Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[eclipsenow]

Easiest of all to prove. Jesus mentioned the AOD mentioned by Daniel. That one occurred in the 160s BC. Daniel did NOT call the murder of Jesus the AOD.

That's not the question.The question is what did Jesus mean by describing something happening in THAT GENERATION as being like the AOD?

This is the view my my neck of the woods:

“If a group of Christians sat down to list perplexing passages, it wouldn’t take long for someone to mention Matthew 24:15-16: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

The reasons for uncertainty are easy to list. What is an abomination? What abomination does Jesus have in mind? One that belongs to his generation, or one from the last days? What is the connection between the prophecies of Daniel and Jesus? Who is “the reader,” and what should he or she understand? In what sense should readers “flee to the mountains”? Should they obey literally or metaphorically?

As always, the first step is to read the text in literary, cultural, historical, and canonical contexts. Then we analyze the structure of the passage and do the necessary lexical and grammatical work. We begin with the key phrase, “abomination of desolation.”

The term “abomination” (Hebrew toevah and siqqus) appears more than 100 times in the Old Testament and just a few times in the New Testament. An abomination is normally a great sin, commonly worthy of death. Readers immersed in current debates about sexual ethics may first think an abomination is a sexual sin. Indeed, Scripture calls sexual sins like adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality abominations (e.g., Leviticus 18:22, 29-30). But more often throughout the Bible “abomination” refers to major covenant violations, especially idolatry (in Deuteronomy alone, see 7:25, 13:6-16, 17:2-5, 18:9-12, 27:15, 32:16). In the historical books, “abomination” always describes idolatry, often with child sacrifice (1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:13). Abomination also refers to idolatry in the prophets, including Daniel 9 and 11. (Daniel uses siqqus, a term that always appears in connection with idolatry.)

The interpretation of Daniel 9-11 is difficult and disputed, but it does have some fixed points, and the nature of the abomination that causes desolation is one of them. Daniel 9:26-27 refers to a prince who will destroy the city (Jerusalem) along with its temple and sacrifices, “and on the wings of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.” Two chapters later there is another reference to an “abomination” in connection to the temple: “forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate” (11:31).

Scholars generally agree that the first reference of these prophecies is the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who ruled Palestine from 175-64 B.C. Antiochus treated Israel with such violence and contempt that they rebelled against him. When he came to suppress the rebellion, his forces entered the temple, stopped the regular sacrifices, set up an idol of or altar for Zeus, and apparently offered swine there as a sacrifice. This is an abomination because it is idolatry, and it brings desolation because it defiles the holy place at the heart of Israel. This act was the abomination “of” desolation, the abomination “causing” desolation.

Larger StructureHaving surveyed the original meaning of “abomination of desolation” in Daniel, we now to turn Matthew 24:15-16, first looking at the larger structure of Matthew 24. These verses come in the context of the Olivet Discourse, which begins with Jesus telling his disciples that the temple will be destroyed (24:1-2). The disciples then asked Jesus to explain: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” (24:3).The disciples probably thought they were asking one question. The fall of Jerusalem, Jesus’ return, and the end of the age were one complex event in their minds. It may seem to us that they asked three questions:When will the temple fall?What is the sign of Jesus’ return?What is the sign of the close of this age?

But a close reading shows that Jesus heard and answered two questions. Evangelical scholars will disagree about how much of this passage is devoted to each question, but they generally agree that 24:3-35 mostly refers to events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The segment ends with Jesus promising “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (24:35). A generation normally lasts 40 years in Scripture, and Jerusalem and its temple did fall within 40 years, as Jesus said. So his core prediction was fulfilled by AD 70. (Space forbids that I address double and partial fulfillments of elements of 24:3-35. The interested reader may consult orthodox commentaries.) Then, in 24:36, Jesus starts to speak exclusively about “that day”—that is, the last day.

In 24:4-14, the, Jesus is preparing his disciples for events—most of them extremely difficult—that will take place in their lifetime. These troubles are not signs of the end; the disciples must be ready to “stand firm” through them (24:4-8, 13). Then he says, “When you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation . . . ‘—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem. It cannot possibly apply to Jesus’ return. When he comes it will be pointless for an unbeliever to try to flee. And a believer will not want to flee. For the same reason, the following command not to go back to get a cloak and the woe for nursing mothers who must flee cannot refer to Jesus’ return. But they make perfect sense if Jesus predicts that another abomination of desolation, like Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel, is coming. Indeed that abomination did come in Roman form in AD 70. The Roman armies were always an abomination because they carried with them idolatrous images of the emperor, whom they worshiped. And those armies brought desolation because their commander leveled the city and entered the holy of holies, defiling it.

