• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

abomination of desolation

But then John comes along after 70AD when the temple was destroyed and predicted the same thing in Revelation 13 and specifically mentions the temple.

That's the problem with your interpretation: John didn't write Revelation after 70AD. He wrote it before!

He wrote it while Nero was still alive during Rome's first persecution of Christians. THAT is the tribulation of which John writes in the first 3 chapters of the book. That places the writing of the book between late 64 and early 68AD, because Nero killed himself with a dagger (short sword) to the throat in the spring of 68.

Do the research: you'll find this to be true.
 
unless there is another future temple to be built, and yet another abomination of desolation.
How does the so-called "THE ANTICHRIST" defile something not sanctified by God? :chin
 
How does the so-called "THE ANTICHRIST" defile something not sanctified by God? :chin

That statement right there is the key to this whole thing. The answer is of course "He can't!"

Therefore if your interpretation includes the defilement of some future temple by some future bad guy then your interpretation is wrong. Unless, perhaps, if the temple is your body / church body and the future bad guy is spiritual? Then I guess there would be some wiggle room there.
 
Have you ever heard it as the abomination that causes desolation. The abomination is the cause, while desolation is the effect. The abomination is something God's people do wrong, the desolation is the resulting judgment God sends upon them, usually at the hands of some dirty heathens just to make a point.:fencing

Yes. "The abomination that causes desolation" vs "The abomination of desolation" are two very different statements yet the different translations don't agree on which statement is accurate.
 
That's the problem with your interpretation: John didn't write Revelation after 70AD. He wrote it before!

He wrote it while Nero was still alive during Rome's first persecution of Christians. THAT is the tribulation of which John writes in the first 3 chapters of the book. That places the writing of the book between late 64 and early 68AD, because Nero killed himself with a dagger (short sword) to the throat in the spring of 68.

Do the research: you'll find this to be true.

No, most historians take the 90+AD date as when he wrote it, and most study bibles say that. There are a few that push up the date earlier, and that makes things convenient for the Preterist, I'm sure. I did do research. I have 6 thick notebooks of bible study over the years, about 1500 pages. I wonder how thick anyone else's is?

Then again, there's Ezekiel's temple. When was something that humongous ever built? Historically is never existed.

How does the so-called "THE ANTICHRIST" defile something not sanctified by God? :chin

Oh really? Let's check that out by scripture.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, most historians take the 90+AD date as when he wrote it, and most study bibles say that. There are a few that push up the date earlier, and that makes things convenient for the Preterist, I'm sure. I did do research. I have 6 thick notebooks of bible study over the years, about 1500 pages. I wonder how thick anyone else's is?

Then again, there's Ezekiel's temple. When was something that humongous ever built? Historically is never existed.



Oh really? Let's check that out by scripture.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

One could argue that the Pope already exalts himself above God, thinks that he is infallible (like God) and sits in the hearts of God's people. Just sayin...
 
One could argue that the Pope already exalts himself above God, thinks that he is infallible (like God) and sits in the hearts of God's people. Just sayin...

One could argue that from total ignorance or a desire to hold onto the cherished belief that one is always right, just like a teenager could argue that the sky isn't blue or that it doesn't get dark outside at night...

Too bad they are foolish arguments, just sayin...
 
Mat 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 ¶ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 - Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Mat 23:39 - For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Why does Jesus declare their house desolate?
What have they done?
Do you believe that on your own you would have done any better?
How is their spiritual desolation revealed in the physical world?
How does one receive a room in the House of God?
 
One could argue that from total ignorance or a desire to hold onto the cherished belief that one is always right, just like a teenager could argue that the sky isn't blue or that it doesn't get dark outside at night...

Too bad they are foolish arguments, just sayin...
I sense a little defensive posturing in your post. I am not trying to be argumentative.

My point was simply that the verse in question does not prove that there will be a third physical temple building sanctified by God. There are many ways to read that verse.

This is not about ignorance or a desire to hold onto a cherished belief. As a matter of fact I'm very open to consider all angles. I just don't see how a temple building can be sanctified by God since Jesus said that we are the temple. Therefore, if any verse seems to imply this, there must be a different explanation.
 
