. You are certainly welcome in presenting your own view. But you should acknowledge that there are other valid perspectives, and not present your own view as if it is the only legitimate proposal. The history is one thing. Fitting that history into the language of the passage is another thing entirely.


Not true. I quoted a person who cited an historian who confirmed the history he was presenting, indicating that the history fit the language contained in the passage. He wasn't citing Josephus' interpretation of the passage, but his history as related to his own interpretation of the passage as a Bible commentator.

Since you continue to cite Josephus as if he interprets Daniel, I won't comment. I'm not giving any credibility to Josephus with respect to the interpretation of Dan 9. Josephus is only being referred to as an historian--not as a Bible commentator.

Are you arguing the history or are you arguing the interpretation of Dan 9? I can't tell. You continue to refer to Josephus. I'm referring to historical commentators.


You keep giving your opinion. But my point was that based on the same presentation of this history by Josephus respected scholars and commentators have a different interpretation of the passage than you do. I'm not saying that your view is necessarily wrong--only that you act as if only your view is validated by Josephus when many commentators who disagree with you seek validation by Josephus as well.

Since you have yet to even understand or to acknowledge my point, it seems pointless to argue this with you any more. If you can't acknowledge the fundamental point I'm making, how can we get any deeper into the argument over the interpretation?

There are footnotes in some translations of Josephus that give the opinions of the translator who did understand the Bible.

We obviously cannot go deeper into any argument without our own personal opinion. That is the point about being a Bible commentator. Even you want to distinguish between a commentator and just an historian fact provider.

I am not giving you my opinion. I did not write the Bible. If giving you what is Scripture my opinion, then what is Scripture for? If you think that I am the only one who thinks that Luke 21 is only Jesus talking in the Temple, it is because Luke does not say that Jesus had arrived on the mount and was still talking. I am giving you Luke's opinion, not mine. If every historian and commentator wants to add to God's Word and claim that, then your opinion ligns up with their opinion, and not Scripture. Why would I think that is only your sole opinion, and no one else's?

I attempted to go out of my way to quote Josephus so as not to make it personal against your opinion. I am not relying on any human, not even Josephus to interpret Daniel 9. I am pointing out that even if Josephus could or had an opinion on Daniel 9 it would not go in your favor. I would place Josephus in the same category as Benson as an historical commentator. That is based on what Benson quoted from Josephus.

the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory

That is making a comment as a commentator not just giving an historical fact. Josephus was commenting on Titus' state of mind years later after the event.

Then when I point out what Josephus wrote on the state of mind of Titus at the very moment the Temple was being destroyed, you call that my opinion for some reason. How can I have any opinion at all about Titus unless I read it somewhere?

Even Benson is trying to use Josephus to make his own point, no? Obviously Benson is able to make a way better argument than I ever could.

 

[RandyPNW]

There are footnotes in some translations of Josephus that give the opinions of the translator who did understand the Bible.

Irrelevant. My point was that Josephus is giving the history. The commentary attempts to apply the history to the Bible to interpret it properly. Josephus described the events of 70 AD. Many historic Bible commentators use Josephus' account of the Roman invasion to explain Dan 9 and Luke 21. Josephus' footnotes is just part of his account of the history--not a commentary on either Dan 9 or Luke 21.

We obviously cannot go deeper into any argument without our own personal opinion. That is the point about being a Bible commentator. Even you want to distinguish between a commentator and just an historian fact provider.

As I said, I'm not opposed to you giving your own opinion or commentary. My point all along is that the history, as indicated by Josephus, can be used by your opinion or by the opinion of historical commentators. Different views have utilized the exact same historical account offered by Josephus!

This is the simple point I've been trying to make. But you want to somehow make Josephus the authority for only your opinion! His account can be used by several different, conflicting opinions. Virtually all views of Dan 9 and the Luke 21 would make reference to Josephus' account of the Jewish wars in the 1st century.

I am not giving you my opinion. I did not write the Bible.

You don't have to write the Bible to have your own opinion about how to interpret it.

If giving you what is Scripture my opinion, then what is Scripture for? If you think that I am the only one who thinks that Luke 21 is only Jesus talking in the Temple, it is because Luke does not say that Jesus had arrived on the mount and was still talking.

The biblical accounts omit things that our opinions sometimes fill, including your own. You don't have an exact chronology of Jesus' earthly ministry. Scholars do not know, for sure, how many times Jesus may have told the same story, as recorded in the Scriptures.

