Was this King David's palace?

[justified]

That's a traditional thing. I'm not sure if the rock was necessarily revered for that or not. These sites tend to be held together; revered by one culture, also revered byt he other, though for different reasons. It's always been that way.

 

[kofh2u]

That's a traditional thing. I'm not sure if the rock was necessarily revered for that or not. These sites tend to be held together; revered by one culture, also revered byt he other, though for different reasons. It's always been that way.

Well not always. The DoR was built 690 AD.

Matt. 24:15 When ye therefore shall see (finished, in 690 AD), the abomination, (the Mosque of Omar upon the site) of desolation (of the Temple), as spoken of by Daniel the prophet: [Dan. 12:11], stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand:

?

 

[justified]

Actually, the "abomination that causes desolation" was the sacrifice of a pig and the erection of a statue of Antiochus IV (who called himself "epiphanes" = manifestation of God) in the temple in 160s BC. Read I Maccabees and the book of Daniel, and you will notice striking similarities.

 

[kofh2u]

Actually, the "abomination that causes desolation" was the sacrifice of a pig and the erection of a statue of Antiochus IV (who called himself "epiphanes" = manifestation of God) in the temple in 160s BC. Read I Maccabees and the book of Daniel, and you will notice striking similarities.

Yes, that is true.
The Book of Daniel speaks of this first desecration, and confirms a repeat of the event you mention. The same peoples are involved, but unlike the former times, the Temple is destroyed and the desolation remains:

Dan. 11:29 (The governor of the ancient city founded by Seleucus I,
Syria, MUAWIYA I, Muslim ruler of the UMAYYADS from 661 through 750),
at the time appointed, (690 AD), he, (these converted peoples of Persia,
Babylon, and Assyria), shall return (to the Holy Lands), and come toward
the south; but it shall not be as the former, (in the time of Antiochus
III), or as the latter (in the 167 BC desecration in the time of
Antiochus IV).

We know this refers to the second "abomination" because the rest of the prophecy was unfulfilled,...until Islam:


Dan. 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of...Egypt shall not escape.

Dan. 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.


Note:
ANTIOCHUS IV tried to consolidate the reduced kingdom and seize Egypt, but he was stopped by Roman orders.

 

[justified]

ANTIOCHUS IV tried to consolidate the reduced kingdom and seize Egypt, but he was stopped by Roman orders.

But compare I Macc. chapter one.

 

[kofh2u]

But compare I Macc. chapter one.

Ok, but what about the Egypt thingee... was Daniel just plain wrong?

 

[justified]

It's slightly more complicated, and that's not my area of history. There are issues about exactly what Antiochus IV managed to do; we know he did some looting, but how much damage he did before the Romans turned him away is a matter for Hellenistic historians, and I'm a Near Eastern historian. Sorry.

 

[kofh2u]

It's slightly more complicated, and that's not my area of history. There are issues about exactly what Antiochus IV managed to do; we know he did some looting, but how much damage he did before the Romans turned him away is a matter for Hellenistic historians, and I'm a Near Eastern historian. Sorry.

I see your point.
And, even considering Mac 1/2 as if canon, as do Roman Catholics/Eastern Ortho(?), I can respect the point of view.

Nevertheless, Dan11 seems clearly an intentional duplicity, and one which is supported by the obvious acceptability of Matthew 24 by the Jews who listened to Jesus.

As you point out, the secular history doesn't support the Egypt prophecy.

But, since Christ, the prediction seems right on target. And, it seems much more certain to portent the "end of days" which it was supposed to signal, right?

Matt. 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
(Peter and James and John and Andrew : Mark 13:3) came unto him privately, saying, Tell us (about the parousia at the end of the age), when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming (when all these things shall be fulfilled: Mark 13:4), and of the end of the world, (the Day of the Lord)?

 

[justified]

Matt. 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
(Peter and James and John and Andrew : Mark 13:3) came unto him privately, saying, Tell us (about the parousia at the end of the age), when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming (when all these things shall be fulfilled: Mark 13:4), and of the end of the world, (the Day of the Lord)?

And when WERE they fufilled? Well, quite frankly, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, period.

 

[kofh2u]

And when WERE they fufilled? Well, quite frankly, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, period.

The Temple was destroyed, for sure.

The End of Days... not yet..

But, we have seen another sign that was mentioned:


Matt. 24:32 Now learn a parable of the (symbolic leaf of) fig tree
(representing Israel); When his branch is yet tender, (in 1948 AD), and putteth forth leaves, (1980 AD), ye know that summer is nigh:

 

[justified]

But, we have seen another sign that was mentioned:


Matt. 24:32 Now learn a parable of the (symbolic leaf of) fig tree
(representing Israel); When his branch is yet tender, (in 1948 AD), and putteth forth leaves, (1980 AD), ye know that summer is nigh:

I'm sorry, are you being serious or mocking people?

 

[kofh2u]

I'm sorry, are you being serious or mocking people?

Who would I be mocking?

