The REAL Harmony of Christ's Olivet Discourse

[Josheb]

When our Lord Jesus and His disciples went out of the temple, they marveled at the buildings there on the temple mount in Jerusalem. Then our Lord showed the day would come when all those great stones of those buildings would be cast down.

So far so good.

His disciples then showed they understood He was speaking of the end of this present world about that, with "... and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

And this is where the devil lies in the details.

There is no "this present world" in Matthew 24. There is no "this present world" in the question the disciples asked and there is no "this present world" in Jesus reply to their inquiry. The KJV translation "consummation of the age" as "the end of the world," and not "the end of this present world."

Now, Davy, you said you were interested in only the holy write and not man-made "systems." Well to say "the end of this present world" is to attach a "system" to the text.


So how about we stick to the text and what the text actually states?

 

[Josheb]

This same matter of the stones of the Jerusalem temple is written of in Mark 13:1-4 and Luke 21:5-7. It's important to note that the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, which is a leftover wall foundation of huge stones about the old temple complex, are still standing one atop another today. That marks the 70 A.D. destruction of the temple by the Romans as only a partial fulfillment of this prophecy.

Or we could understand the phrase "not one stone standing atop another" is a literary device known as hyperbole.

We could also understand Matthew 24:2 and Mark 13:2 in light of what John reported in John 2:13-22, especiall verses 21-22 and understand the prophesy has indeed been fully fulfilled: the temple was destroyed and a new temple - the body of Christ resurrected - has been built.

John 2:20-22
"The Jews then said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking of the temple of his body. So when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken."​

Otherwise, we have Jesus building his temple before the old is thoroughly destroyed and there is nothing in scripture reporting a partial destruction, a subsequent resurrection followed by the rest of the temple's destruction.

 

[ewq1938]

That is not what the verse actually states. The verse does not state "this present world." Nor does it state, "the world to come." In fact, the gospels do not contain Jesus ever stating the phrase "this present world." in fact, the gospels do not ever show Jesus to ever use the phrase "the world to come." We must look to 1 Tim. 6:17 and Heb. 2:5 to find those phrases, not Matthew 24 or Mark 10.

HE used the phrase twice.


Mar_10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Luk_18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

 

[Josheb]

HE used the phrase twice.


Mar_10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Luk_18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Please read the posts before you post what you think is germane. Those verses have already been decisively addressed. You are wasting everyone's time and not adding anything new to the discussion.

Jesus did not use the word "world." He used the word "aion," which means "time" or era." Look it up.

 

[ewq1938]

Please read the posts before you post what you think is germane. Those verses have already been decisively addressed. You are wasting everyone's time and not adding anything new to the discussion.

Jesus did not use the word "world." He used the word "aion," which means "time" or era." Look it up.

It can also mean the world.

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
Total KJV occurrences: 128

G165
αἰών
aiōn
Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G104
Citing in TDNT: 1:197, 31

 

[Josheb]

It can also mean the world.

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.
Total KJV occurrences: 128

G165
αἰών
aiōn
Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G104
Citing in TDNT: 1:197, 31

You've got the emphases in the wrong places.

The term is PROPERLY an age, and only by implication can it be the world. Now which do you think is the proper way to approach scripture, properly or by implication? An implication is a conclusion that can be drawn from some other information. Is there any information in the entirety of Matthew 24 that exegetically would lead to the conclusion the world was going to end? If the goal is to "staying in God's Holy Writ as written, and not trying to change Scripture which all of those systems do," as this op states, then why choose an implication over a proper translation? Why choose what it can mean over what it does mean?

I do not have a problem with the KJV. I am not a KJV-hater. The problem is not specific to the KJV. The NLT, CEV, ESV, ASV and others get the aion of Matthew 24 incorrect also. If you bother to investigate how the KJV translates aion then it will be the KJV is not consistent even with itself (as I have already shown)! It is not the best translation to use if "real harmony of Christ's Olivet Discourse" is desired because thinking Jesus is talking about the end of the world is a bad filter through which to understand what the scripture states in Matthew 24. Not only is there a very real and substantive problem with proof-texting a single verse from a six-chapter narrative, but proof-texting a poor translation is an even bigger problem. Every single dissenting poster so far has had to modify the meaning of "world" and the meaning of "the end of the world" to justify the use of "world" instead of "age." There is no integrity in that practice. Neither is it exegetical. The fact is this problem is unnecessary because it is easy to understand Jesus is speaking about an age, an era, or a period of time concluding, not the world ending.