We do not know the exact time frame for Jesus' time in the temple when he made statements about the temple's destruction and for his time going up to the Mt. of Olives, answering questions about it. We can make certain assumptions, such as the time frame was relatively short between the time Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and the time Jesus' Disciples asked him about that later.

It had to be a relatively short time frame between the initial statements and questions asked about those statements. This is simply a logical deduction, as well as an opinion.

Josephus' history about that time frame has little bearing on our deductions about these things. Josephus' history has little to do with determining the specific chronology of what Jesus talked about between the temple discussion and the Mt. of Olives discussion.

I am giving you Luke's opinion, not mine. If every historian and commentator wants to add to God's Word and claim that, then your opinion ligns up with their opinion, and not Scripture. Why would I think that is only your sole opinion, and no one else's?

You are not just quoting Luke, but rather, filling in what you perceive are "holes" in the lack of information connecting Jesus' time in the temple and the Olivet Discourse. Your own interpretation of the Olivet Discourse causes you to separate the Olivet Discourse from Jesus' statements in the temple. The biblical account does not separate these two conversations--your bias and your interpretation of the two conversations does!

I attempted to go out of my way to quote Josephus so as not to make it personal against your opinion. I am not relying on any human, not even Josephus to interpret Daniel 9. I am pointing out that even if Josephus could or had an opinion on Daniel 9 it would not go in your favor. I would place Josephus in the same category as Benson as an historical commentator. That is based on what Benson quoted from Josephus.

Placing Josephus is the same category as Benson as an historical commentator is the mistake I'm saying you're making. Josephus was just recounting the history that Benson is laying down as an historical background for his interpretations. Josephus' account does not affect our own interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21 regardless. It is our *interpretation,* and not just the Bible accounts, that cause differences in our view of those accounts.

That is making a comment as a commentator not just giving an historical fact. Josephus was commenting on Titus' state of mind years later after the event.

Then when I point out what Josephus wrote on the state of mind of Titus at the very moment the Temple was being destroyed, you call that my opinion for some reason.

I did no such thing. Your problem is you see everything as a personal argument against your position. I was just stating that there are other opinions based upon the same history.

Josephus' account of that history does not determine how Dan 9 and Luke 21 can be interpreted, unless our interpretation is a fictional account of the history. We can take the exact same history of Jesus' resurrection and concoct different interpretations of what we think happened and what we think each person meant to say.

How can I have any opinion at all about Titus unless I read it somewhere?

Josephus' account does *not* determine the interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21!! You derive the interpretation by praying, by studying other views, and then by hearing, as best you can, from God. Honesty about the limits of our knowledge helps. Unless we claim to be a prophet we have to do some guessing about interpretations. That is just a part of Christian growth. We have to mature in humility and in honesty.

Even Benson is trying to use Josephus to make his own point, no? Obviously Benson is able to make a way better argument than I ever could.

I'm not even saying who has the better argument--just that Josephus' account of the history cannot determine what interpretation is correct with respect to Dan 9 and Luke 21. Quit looking for an argument and just accept the point!

We can rely upon the same history and come up with different conclusions. We have to judge for ourselves what interpretation best fits the facts.

But in this case, the historical facts do not determine a single interpretation. That was my point.

It requires a proper "interpretation" rather than just the historical facts. The biblical account is best interpreted by a scholarly commentator, who has a ministry of studying the language and conveying the meaning of that language. You seem to be trying to establish a single interpretation based on Josephus alone?

 

[Timtofly]

Irrelevant. My point was that Josephus is giving the history. The commentary attempts to apply the history to the Bible to interpret it properly. Josephus described the events of 70 AD. Many historic Bible commentators use Josephus' account of the Roman invasion to explain Dan 9 and Luke 21. Josephus' footnotes is just part of his account of the history--not a commentary on either Dan 9 or Luke 21.

As I said, I'm not opposed to you giving your own opinion or commentary. My point all along is that the history, as indicated by Josephus, can be used by your opinion or by the opinion of historical commentators. Different views have utilized the exact same historical account offered by Josephus!

This is the simple point I've been trying to make. But you want to somehow make Josephus the authority for only your opinion! His account can be used by several different, conflicting opinions. Virtually all views of Dan 9 and the Luke 21 would make reference to Josephus' account of the Jewish wars in the 1st century.

You don't have to write the Bible to have your own opinion about how to interpret it.

The biblical accounts omit things that our opinions sometimes fill, including your own. You don't have an exact chronology of Jesus' earthly ministry. Scholars do not know, for sure, how many times Jesus may have told the same story, as recorded in the Scriptures.