The line “let the reader understand” (24:15) means that those who read Matthew—which would have been written before AD 70—must be ready to flee when they see Roman armies besieging Jerusalem. Indeed, the parallel account in Luke 21 makes this point explicit: “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies . . . flee to the mountains” (Luke 21:10-24). In fact, many Christians did flee, sparing their lives, when they saw Rome’s armies coming. Eusebius, the first great historian of the church, says that when the Romans fell upon Jerusalem, “the church at Jerusalem . . . left the city, and moved to a town called Pella.”[1] So Jesus, ever the Good Shepherd, told the first Christians how to survive those most harrowing years of the church’s infancy.

A wise preacher dealing with this passage may find particular value in focusing on this point. When Jesus gives instruction concerning future events, his purpose is not to satiate our curiosity or answer all or our speculative questions. Instead, his purpose is to protect and guide and instruct his people. Jesus gave relatively little attention to the question “When?” and much toward the question “How shall we live faithfully?” Preaching on such texts today should be shaped by Jesus’ concern for the welfare and endurance of his church.[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Christian Cruse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955), 86-87.”

What Is the ‘Abomination of Desolation’?

 

[robycop3]

No, it's because they know they can't prove a thing they say in favor of preterism.

 

[robycop3]

That's not the question.The question is what did Jesus mean by describing something happening in THAT GENERATION as being like the AOD?

This is the view my my neck of the woods:

“If a group of Christians sat down to list perplexing passages, it wouldn’t take long for someone to mention Matthew 24:15-16: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

The reasons for uncertainty are easy to list. What is an abomination? What abomination does Jesus have in mind? One that belongs to his generation, or one from the last days? What is the connection between the prophecies of Daniel and Jesus? Who is “the reader,” and what should he or she understand? In what sense should readers “flee to the mountains”? Should they obey literally or metaphorically?

As always, the first step is to read the text in literary, cultural, historical, and canonical contexts. Then we analyze the structure of the passage and do the necessary lexical and grammatical work. We begin with the key phrase, “abomination of desolation.”

The term “abomination” (Hebrew toevah and siqqus) appears more than 100 times in the Old Testament and just a few times in the New Testament. An abomination is normally a great sin, commonly worthy of death. Readers immersed in current debates about sexual ethics may first think an abomination is a sexual sin. Indeed, Scripture calls sexual sins like adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality abominations (e.g., Leviticus 18:22, 29-30). But more often throughout the Bible “abomination” refers to major covenant violations, especially idolatry (in Deuteronomy alone, see 7:25, 13:6-16, 17:2-5, 18:9-12, 27:15, 32:16). In the historical books, “abomination” always describes idolatry, often with child sacrifice (1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:13). Abomination also refers to idolatry in the prophets, including Daniel 9 and 11. (Daniel uses siqqus, a term that always appears in connection with idolatry.)

The interpretation of Daniel 9-11 is difficult and disputed, but it does have some fixed points, and the nature of the abomination that causes desolation is one of them. Daniel 9:26-27 refers to a prince who will destroy the city (Jerusalem) along with its temple and sacrifices, “and on the wings of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.” Two chapters later there is another reference to an “abomination” in connection to the temple: “forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate” (11:31).

Scholars generally agree that the first reference of these prophecies is the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who ruled Palestine from 175-64 B.C. Antiochus treated Israel with such violence and contempt that they rebelled against him. When he came to suppress the rebellion, his forces entered the temple, stopped the regular sacrifices, set up an idol of or altar for Zeus, and apparently offered swine there as a sacrifice. This is an abomination because it is idolatry, and it brings desolation because it defiles the holy place at the heart of Israel. This act was the abomination “of” desolation, the abomination “causing” desolation.