Yes. Matthew writes this:

{30} "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30 (NASB)
I agree. This text is misunderstood by many because the relevant Biblical allusions are not understood. Jesus is very deliberately invoking Daniel 7, with its famous image of a "son of man" character "coming on the clouds". What is Daniel 7 about? It is about, in large measure anyway, the vindication of the son of man character after battle with the fourth beast.

I will not make the case here, but I think that Jesus sees Jerusalem as the fourth beast, even though a first century Jew would see it as Rome, I think. In any event, if the 4th beast is indeed Jerusalem, at least in respect to Jesus' use of this text, it is not hard to see that the Matthew text is about the fall of Jerusalem and the vindication of Jesus that would accompany it. After all, since Jesus was so critical of the leadership of the Jewish nation of His time, the destruction of Jerusalem would indeed vindicate this claim.
 
If anyone does not BELIEVE Christ Words of [CLEAR] Inspiration here below, what more can He say???? There will NO MORE 39 years again for this REPEATED Eze. 9 SLAUGHTER! Again, both Christ & Paul stated the this last time would be 'CUT SHORT IN RIGHTOUSNESS'!! The ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION was the REJECTION OF CHRIST!
____________________


Re: abomination of desolation (post number 7)
I think that you best find out what makes Christ's ex/House DESOLATE! First see Isa. 5:3 + the [HOUSE] in verse 7. How more desolate could any house be than to be Christ/less??:screwloose

In Matt. 23:38 HE.. [CHRIST] DOCUMENTS.. 'BEHOLD, YOUR HOUSE IS DESOLATE'! And just who do you think was their king (master) from that point on?????
And their CLAIM??? 'WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR'! And that was NOT 70AD's Slaughter!

--Elijah

PS: And the Eccl. 1-9 + Eccl, 3:15 [REPEAT--} is Rev. 3:9 for Laodicea's Last time/frame Candelstick! (see Rev. 2:5)

PS:
Just a couple short verses following the Matt. 10:5-6 verse, we see that Christ tel's what will happen to these (His Ex/House) ones if this message is not accepted! Verse 15 says.. 'Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerablr for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, than for that city.'

And you are teaching that it took 39 years later for Christ to find HIS EX/HOUSE DESOLATE??? Matt. 23:38:screwloose You best see if you can find that in the Midnight Cry of Matt. 25! [[[AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT]]].
 
OK. Let's make this simple. If everyone here notices, there were several abomination of desolations. First was the Babylonian captivity. Look what they did to the temple. Fast forward. The Jews (not all of Israel) are some of the Israelites that returned to the land of Israel and rebuilt the temple. Daniel the prophet predicted another abomination of desolation AFTER the Babylonian captivity. Let's take a historicist point of view. That then occurred with Antiochus Ephiphanes in the Maccabean times. Then the temple (still the second one) was renovated by Herod. Now Jesus comes along and quotes Daniel. My Preterist friends will say that occurred again in 70 AD. OK. Let's take that stance for a moment. No problem. But then John comes along after 70AD when the temple was destroyed and predicted the same thing in Revelation 13 and specifically mentions the temple. However, there has been no temple since 70AD, so this one is yet to come.

Do we see a pattern here? There is ANOTHER prophet predicting this abomination thing before each one occurs. However, since prophecy has multiple fulfillments, Daniel's prophecy can cover Antiochus, 70AD and end times. Jesus' can cover 70AD and end times, and John's just the end times. This makes too much of a symmetrical, mathematical pattern to be ignored. The bible is a coded book illuminated by the Holy Spirit and such patterns are contained in the texts.

In another thread, I challenged those who think everything ended in 70AD when Ezekiel's temple or the temple or Revelation was ever fulfilled? Of course I had no direct answer, song and dancing, and something about my logic being off. In other words, there is no answer unless there is another future temple to be built, and yet another abomination of desolation.

ok. or is God able to be in such a small temple.for did he not say that the earth cant contain him. yes christ is going to return and reign directly but does that vision mean that he shall be on the earth in physical form forever and theres no more stars? only the earth? how can that be if God wants to restore creation to what it was pre adamic fall?

ere the fall there weres stars and the sun and moon. its stated clearly for the times and the days.
 