Do you believe that from a Jewish perspective, their Temple destryed, that the hallow ground of the Most Holy Place holds the foundations of an abomination to the Jew, and a slur against the Christ?

Dan. 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, (70 AD), and the abomination (of the Mosque of Omar) that maketh desolate (the holiest of the Holy Place be) set up (in 690 AD), there shall be (1290 years), a thousand two hundred and ninety days, (until Jews, 1980 AD, again are in possession of Jerusalem).

Matt. 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This (particular) generation, (which sees Jerusalem re-instated as capial of Israel, in 1980 AD), shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (that I have told you).

Is NOT the Fig Tree bloomin'

 

[justified]

Dan. 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, (70 AD), and the abomination (of the Mosque of Omar) that maketh desolate (the holiest of the Holy Place be) set up (in 690 AD), there shall be (1290 years), a thousand two hundred and ninety days, (until Jews, 1980 AD, again are in possession of Jerusalem).

Matt. 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This (particular) generation, (which sees Jerusalem re-instated as capial of Israel, in 1980 AD), shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (that I have told you).

You need to stop with your parantheses.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the detestable thing that causes appalment set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
That means, there are 1290 days between the time when the burnt offering is ended, and when the abomination that causes desolation is constructed, right? 1290 days is...anybody? a little over 3.5 years. When did the Maccabean rebellion start? About 3.5 years after the temple's cult was abolished by Antiochus IV: I macc. 1:10, 29, 49, 54f. We don't have the exact date for the ending of the sacrifice, but it fits quite well with what we know; there's a six year gap between the sending of the tax collector and the abomination. It fits perfectly with daniel.

 

[kofh2u]

You need to stop with your parantheses.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the detestable thing that causes appalment set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
That means, there are 1290 days between the time when the burnt offering is ended, and when the abomination that causes desolation is constructed, right? 1290 days is...anybody? a little over 3.5 years. When did the Maccabean rebellion start? About 3.5 years after the temple's cult was abolished by Antiochus IV: I macc. 1:10, 29, 49, 54f. We don't have the exact date for the ending of the sacrifice, but it fits quite well with what we know; there's a six year gap between the sending of the tax collector and the abomination. It fits perfectly with daniel.

A close call, too.
Only the muslims under the ruler of these same peoples, the Syrians under the UMAYYAD dynasty, completed Daniel's prophecy about Egypt.

There are three other statements and considerations to think about. These make the case for duplicity in the prophecy of Daniel.

1) Daniel's abomination was not considered to refer to the ONLY desecration, in that Jesus repeated that the prophecy was yet to come.

Matt. 24:15 When ye therefore shall see (finished, in 690 AD), the abomination, (the Mosque of Omar upon the site) of desolation (of the Temple), as spoken of by Daniel the prophet: [Dan. 12:11], stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand:

So, though certainly that was one abomination, that of setting up the pagan idol of Zeus in the Temple, Jews of 32 AD were open to another fulfillment of Daniel.

2) The prophecy says that in one of these two matters, a god unknown before, Allah?, would be worshipped.

Dan. 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.


3) The invasion of Egypt was never pulled off in the first occurence, but was completed in the second:

Dan. 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

Dan. 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the LIBYANS and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

[UMAYYADS (661 -750), who made Damascus their capital. A second wave of expansion followed.
After they conquered (670) Tunisia, Muslim troops reached the northwestern point of North Africa in 710. In 711 they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar, rapidly overran Spain, and penetrated well into France ]

 

[justified]

1) I have dealt with Jesus' use of Daniel elsewhere. The phrase "let the reader understand" found in the gospel (I can't remember whether it was Matt. or Mark) and the Lucan parallel ("when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies") make clear that what is intended is the Roman destruction of the temple. Jesus, by using Daniel's language, is not calling it a fulfillment. Every single Jew already knew about Antiochus IV: it was ingrained into their consciousness through the festival of dedication which Jesus and them celebrate (see John).

2) Allah is not an unknown god. First of all, the word "allah" is the exact same word as the Hebrew word for "God", אל. Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages, and they have the same routes. The Muslim revolution was actually a hearkening back to its montheistic routes, but unfortunately did so in a way that abandoned the true theology: that of our scriptures. I suggest you read Goldingay's commentary on Daniel and you will see how much of this is found in the history of books about Antiochus IV.

3) I already dealt with the problem of Egypt. Ignore the evidence if you want.

 

[kofh2u]

1) I have dealt with Jesus' use of Daniel elsewhere. The phrase "let the reader understand" found in the gospel (I can't remember whether it was Matt. or Mark) and the Lucan parallel ("when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies") make clear that what is intended is the Roman destruction of the temple. Jesus, by using Daniel's language, is not calling it a fulfillment. Every single Jew already knew about Antiochus IV: it was ingrained into their consciousness through the festival of dedication which Jesus and them celebrate (see John).