Larger StructureHaving surveyed the original meaning of “abomination of desolation” in Daniel, we now to turn Matthew 24:15-16, first looking at the larger structure of Matthew 24. These verses come in the context of the Olivet Discourse, which begins with Jesus telling his disciples that the temple will be destroyed (24:1-2). The disciples then asked Jesus to explain: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” (24:3).The disciples probably thought they were asking one question. The fall of Jerusalem, Jesus’ return, and the end of the age were one complex event in their minds. It may seem to us that they asked three questions:When will the temple fall?What is the sign of Jesus’ return?What is the sign of the close of this age?

But a close reading shows that Jesus heard and answered two questions. Evangelical scholars will disagree about how much of this passage is devoted to each question, but they generally agree that 24:3-35 mostly refers to events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The segment ends with Jesus promising “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (24:35). A generation normally lasts 40 years in Scripture, and Jerusalem and its temple did fall within 40 years, as Jesus said. So his core prediction was fulfilled by AD 70. (Space forbids that I address double and partial fulfillments of elements of 24:3-35. The interested reader may consult orthodox commentaries.) Then, in 24:36, Jesus starts to speak exclusively about “that day”—that is, the last day.

In 24:4-14, the, Jesus is preparing his disciples for events—most of them extremely difficult—that will take place in their lifetime. These troubles are not signs of the end; the disciples must be ready to “stand firm” through them (24:4-8, 13). Then he says, “When you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation . . . ‘—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem. It cannot possibly apply to Jesus’ return. When he comes it will be pointless for an unbeliever to try to flee. And a believer will not want to flee. For the same reason, the following command not to go back to get a cloak and the woe for nursing mothers who must flee cannot refer to Jesus’ return. But they make perfect sense if Jesus predicts that another abomination of desolation, like Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel, is coming. Indeed that abomination did come in Roman form in AD 70. The Roman armies were always an abomination because they carried with them idolatrous images of the emperor, whom they worshiped. And those armies brought desolation because their commander leveled the city and entered the holy of holies, defiling it.

The line “let the reader understand” (24:15) means that those who read Matthew—which would have been written before AD 70—must be ready to flee when they see Roman armies besieging Jerusalem. Indeed, the parallel account in Luke 21 makes this point explicit: “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies . . . flee to the mountains” (Luke 21:10-24). In fact, many Christians did flee, sparing their lives, when they saw Rome’s armies coming. Eusebius, the first great historian of the church, says that when the Romans fell upon Jerusalem, “the church at Jerusalem . . . left the city, and moved to a town called Pella.”[1] So Jesus, ever the Good Shepherd, told the first Christians how to survive those most harrowing years of the church’s infancy.

A wise preacher dealing with this passage may find particular value in focusing on this point. When Jesus gives instruction concerning future events, his purpose is not to satiate our curiosity or answer all or our speculative questions. Instead, his purpose is to protect and guide and instruct his people. Jesus gave relatively little attention to the question “When?” and much toward the question “How shall we live faithfully?” Preaching on such texts today should be shaped by Jesus’ concern for the welfare and endurance of his church.[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Christian Cruse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955), 86-87.”

What Is the ‘Abomination of Desolation’?

We must put together several prophecies to see what the AOD will be. First, Daniel's. Then Paul's, in 2 Thess. 3-4. Then, Rev. 13. From them, we see the beast & his false prophet sidekick will be men, & the FP will set up a statue of his boss in the temple in Jerusalem. The beast himself will sit in that temple & declare himself to be God, while the FP will order all people everywhere to worship only the beast & their forces will kill anyone found to not be worshipping the beast.

Some will say, "How can that be when the temple was destroyed?" The answer: Right now, the Jews are planning to build a new temple in J. They have the materials ready, & are breeding the animals to be used in temple rites, They plan to re-institute the Old Covenant ways of worship, including animal sacrifices. Those will be the sacrifices the beast will stop. That will be the temple the beast will rule from.

Remember, those events did NOT occur in the old temple. No one has ruled the whole world. No one set up a statue of himself in that temple. But those things are unmistakably prophesied to happen, so they must be future, as, of course, the return of Jesus to end all those things. PRETERISM IS SIMPLY FALSE.

 

[eclipsenow]

We must put together several prophecies to see what the AOD will be. First, Daniel's.

Daniel's prophecies were mainly about the coming of the gospel.

Then Paul's, in 2 Thess. 3-4. Then, Rev. 13. From them, we see the beast & his false prophet sidekick will be men, & the FP will set up a statue of his boss in the temple in Jerusalem. The beast himself will sit in that temple & declare himself to be God, while the FP will order all people everywhere to worship only the beast & their forces will kill anyone found to not be worshipping the beast.