And bc Christ said He would return to earth & reign directly - is nowhere in scripture, dispensationalism needs a reality check!

Ezekiel's temple? Give me a break! Herod more than fulfilled the likes of that vision.

Dispensationalists don't even know much about the O.T. except what few prophecies they can find & shove them into some crazy "thousand years"

They don't know history or the Bible. It's embarrassing.
 
And bc Christ said He would return to earth & reign directly - is nowhere in scripture, dispensationalism needs a reality check!

Ezekiel's temple? Give me a break! Herod more than fulfilled the likes of that vision.

Dispensationalists don't even know much about the O.T. except what few prophecies they can find & shove them into some crazy "thousand years"

They don't know history or the Bible. It's embarrassing.
and you dont realise that when death was done away with spiritualy was at the cross not ad 70.i say this you imply that its only spiritual. no more sorrow? so you jump for joy when your friends and family die. get real.

christ is coming back to restore what creation was meant to be, no sin, no death and no sorrow.

perputural children that are born from both sinners and saints that die and depending on their status either heaven or hell isnt what God had in mind. God didnt plan on death,if we we are meant to die twice and to live forever in heaven why then does christ mention this

the meek shall inherit the earth? that means you saint must be in subject to christ so that you are able to recieve that promise. his death, your inheritance.
 
and you dont realise that when death was done away with spiritualy was at the cross not ad 70.i say this you imply that its only spiritual. no more sorrow? so you jump for joy when your friends and family die. get real.

christ is coming back to restore what creation was meant to be, no sin, no death and no sorrow.

perputural children that are born from both sinners and saints that die and depending on their status either heaven or hell isnt what God had in mind. God didnt plan on death,if we we are meant to die twice and to live forever in heaven why then does christ mention this

the meek shall inherit the earth? that means you saint must be in subject to christ so that you are able to recieve that promise. his death, your inheritance.
I didn't say that "spiritual death" was done away with in D70. Surely they were "made alive in Christ" when they became believers.
The "no more death" in Rev.21 refers to the remnant of Israel. I guess I have keep repeating myself about Rev.21.
What was "eternal life" for them that were holy? Would they die anymore? Or, would they be like the angels in heaven, as Christ said?

Death is a sad part of this life. We cannot see into eternity. But as a Christian, & if they were a Christian- if we do not have hope- like the heathen about life after death.... If you have hope for Christ only in this life- you know what Paul said- "to be pitied among all men"
 
Ezekiel's temple? Give me a break! Herod more than fulfilled the likes of that vision.

Measurements are not the same. The mount would have to be bigger than Herod's--- much, much bigger. Sorry, no cigar. Next?
 
I didn't say that "spiritual death" was done away with in D70. Surely they were "made alive in Christ" when they became believers.
The "no more death" in Rev.21 refers to the remnant of Israel. I guess I have keep repeating myself about Rev.21.
What was "eternal life" for them that were holy? Would they die anymore? Or, would they be like the angels in heaven, as Christ said?

Death is a sad part of this life. We cannot see into eternity. But as a Christian, & if they were a Christian- if we do not have hope- like the heathen about life after death.... If you have hope for Christ only in this life- you know what Paul said- "to be pitied among all men"
sigh. where is christian upon his death?

in heaven forever?or on the earth. paul speaks of physical ressurection not just a spritual one.we are given bodies that dont die.does a spirit have body?NO

if so angels have a body they dont they dont have bodies like we do.we dont stay in heaven.
 
No, most historians take the 90+AD date as when he wrote it, and most study bibles say that.
Doesn't matter what the majority believes if the majority is wrong.
From both external and internal evidence of the Book of Revelation, an early date is the only option which will harmonize well with the content of the book. Although the later date of 96 AD is widely accepted in many Christian circles and groups today (even though this theory basically only rests on one statement in one external source), the evidence in the book of Revelation itself points rather clearly to an earlier date of 65-66 AD for the time of writing, the time when John was banned to the Isle of Patmos during the persecution by Caeasar Nero.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Let's take these one at a time:

for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first
Many of the Pauline epistles were dealing with some form of heresy or backsliding ("falling away") creeping into the early church. However, the best examples we have of this come from the letters John wrote:

{18} Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. {19} They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:18-19 (NASB)
John is speaking explicitly here of those who have fallen away from the faith: those who "went out from us."