2) Allah is not an unknown god. First of all, the word "allah" is the exact same word as the Hebrew word for "God", ??. Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages, and they have the same routes. The Muslim revolution was actually a hearkening back to its montheistic routes, but unfortunately did so in a way that abandoned the true theology: that of our scriptures. I suggest you read Goldingay's commentary on Daniel and you will see how much of this is found in the history of books about Antiochus IV.

3) I already dealt with the problem of Egypt. Ignore the evidence if you want.

I seem to agree that Daniel was fulfulled once, aasyou see it, and Daniel is in the process of a second fulfillment.

I note that what Jesus said might be ambigious enough that others would read it different from what I have said.

But, the question that was asked of Jesus was about the sign of the end. That is a another point of contention in our discussion. Surely, the end has not come, yet.

True.

Matt. 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
(Peter and James and John and Andrew : Mark 13:3) came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us (about the parousia at the end of the age),
when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming
(when all these things shall be fulfilled: Mark 13:4), and of the end of the world, (the Day of the Lord)?

It was in this context that Jesus said after the temple is torn down and the abomination set up.

 

[justified]

First of all, why do you believe that prophecy can have two fulfillments?

Secondly, all throughout the First Testament, things are prophesied of the end, which happen, and then the end doesn't come (Daniel is one example; we also have the Joel prophecies and Isaiah 6-9; and in the NT there is the Apocalypse) -- what happens is that the end is pushed into "eschatology" and these precursors are recognized as the "seeming end" to the prophet. That's one way of looking at it.

 

[kofh2u]

First of all, why do you believe that prophecy can have two fulfillments?

Secondly, all throughout the First Testament, things are prophesied of the end, which happen, and then the end doesn't come (Daniel is one example; we also have the Joel prophecies and Isaiah 6-9; and in the NT there is the Apocalypse) -- what happens is that the end is pushed into "eschatology" and these precursors are recognized as the "seeming end" to the prophet. That's one way of looking at it.

Your last paragraph is sort of my answer for the first paragraph question.



On one level, we read into our history, (which does sort of repeat itself), and we come up with "end times" that seem portented in every generation.

This has to do with our theological criticism which finds argument to support end times because of the clever writings. I say clever writings without meaning blasphemy.
Each generation IS supposed to take these writings as if the are relevent to their life time, becaise is every sense, they are. The scriptures are for us, and have been for those long gone, and shall be, a current event and a relevent and meaningful document for our investigtion.

But, even more important, I read scripture as a psycho-sociological text in the genre of mystery writings. Mystery, because if the stlyeand the subject matter, psychology and sociology which is admittedly a mystery for us even today.

This is logical literary criticism for a set of books which undeniably insist they are authoritative concerning Human Behavior. But, I am not alone in seeing a view like I do, as you might agree, having read Teilhart, who sees we are going some place.
We have a direction, but one that is unconsciously heading to an Omega Point which takes us down the same path a distance, reverses, and sets out again, always "headed" to some focal point we ourselves do not conscious recognize as our "end in time" to come.

But, the matters we have been discussing are part of Daniel's bigger picture in Chapter 2.

IMO, we are being introduced to the idea I just suggested.
Locked in our Collective Unconscious, there is God, a phylogenetic presence reborn in each of us, Unconsciously at work. The Bible writers wrote what the immanent God within knows about us and where we are headed.

Dan. 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

Dan. 2:29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.

Dan. 2:30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.

Dan. 2:31 Thou, O king, sawest (future history), and behold a great image (of world empire). This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

 

[justified]

This is logical literary criticism for a set of books which undeniably insist they are authoritative concerning Human Behavior. But, I am not alone in seeing a view like I do, as you might agree, having read Teilhart, who sees we are going some place.
We have a direction, but one that is unconsciously heading to an Omega Point which takes us down the same path a distance, reverses, and sets out again, always "headed" to some focal point we ourselves do not conscious recognize as our "end in time" to come.

Finally, you are out with it!

If you want to take that view of the Bible, that's fine. It simply means that we can't agree, because I don't see scripture or prophecy that way. I consider the author, under the inspiration of God, had an intention and wrote in a particular genre. The end. But it's been a fun discussion unless if you can think of anythin else to argue about.

 

[kofh2u]

Finally, you are out with it!

If you want to take that view of the Bible, that's fine. It simply means that we can't agree, because I don't see scripture or prophecy that way. I consider the author, under the inspiration of God, had an intention and wrote in a particular genre. The end. But it's been a fun discussion unless if you can think of anythin else to argue about.

Yes.
Interesting, too.

It seems that we are all the same in that, our mind-set appears more a set mind.

Nevertheless, the inspiration of God, for me is the perspiration of Truth.

What is your take on Malachi?

Mal. 4:5 Behold, (in 32 AD), I will send you (messiah ben Joseph) Elijah the (suffering) prophet:[Ps 22], (to make straight the way) before the (second) coming of the great and dreadful day, (2K25 AD: Dan 12:12) of the LORD: (Messiah ben David, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David: [Rev 5:5]).