Again I say to you, all of this has already been covered. You are not adding anything new to the discussion; you are wasting everyone's time. If I read another repetition of already-addressed content I will ignore it because not reading the posts and arguing ad nauseam is disrespectful to all of us.

 

[DavidPT]

Start with the following:

Does the Greek say "consummation of the aiōnos" or not?

What does "consummation of the age" mean to you (relevant to this op)?

I would think consummation means the completion of something. Haven't I already indicated I take 'world' in Matthew 24:3 to be meaning an age? What exactly is the issue then? Isn't this present age an era of time? Isn't an era of time an age? Doesn't this present age come to an end at some point? Wouldn't that equal the end of the world? Wouldn't that equal the consummation of this present age?

 

[ewq1938]

You've got the emphases in the wrong places.

No, they obviously were in the right places. The word can mean many things including the world.

 

[Josheb]

I would think consummation means the completion of something.

Yep

Haven't I already indicated I take 'world' in Matthew 24:3 to be meaning an age?

Then why post anything other than, "Yep," or "You're correct, Josh," or "Hey, Davey, Josh is correct"?

What exactly is the issue then?

The original issue was the veracity of age over world. Since I have stated this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you're now asking, "What's the issue?" the issue has become your lack of collaboration. If there is no issue then go back to your first post to me and ask yourself why any of it was necessary.

Wouldn't that equal the end of the world?

No!

Wouldn't that equal the consummation of this present age?

No!

The world is not ending. Jesus was not asked about the end of the world and his answer is not about the end of the world. He was asked about the end of the age and his answer was about the end of the age.

I shouldn't have to repeat this. You are wasting my time and yours.


Think about something: The disciples and Jesus likely spoke Aramaic (not Greek). Did they use the Aramaic word for "age" or "era," or did they use the Aramaic word for "world"?

Here's something else for you to consider: Aion was the Greek God of time. Aion encompassed the universe and was the god of the ages, of that which is eternal and he was associated with the afterlife (not the world). This was entirely different than Cronos, the god of time that was measured. Aion was cyclical; his symbol was a circle, not a line. This is how Hellenized people of the first and second centuries would have understood aionas. To the degree that Jesus was saying there was a consummation to the circle or cycle of time, he was addressing the consummation of a worldview, not a world. In Judaism there is a beginning and an end. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and it is appointed for men to die once and then face judgment.

Jesus was not talking about the end of the world and to the degree that he was talking about the end of a kosmos he was doing so in the context of time, age, era.

And the correct response is, "You're correct, Josh. I completely agree" because facts are not relative. Everything I have posted can be verified... easily. There is no reason for, "Well, it could be....." It could be but it is not.

"Aionas" properly means age, not world.

 

[Davy]

Or we could understand the phrase "not one stone standing atop another" is a literary device known as hyperbole.

That seems to be the interpretation style Preterism often uses for Christ's prophecies He gave. It points to those who really don't take Jesus seriously. Those who create those kind of false teachings will one day stand before Him and answer for doing that, and for deceiving the unlearned. How's that for your hyperbole statement?

We could also understand Matthew 24:2 and Mark 13:2 in light of what John reported in John 2:13-22, especiall verses 21-22 and understand the prophesy has indeed been fully fulfilled: the temple was destroyed and a new temple - the body of Christ resurrected - has been built.

That's another hyperbole you suggest that has nothing to do with the actual prophecy Jesus and His Apostles gave for the end of this world. Matthew 24 and Mark 13 declare His return and gathering of His Church, which the gathering prophecy He gave there aligns perfectly with what Apostle Paul taught in 1 Thessalonians 4. Trying to say that has already been fulfilled is foolishness.

The idea that the "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 means the spiritual temple of Ephesians 2 is a Canaanitish doctrine from the devil. Reason is because, the Apostles and prophets make up the first foundation of the spiritual temple with Christ as its Cornerstone. It can NEVER be corrupted nor desolated by ANY man, not even by the devil himself. And a deceived believer who falls away is simply 'cut off' from it. That's why that idea that the "man of sin" sits in the spiritual temple is a sign of Christ's enemies having crept into positions of Christian theology.

It can also be a sign of the "hireling" which preaches for money whom God did not call (John 10). The hireling doesn't really understand God's Word, because God didn't call him nor give His Word to him. So he makes it up as he goes along.