In John's letters to the seven churches, Christ is calling them to repentance! Why would a church that had not "fallen away" need to repent???

{1} "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: Revelation 2:1 (NASB)

{4} ~'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. {5} ~'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent. Revelation 2:4-5 (NASB)

{1} "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Revelation 3:1 (NASB)

{3} ~'So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. Revelation 3:3 (NASB)

{14} "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: Revelation 3:14 (NASB)

{19} ~'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. Revelation 3:19 (NASB)
As time went on, the persecution of Christians that began with the stoning of Stephen intensified throughout the known world and was further intensified when the Romans - under Nero - began persecuting the church, too! This caused many to "fall away." It was a problem all the writers of the NT dealt with in one form or another.

Post is long. More later.
 
I won't listen to any other spiritualizations until the Preterists answer the challenge on Ezekiel's temple. I am losing patience with this song and dancing around the question. For the record, with me Lehigh3 had his chance and blew it because Herod's Temple does not fulfill that. The bible is every specific regarding Ezekiel's temple and the "answer" to that fulfillment quite obviously does not fulfill it by any objective observer's standards. So what am I to say? It's tossed out. Not because I do not like it. Rather, because it does not fulfill what the bible says, plain and simple.
 
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

I've just spent the last couple hours reading in Josephus about the man named John of Gischala, a leader of the Zealots from Galilee, who fled to Jerusalem after being besieged in his own city by Titus. Here are a few snippets about him from Josephus' "Wars of the Jews":

Now as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, "whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person, beyond the ordinary rate of the other men of eminence there, and for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where.

He was a ready liar, and yet very sharp in gaining credit to his fictions: he thought it a point of virtue to delude people, and would delude even such as were the dearest to him. He was a hypocritical pretender to humanity, but where he had hopes of gain, he spared not the shedding of blood: his desires were ever carried to great things, and he encouraged his hopes from those mean wicked tricks which he was the author of.

It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it.

Now this was the work of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring on the destruction of Jerusalem;

But for John, he was very little concerned for those whom he had left behind him, but went about among all the people, and persuaded them to go to war, by the hopes he gave them. He affirmed that the affairs of the Romans were in a weak condition, and extolled his own power.

Now it was John who, as we told you, ran away from Gischala, and was the occasion of all these being destroyed. He was a man of great craft, and bore about him in his soul a strong passion after tyranny

But John held the temple

[MY NOTE: When the leaders of the other two seditious factions rose against him, John of Gischala moved his forces into the temple and conducted war against the other factions from there, wantonly killing any who came under their fire with no regard for either priests or innocents. John held the temple throughout most of the civil war inside Jerusalem, and the war with Rome outside of it.]

But as for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him, that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin of them.

And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed.

Yet did John demonstrate by his actions that these Sicarii [assassins] were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the Citizens; nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety towards God would naturally do; for the food was unlawful that was set upon his table, and he rejected those purifications that the law of his country had ordained; so that it was no longer a wonder if he, who was so mad in his impiety towards God, did not observe any rules of gentleness and common affection towards men.

The Works of Flavius Josephus.

John of Gischala: an impious liar, thief, murderer, and would-be tyrant who first led the people of his own town, then Jerusalem, into war with Rome, while extolling his own power. A man who defiled the sanctuary of God and was directly responsible for burning much of it to the ground.

{7} For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. {8} Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; {9} that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, {10} and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. {11} For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, {12} in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12 (NASB)

In my opinion, there is no one who better fits the dual descriptions of "man of lawlessness" and "son of destruction" than John of Gischala who deceived the people into a war they couldn't win.

Sorry for the length of the post, but I believe this is important to know.
 
Back
Top