As my friend Greg Clark writes:-

John writes that “many antichrists have come”, reminding us that there has been great opposition to Christ ever since he was born (remember how Herod killed all the babies in Bethlehem trying to get to Jesus?). Throughout the whole Bible, we find characters who are ‘anti’ God’s plans—wicked men, foreign kings, false prophets and ‘the beast’ who features in Revelation 13. Even in Deuteronomy, there are warnings about the rise of prophets who lie and preach rebellion against the true God.

But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?

Probably not. There are passages in the Bible which talk about a particular being who is Christ’s foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.

The worst thing about antichrists is that they have come from within the church! The apostle John wrote that they “went out from us, but they did not really belong to us”. This is what antichrists do. They get among believers and try to deceive them, persuading them to believe lies and getting people to follow them and their deceptions rather than Jesus and his truth. They teach that Christ did not come in the flesh (1 Jn 4:1-3); they say it doesn’t matter whether you sin or not (1 Jn 1:5-10); and they neglect their Christian brothers and sisters (1 Jn 4:19-21).

According to God’s word, the antichrist might have sat next to you in the church pew. This isn’t a scene from a horror movie; quite the opposite-it is an everyday event. In this final age before Jesus returns, plenty of opponents of Jesus will arise. And they may even be in church, trying to deceive us and lead us into error. But Christians can be confident and at peace, because there will be a day when all ‘antichristness’ will be done away with.

It’s a bit of a waste of time trying to work out whether the antichrist is Boris Yeltsin, the Dalai Lama, Bill Gates or the Pope. It’s just as likely to be your granny or your next door neighbour, if they are promoting lies about our Lord.

Just make sure it isn’t you …

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. (1 John 2:24-25)

The devil you know

Some will say, "How can that be when the temple was destroyed?" The answer: Right now, the Jews are planning to build a new temple in J. They have the materials ready, & are breeding the animals to be used in temple rites, They plan to re-institute the Old Covenant ways of worship, including animal sacrifices. Those will be the sacrifices the beast will stop. That will be the temple the beast will rule from.

Matthew 24 is all about the temple being destroyed then switches to the End Times when it discusses THAT DAY.

 

[Jipsah]

No, it's because they know they can't prove a thing they say in favor of preterism.

Temple's still there, right? Has to be, else your hyper-futurism is demonstrably false. Temple's still there, it was never desecrated, Jerusalem was never sacked, sacrifice and oblation continue as always, on and on. Yeah, I know the stock response from hyper-futurists is "those don't count!" or somethng equally ridiculous and self-serving. Face it, any "end times" doctrine that, like dispensational fururism, can't admit that what has happened has happened, is too goofy to be taken seriously.

Lindseyism failed in dramatic fashion, and I'm sorry for those of you who've become it's Alibi Men, ready to explain away any bit of history that interfere with their made-up-from-whole-cloth End Times blather.

Our Lord will return when it is His good pleasure. The sad part of that will be that if there are any of y'all still around then you'll have to respond to His coming by finding a vaguely credible "reason" why it doesn't really count.

 

[Jipsah]

I was reading some rationale for the preterist view

That one's easy - prophecies that have been fulfilled have been fulfilled, whether it suits your doctrine or not! Just apply a tad of intellectual honesty now and again.

 

[Jipsah]

Easiest of all to prove. Jesus mentioned the AOD mentioned by Daniel. That one occurred in the 160s BC. Daniel did NOT call the murder of Jesus the AOD.

"Explaining away", as usual. "Oh, that didn't count." You'll still be saying that when the Lord returns.

 

[Jipsah]

B0b_1000, been waiting nearly 3 months for your reply. Or, have you given up like the rest of the prets here ?

Oh, stuff that happened still happened, despite your rote silliness about how they didn't really happen, or didn't count, or didn't suit your addle-pated doctrine, ad infinitum. I began to worry that at some point you'd feel pressed to deny that our Lord had come in the flesh at all, bec ause that would represent fulfilled prophecy as well, and that Can't Be Allowed by hyper-futurists. You have the Word of Hal, and you're not about to let facts confuse things.