Otherwise, we have Jesus building his temple before the old is thoroughly destroyed and there is nothing in scripture reporting a partial destruction, a subsequent resurrection followed by the rest of the temple's destruction.

That rambling is actually more evidence of what I was talking about in the above paragraphs of this post.

 

[Davy]

This has nothing to do with Preterism. Matthew also knew about Antiochus IV and the Abomination of Desolation and the Maccabean Revolt... and the reason for Hannukah.

Jesus quoted from the Book of Daniel about the placing of an idol abomination inside a STANDING temple at Jerusalem. Those... are parameters of the prophecy you MUST grasp and keep, not deny.

Dan 11:31
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.
KJV

Historically, Antiochus IV did that abomination idol prophecy there, but he didn't completely fulfill all the Daniel 11 Scripture. And he did that back in 165-170 B.C., about 200 years PRIOR to Jesus prophesying of that "abomination of desolation" event, thus pointing to a future time. The Romans in 70 A.D. did not fulfill the prophecy either, because the 2nd temple burned down by a fire inside it before they could get control of it (per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived in 100 A.D.).

 

[DavidPT]

Jesus quoted from the Book of Daniel about the placing of an idol abomination inside a STANDING temple at Jerusalem. Those... are parameters of the prophecy you MUST grasp and keep, not deny.

Dan 11:31
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.
KJV

Historically, Antiochus IV did that abomination idol prophecy there, but he didn't completely fulfill all the Daniel 11 Scripture. And he did that back in 165-170 B.C., about 200 years PRIOR to Jesus prophesying of that "abomination of desolation" event, thus pointing to a future time. The Romans in 70 A.D. did not fulfill the prophecy either, because the 2nd temple burned down by a fire inside it before they could get control of it (per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived in 100 A.D.).

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly here, why would you be applying Daniel 11:31 to a time before Jesus spoke of the AOD in the Discourse? How can Daniel 11:31 not be what He was referring to, therefore making Daniel 11:31 an event future to when Jesus spoke those words, and not to event already fulfilled at the time?

 

[Davy]

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly here, why would you be applying Daniel 11:31 to a time before Jesus spoke of the AOD in the Discourse? How can Daniel 11:31 not be what He was referring to, therefore making Daniel 11:31 an event future to when Jesus spoke those words, and not to event already fulfilled at the time?

In 165-170 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes actually took Jerusalem, went inside the 2nd temple, ended the daily sacrifice, went inside the temple and sacrificed swine upon the altar and spread its broth around inside the temple, and then setup an idol on that altar to Zeus, demanding all to worship it. That happened historically, and it fits the prophecy in Daniel 11:31 about the ending sacrifices in Jerusalem and placing of an abomination in the temple.

But we know our Lord Jesus was warning of that for the end of this world because of signs of the end He gave with it. And also, Antiochus had been dead for about 200 years when our Lord Jesus warned of the AOD. This means Antiochus only served as a 'type', a blueprint, as he did not fulfill all the parameters of that Daniel prophecy. Thus you have come upon the idea of dual or partial fulfillment of some prophecies God gave in His Word.

For example, the Romans in 70 A.D. destroying the 2nd temple and complex on the Temple Mount does serve as a 'type' for the not one stone atop another prophecy for the end of this world. The fact that the Wailing Wall huge stones are still left standing there today confirms also 70 A.D. as only a 'type', or blueprint for the final event at the end of this world when Jesus returns.

Even with Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 with "Babylon is fallen, is fallen", is a direct quote from Isaiah 21:9 about the fall of historical Babylon. Yet the Babylon of Revelation is definitely for a different time, and is about a different place that God simply uses Babylon as a symbolic title for.

Why did He do this in His Word? It's for instruction. It is much easier to understand a future prophecy in general if there's already a 'type' or blueprint for some of it.

Like with the Babylon is fallen example, there's actually parallels as types for the end linked with what happened upon Judah when the king of Babylon came upon Jerusalem in the prophet Jeremiah's day. Even Cyrus, a Gentile which God called to end the historical Babylon and free the Jews, serves as a type for our Lord Jesus when He returns, freeing His people and leading them back to the holy land. God's two witnesses of Revelation 11 also use the Old Testament events of the plagues upon Egypt which God did through Moses and Aaron.