We do not know the exact time frame for Jesus' time in the temple when he made statements about the temple's destruction and for his time going up to the Mt. of Olives, answering questions about it. We can make certain assumptions, such as the time frame was relatively short between the time Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and the time Jesus' Disciples asked him about that later.

It had to be a relatively short time frame between the initial statements and questions asked about those statements. This is simply a logical deduction, as well as an opinion.

Josephus' history about that time frame has little bearing on our deductions about these things. Josephus' history has little to do with determining the specific chronology of what Jesus talked about between the temple discussion and the Mt. of Olives discussion.

You are not just quoting Luke, but rather, filling in what you perceive are "holes" in the lack of information connecting Jesus' time in the temple and the Olivet Discourse. Your own interpretation of the Olivet Discourse causes you to separate the Olivet Discourse from Jesus' statements in the temple. The biblical account does not separate these two conversations--your bias and your interpretation of the two conversations does!

Placing Josephus is the same category as Benson as an historical commentator is the mistake I'm saying you're making. Josephus was just recounting the history that Benson is laying down as an historical background for his interpretations. Josephus' account does not affect our own interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21 regardless. It is our *interpretation,* and not just the Bible accounts, that cause differences in our view of those accounts.

I did no such thing. Your problem is you see everything as a personal argument against your position. I was just stating that there are other opinions based upon the same history.

Josephus' account of that history does not determine how Dan 9 and Luke 21 can be interpreted, unless our interpretation is a fictional account of the history. We can take the exact same history of Jesus' resurrection and concoct different interpretations of what we think happened and what we think each person meant to say.

Josephus' account does *not* determine the interpretation of Dan 9 and Luke 21!! You derive the interpretation by praying, by studying other views, and then by hearing, as best you can, from God. Honesty about the limits of our knowledge helps. Unless we claim to be a prophet we have to do some guessing about interpretations. That is just a part of Christian growth. We have to mature in humility and in honesty.

I'm not even saying who has the better argument--just that Josephus' account of the history cannot determine what interpretation is correct with respect to Dan 9 and Luke 21. Quit looking for an argument and just accept the point!

We can rely upon the same history and come up with different conclusions. We have to judge for ourselves what interpretation best fits the facts.

But in this case, the historical facts do not determine a single interpretation. That was my point.

It requires a proper "interpretation" rather than just the historical facts. The biblical account is best interpreted by a scholarly commentator, who has a ministry of studying the language and conveying the meaning of that language. You seem to be trying to establish a single interpretation based on Josephus alone?

I never had an opinion until I read some commentators on Josephus. So not sure what your point is. They made sense. Now I have not read all commentators, if they even exist. Josephus was not even translated into English until after the Bible was.

The footnotes in the English translation were put there by the translators, not Josephus. That is where I get my information I post.


So saying this is all just me making stuff up, and my opinion is fine, is just pointless. I really have no stake nor argument on the whole issue.

Well no one would know from the Bible what happened in 70AD. So those making that claim is their own opinion. If Josephus never existed, how would you even know what happened in 70AD? I do not see any one quoting any other historian about 70AD. At least they have not disclosed their sources.

 

[RandyPNW]

I never had an opinion until I read some commentators on Josephus. So not sure what your point is. They made sense. Now I have not read all commentators, if they even exist. Josephus was not even translated into English until after the Bible was.

The footnotes in the English translation were put there by the translators, not Josephus. That is where I get my information I post.


So saying this is all just me making stuff up, and my opinion is fine, is just pointless. I really have no stake nor argument on the whole issue.

Well no one would know from the Bible what happened in 70AD. So those making that claim is their own opinion. If Josephus never existed, how would you even know what happened in 70AD? I do not see any one quoting any other historian about 70AD. At least they have not disclosed their sources.

I suggest you read my post again. You seem to be too defensive to understand my point--it is not that difficult to understand once you get past the disagreement over interpretation.

I'm saying that all of us, you, me, and commentators, must rely on historical sources to understand the background to the Gospel discourses. Josephus is essential to understand some of this background, and we would all agree that he is an important source, even if he can't be trusted to be perfect in this.

So I'm saying that historical sources, though important, do not determine the *interpretation* of a biblical discourse. That is a matter of understanding and determining the language, in connection with the historical context. Once we have the general context, we can fit this together with the language.

Commentators try to do this, though they are not perfect. The historical sources do not determine the interpretation of the language--just the historical background. That was the point.