 

[Jipsah]

We must put together several prophecies to see what the AOD will be

Yeah, because it looks like when our Lord foretold the desctruction of the Temple, it happened just as He said. Can't have that, now can we? He can't really have mean what He said, so you lot have to invent a story to represent What He Really Meant. And that, of course, requires that whatever He said has to be "interpreted" in such a way as ti prevent it damaging your doctine.

Right now, the Jews are planning to build a new temple in J. They have the materials ready, & are breeding the animals to be used in temple rites, They plan to re-institute the Old Covenant ways of worship, including animal sacrifices.

Yep. been hearing that old saw since Hector was a pup. Funny, nobody's ever really sure what Jews are planning all this, except that they're Mystical Jews in Israel, not the workaday ordinary Jews like live down the street from you. These Jews have been perched there with bated breath, waiting for the precise moment to spring into action, build their new Temple, establish Temple Judaism 2.0, start sacrifice going again, and get everything ready for it all to be destroyed again so as to make Hyper Futurist Lindseyism work after all.

Those will be the sacrifices the beast will stop.

The Sacrifices to the Beast that our Lord foretold... when was that? Missed that one, I reckon. Funny, He talked to His disciples like it was the Temple they were looking at at the time, and the sacrifices that were being made there, that He was talking about. God job your lot know better, right?

Remember, those events did NOT occur in the old temple. No one has ruled the whole world.

Except Caesar.

No one set up a statue of himself in that temple.

Except the legionaries who set up and offered sacrifices to their battle standards in the wrecked Holy of Holies.

But those things are unmistakably prophesied to happen

And the fact that they did happen just as our Lord said they would has no bearing on your doctrine. Not allowed!

so they must be future, as, of course, the return of Jesus to end all those things. PRETERISM IS SIMPLY FALSE.

Well, you'vecertainly demonstrated that your doctrine says so at any rate. And if reality doesn't agree, then reality has to wait in the car.[/quote]

 

[eclipsenow]

Except the legionaries who set up and offered sacrifices to their battle standards in the wrecked Holy of Holies.

Exactly.
Matt 24 = AOD = THAT GENERATION = THAT TEMPLE DESTROYED (not some silly hypothetical third temple) = soldiers praising their 'god' Caesar as they sacrificed to the Eagle standard.
Behold the AOD!

Can we move on now and get on with sharing the gospel? Or are there still a few dozen end-times-table predictions and dates set that have to fail before people get it?

 

[keras]

Can we move on now and get on with sharing the gospel? Or are there still a few dozen end-times-table predictions and dates set that have to fail before people get it?

We can safely assume that everyone here has accepted the Salvation of Jesus.
This forum is the place where we can discuss the Prophetic Word and to make timelines using the given times in the Bible, cannot be wrong or sinful.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is very enlightening; everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. As John 3:16 plainly says.
But those whose works are faulty, I refer here especially to those who promote false teachings or reject the prophetic truths presented, will not receive a reward and will, escape with their lives only by passing thru fire.

Calling the multi prophesied future Third Temple; silly and hypothetical, is a serious error and constitutes building with straw.

 

[robycop3]

Yeah, because it looks like when our Lord foretold the desctruction of the Temple, it happened just as He said. Can't have that, now can we? He can't really have mean what He said, so you lot have to invent a story to represent What He Really Meant. And that, of course, requires that whatever He said has to be "interpreted" in such a way as ti prevent it damaging your doctine.

Yep. been hearing that old saw since Hector was a pup. Funny, nobody's ever really sure what Jews are planning all this, except that they're Mystical Jews in Israel, not the workaday ordinary Jews like live down the street from you. These Jews have been perched there with bated breath, waiting for the precise moment to spring into action, build their new Temple, establish Temple Judaism 2.0, start sacrifice going again, and get everything ready for it all to be destroyed again so as to make Hyper Futurist Lindseyism work after all.

The Sacrifices to the Beast that our Lord foretold... when was that? Missed that one, I reckon. Funny, He talked to His disciples like it was the Temple they were looking at at the time, and the sacrifices that were being made there, that He was talking about. God job your lot know better, right?

The AOD prophesied by Jesus didn't occur in the old temple, so a new one must be built for it to occur in. Nor was 2 Thess.2:4 fulfilled in it.

Except Caesar.

No Caesar rulef China, Japan, or the Americas.

Except the legionaries who set up and offered sacrifices to their battle standards in the wrecked Holy of Holies.