 

[DavidPT]

In 165-170 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes actually took Jerusalem, went inside the 2nd temple, ended the daily sacrifice, went inside the temple and sacrificed swine upon the altar and spread its broth around inside the temple, and then setup an idol on that altar to Zeus, demanding all to worship it. That happened historically, and it fits the prophecy in Daniel 11:31 about the ending sacrifices in Jerusalem and placing of an abomination in the temple.

But we know our Lord Jesus was warning of that for the end of this world because of signs of the end He gave with it. And also, Antiochus had been dead for about 200 years when our Lord Jesus warned of the AOD. This means Antiochus only served as a 'type', a blueprint, as he did not fulfill all the parameters of that Daniel prophecy. Thus you have come upon the idea of dual or partial fulfillment of some prophecies God gave in His Word.

For example, the Romans in 70 A.D. destroying the 2nd temple and complex on the Temple Mount does serve as a 'type' for the not one stone atop another prophecy for the end of this world. The fact that the Wailing Wall huge stones are still left standing there today confirms also 70 A.D. as only a 'type', or blueprint for the final event at the end of this world when Jesus returns.

Even with Revelation 14:8 and 18:2 with "Babylon is fallen, is fallen", is a direct quote from Isaiah 21:9 about the fall of historical Babylon. Yet the Babylon of Revelation is definitely for a different time, and is about a different place that God simply uses Babylon as a symbolic title for.

Why did He do this in His Word? It's for instruction. It is much easier to understand a future prophecy in general if there's already a 'type' or blueprint for some of it.

Like with the Babylon is fallen example, there's actually parallels as types for the end linked with what happened upon Judah when the king of Babylon came upon Jerusalem in the prophet Jeremiah's day. Even Cyrus, a Gentile which God called to end the historical Babylon and free the Jews, serves as a type for our Lord Jesus when He returns, freeing His people and leading them back to the holy land. God's two witnesses of Revelation 11 also use the Old Testament events of the plagues upon Egypt which God did through Moses and Aaron.

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.


You then think this has been historically fulfilled as well, before Jesus spoke those words in the Discourse? This verse is obviously referring to Daniel 11:31.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried ; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
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.

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.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end : because it is yet for a time appointed.


What I have underlined above takes place during the time of the AOD in both chapters.

In Daniel 12 the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up. In Daniel 11---and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

It would seem pretty strange if you applied Daniel 12:10-11 to a time future to when Christ spoke those words in the Discourse, then at the same time applied Daniel 11:31-35 to a time prior to when Christ spoke those words in the Discourse, since both passages are obviously referring to the same events.

 

[Josheb]

That seems to be the interpretation style Preterism often uses for Christ's prophecies He gave. It points to those who really don't take Jesus seriously.

Hogwash.

Do you think Jesus truly wants us to cut off our hands and poke out our eyes (Mt. 5:30), or is he saying, in effect, we should take sin seriously and treat the matter decisively? Because if you say Jesus wants us to cut off our hands and poke out our eyes then - by your just asserted metric - you are not taking Jesus seriously.

That rambling is actually more evidence of what I was talking about in the above paragraphs of this post.

Says the poster who just unnecessarily and incorrectly rambled over hogwash.



The rules of sound exegesis are long- and well-established. Preterists and Dispensationalists and Idealists and all others do not play by different rules. Futurists don't like presterists because the latter points out the inconsistencies of futurist eisegesis.


Prophesy often entails hyperbole and other literary or figurative devices. Just ask Tyre.

Ezekiel 26:14
"'I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD."​

Ezekiel 28:19
"All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have become terrified and you will cease to be forever."​

Did God lie? Or maybe you don't take Him seriously.



So what you have done by posting this ad hominem: we can dismiss the preterists because they don't take Jesus seriously, is show the paucity of you own understanding. It is an utterly false and fallacious argument that should never have been considered, let along be entertained to the point of traveling through your brain dwon your arms, throught your fingers tips and through the keyboard to the post. It is unadulterated nonsense.


And it bears your handle.


Pick up a few books on hermeneutics and exegesis. Read the arguments for the various eschatologies and do so with Bible open and properly exegeted. If and when you do that then you and I will have far fewer disagreement.

 

[DavidPT]

Why did He do this in His Word? It's for instruction. It is much easier to understand a future prophecy in general if there's already a 'type' or blueprint for some of it.