Complete humbug.

And the fact that they did happen just as our Lord said they would has no bearing on your doctrine. Not allowed!

MMRRPP ! WRONG !
They WILL happen.

Well, you'vecertainly demonstrated that your doctrine says so at any rate. And if reality doesn't agree, then reality has to wait in the car.

[/QUOTE]
Not MY doctrine but Scripture & history.

 

[eclipsenow]

The AOD prophesied by Jesus didn't occur in the old temple

Israel was surrounded.
The temple was trashed.
Soldiers sacrificed to their god.
They burned the temple and the gold ran down through the cracks of the stones, resulting in the soldiers digging up every stone looking for the gold.
Not one temple stone was left on another!

Um... exactly WHAT bit of the temple prophesies were not fulfilled in THAT generation - exactly as Jesus said to the disciples asking about THAT TEMPLE in THAT GENERATION? Go on - pretend you've disqualified AD70 - but seriously - the disciples were asking about THAT TEMPLE. The one they were gawking over like country tourists in the big city. That one. "Look at these stones!" etc. Yeah, with their own eyeballs. Not some still hypothetical temple thousands of years later!

 

[Jipsah]

The AOD prophesied by Jesus didn't occur in the old temple

Of course not! Destroying the Temple and having pagan sacrifices made in the ruins of the Holy of Holies wouldn't be abominations, they'd be Just Fine, right? And of course, leaving not one stone standing on another wouldn't have rendered it desolate, now would it? Can't, because that would render your doctrine ridiculous. Oh, wait...

so a new one must be built for it to occur in.

But what it that one doesn't count either? Does thre process go on indefinitely? What nonsense!

No Caesar rulef China, Japan, or the Americas.

Known world, matey. Nce try, though. Gotta defend the doctrine, be it ever so irrational. Right?

Complete humbug.

Yep, Temple's still there, innit?

Not MY doctrine but Scripture & history.

<ROFL> History directly contradicts your made up doctrine, and all you can do is prate about how It Didn't Really Count. Ludicrous.

 

[robycop3]

Of course not! Destroying the Temple and having pagan sacrifices made in the ruins of the Holy of Holies wouldn't be abominations, they'd be Just Fine, right? And of course, leaving not one stone standing on another wouldn't have rendered it desolate, now would it? Can't, because that would render your doctrine ridiculous. Oh, wait...

RED HERRING ! Scripture shows what the first AOD was-Antiochus Ephphanes setting up a statue of Zeus in it & sacrificing pigs upon the altar. So, the one Jesus mentioned will be similar. And that one never occurred again in the old temple.

But what it that one doesn't count either? Does thre process go on indefinitely? What nonsense!

How do you KNOW it won't count? Oh yeah, Pret omniscience...

Known

world, matey. Nce try, though. Gotta defend the doctrine, be it ever so irrational. Right?

The whole world was & is known to JESUS.

Yep, Temple's still there, innit?

More pret erudition.

<ROFL> History directly contradicts your made up doctrine, and all you can do is prate about how It Didn't Really Count. Ludicrous.

OK, show us from actual history when & where the events occurred. As usual, another pret that's all talk & no walk.

 

[Jipsah]

RED HERRING !

Don't actually know what that means, do you?

Scripture shows what the first AOD was-Antiochus Ephphanes setting up a statue of Zeus in it & sacrificing pigs upon the altar. So, the one Jesus mentioned will be similar. And that one never occurred again in the old temple.

No pigs, just Roman Legionaries sacrificing to their Legion Standards. Or did it have to be a statue of Zeus? Or the same people doing the sacrificing? And on ther same day of the week? Quick, make something up! Your Hyper Futurist doctrine is in danger again!

]How do you KNOW it won't count?

How do you know it will? Moot point anyway, it already happened, just as our Lord said. Your doctrine just prevents you from admitting it. "Oh, it's got to be a different temple, else our Carefully Contrived Timelines are a crock." Hint: the Temple was destroyed, your timeline is a crock, as is your made-up doctrine.

Oh yeah, Pret omniscience...

Or as it's usually called, literacy. And the absence of a necessity of changing history to shore up a bogus doctrine.

The whole world was & is known to JESUS.

First true thing you've said. Are you certain your doctrine allows it?

OK, show us from actual history when & where the events occurred. As usual, another pret that's all talk & no walk.

You're right. The Temple is still there, sacrifice never stopped. Jerusalem was never surrounded by armies, or sacked. So says your doctrine. 2000-odd years after the movie and you lot are still picking your seats. Maybe just a few more 100-year-long "generations"... <LAFF>

 

[robycop3]

Don't actually know what that means, do you?

It means a distraction to try to get some0ne "off the trail", same as such a fish will get a cat off the trail of something it was hunting.

No pigs, just Roman Legionaries sacrificing to their Legion Standards.

Nothing to do with the AOD, if they actually did such a hing.

Or did it have to be a statue of Zeus? Or the same people doing the sacrificing? And on ther same day of the week? Quick, make something up! Your Hyper Futurist doctrine is in danger again!

You WISH! Paul stated the beast/man of sin will sit in the temple & declare himself God, & that he will recognize nothing else as God but himself. The Romans had a myriad of gods/goddesses.

How do you know it will? Moot point anyway, it already happened, just as our Lord said.

Newp ! Aint happened yet. No one sat in the old temple demanding to be worshipped.

Your doctrine just prevents you from admitting it. "Oh, it's got to be a different temple, else our Carefully Contrived Timelines are a crock." Hint: the Temple was destroyed, your timeline is a crock, as is your made-up doctrine.

Hint: the Jews are planning a new temple, whether you'll admit it or not. Your pret hooey is garbage.

Or as it's usually called, literacy. And the absence of a necessity of changing history to shore up a bogus doctrine.

Just what deluded prets are trying to do. Thanx for admitting your philosophy.

First true thing you've said. Are you certain your doctrine allows it?


[quoteYou're right. The Temple is still there, sacrifice never stopped. Jerusalem was never surrounded by armies, or sacked. So says your doctrine. 2000-odd years after the movie and you lot are still picking your seats. Maybe just a few more 100-year-long "generations"... <LAFF>[/QUOTE]

So it's all already happened, eh? Then, please show us when Rev. 19:11-21 was fulfilled. Remember, this is when the beast is in power.

 

[eclipsenow]

RED HERRING ! Scripture shows what the first AOD was-Antiochus Ephphanes setting up a statue of Zeus in it & sacrificing pigs upon the altar. So, the one Jesus mentioned will be similar. And that one never occurred again in the old temple.

I agree with you that was what Daniel was about.
I disagree that you get to be hyper-literalistic in application.
Jesus was quoting "The vibe of the thing."
The disciples were in awe of the temple.
Jesus was basically letting them know they needed to be in awe of HIM!

The temple was temporary, and would be gone within THAT GENERATION.
That happened. The temple was blasphemed and then destroyed - the temple system fulfilled in Jesus death and resurrection. Within 40 years. Happened - past tense - done and dusted - deal with it.

 

[robycop3]

I agree with you that was what Daniel was about.
I disagree that you get to be hyper-literalistic in application.
Jesus was quoting "The vibe of the thing."
The disciples were in awe of the temple.
Jesus was basically letting them know they needed to be in awe of HIM!

The temple was temporary, and would be gone within THAT GENERATION.
That happened. The temple was blasphemed and then destroyed - the temple system fulfilled in Jesus death and resurrection. Within 40 years. Happened - past tense - done and dusted - deal with it.

Nice try, Sir, but like all attempts to justify preterism, this'n goes "POOF!" There were lots of prophesied events that didn't happen then. No beast, AOD, worldwide trib. The destruction of J & the temple were the culmination of the "days of vengeance" pronounced by Jesus upon that genration of Jews. They received a much-greater one in 135-136 AD when Hadrian booted them from their land & gave it to the Philistines(Today's Palestinians) That punishment culminated in the nazi holocaust.

 

[claninja]

RED HERRING ! Scripture shows what the first AOD was-Antiochus Ephphanes setting up a statue of Zeus in it & sacrificing pigs upon the altar. So, the one Jesus mentioned will be similar. And that one never occurred again in the old temple.

I guess I’m confused by this. It seems like the only difference between Antiochus’ AOD and the Roman armies AOD is location. Antiochus put an idol on the alter and made a sacrifice there. The Roman armies places their standards (which were idols) and sacrificed near the eastern gate of the temple. However, both occurred in the temple complex.

can it only occur on the alter to be considered an AOD?