I do get your point here, it's a good point, except I don't see it being applicable in this particular case. And since Daniel 12:11 is still future to us, and that it is obviously referring to Daniel 11:31, that makes Daniel 11:31 future to us as well, therefore AE4 can't be the one meant in Daniel 11:31. The one meant in Daniel 11:31 is the vile person in verse 21, the same king in verse 36, and the same one who comes to his end in verse 45. The one who comes to his end in verse 45 comes to his end in the end of this present age.

 

[Davy]

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.

You then think this has been historically fulfilled as well, before Jesus spoke those words in the Discourse? This verse is obviously referring to Daniel 11:31.

Don't try to put your own words in my mouth please. Read what I wrote, it's simple enough. I never said Antiochus fulfilled all the Daniel 11 chapter. And I made myself very clear that Antiochus only served as an historical 'type' for the final Antichrist at the end of this world, which is what our Lord Jesus was forewarning in His Olivet discourse.

The Daniel 12:11 verse is indeed about the same Dan.11:31 event, which is for the end of this world. The daily sacrifice is taken away in the middle of the Dan.9:27 symbolic "one week". That means in the middle of the 7 years, leaving 1260 days. The 1290 days is a period 30 days after the 1260.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried ; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
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.

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.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end : because it is yet for a time appointed.


What I have underlined above takes place during the time of the AOD in both chapters.

In Daniel 12 the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up. In Daniel 11---and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

It would seem pretty strange if you applied Daniel 12:10-11 to a time future to when Christ spoke those words in the Discourse, then at the same time applied Daniel 11:31-35 to a time prior to when Christ spoke those words in the Discourse, since both passages are obviously referring to the same events.

You might want to look into study of the many historical seiges of Jerusalem. There's been something like 27 in history, with some of them involving pagans instituting pagan idol worship there. With one time even the name of the city was renamed in dedication to Jupiter. That Antiochus IV partially fulfilled the Dan.11:31 abomination idol event was history, and he serves as a 'type' or blueprint for the final Antichrist at the end of this world, which is who our Lord Jesus was pointing to in His Olivet discourse.

 

[Davy]

I do get your point here, it's a good point, except I don't see it being applicable in this particular case. And since Daniel 12:11 is still future to us, and that it is obviously referring to Daniel 11:31, that makes Daniel 11:31 future to us as well, therefore AE4 can't be the one meant in Daniel 11:31. The one meant in Daniel 11:31 is the vile person in verse 21, the same king in verse 36, and the same one who comes to his end in verse 45. The one who comes to his end in verse 45 comes to his end in the end of this present age.

Doesn't matter if you don't 'see' it now. You will eventually if you live to the end of this world.

What you're not understanding is the idea of prophetic blueprints in God's Word. How could Jesus give us a direct quote like "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" in Rev.14 if historical Babylon has already fallen back in history? And it's a direct quote from Isaiah 21 about the historical fall of Babylon. Why is He using Babylon as a 'type' for the final beast kingdom at the end of this world? Understand that, and you should understand how Antiochus IV serves as a type for the final Antichrist. The whole reason is to HELP you understand the events for the end. That's what blueprints are for.

 

[DavidPT]

That Antiochus IV partially fulfilled the Dan.11:31 abomination idol event was history, and he serves as a 'type' or blueprint for the final Antichrist at the end of this world, which is who our Lord Jesus was pointing to in His Olivet discourse.

I'm not intentionally trying to put words in your mouth like you are assuming, the problem is from my perspective, that your position is not clear to me, though you say it is very clear. Not to me it isn't, based on that I don't grasp how Antiochus IV partially fulfilled the Dan.11:31 abomination, when that particular abomination wouldn't even be taking place during AE4's day if it was still future to when Christ spoke about the AOD in the Discourse? That's not making sense to me, unfortunately.

 

[Davy]

I'm not intentionally trying to put words in your mouth like you are assuming, the problem is from my perspective, that your position is not clear to me, though you say it is very clear. Not to me it isn't, based on that I don't grasp how Antiochus IV partially fulfilled the Dan.11:31 abomination, when that particular abomination wouldn't even be taking place during AE4's day if it was still future to when Christ spoke about the AOD in the Discourse? That's not making sense to me, unfortunately.

Based on what you're saying, it shows you are not familiar with what the Jewish historian Josephus described about Antiochus IV per history. That is the only way you could not understand, simply because you have not yet studied that history.

Now admitting that history about Antiochus IV, and still claiming to not understand, that's a different matter, because that would show you simply reject the history of what Antiochus IV did in Jerusalem. If your mind is that, then I can't help you.