The Church, and Israel and the Last Days.

[Psalm1]

He referred to "the abomination of desolation as spoken of by Daniel the prophet." There are two occasions when Daniel the prophet spoke of the Abomination of Desolation and one place where he talks about "on the wing of abominations"

He also said "when you see it standing in the holy place," and in response, Matthew inserts an editorial comment (let the reader understand)

This is a good place to talk about Bible interpretation. First, Jesus sends us to Daniel the prophet, requiring his disciples to review Daniel the prophet. Since Jesus' warning concerns a life or death decision, when to leave Jerusalem, then it is critical that his disciples understand how the past will be like the future.

Jesus gives a warning:
Secondly, the warning Jesus gives in Matthew 24:15 depends on something that would have been physically impossible under normal Temple conditions: anyone outside the priesthood being able to see into the Holy Place. The architecture of the Temple deliberately prevented visibility. The Holy Place was enclosed by solid walls and concealed behind a heavy veil, accessible only to a serving priest—and only during specific moments of daily ministry. Ordinary worshipers in the courtyard could not see the lampstand, the altar of incense, or the table of the bread of the Presence. They could not even see the doorway. In other words, for Jesus to speak of a visible abomination “standing in the Holy Place” implies a catastrophic breach of the Temple’s sacred boundaries. Something would have to happen that tears open the structure, exposes the interior, and makes the Holy Place visible to the public. That level of desecration is precisely the kind of event Jesus identifies as the unmistakable trigger of the Great Tribulation.

Josephus records the event:
Josephus actually describes events in A.D. 67–70 in which the Temple’s sacred boundaries were violently breached, making the Holy Place visible and accessible to people who had no right to be there. Under normal conditions, visibility into the Holy Place was architecturally impossible. But during the revolt, the zealot factions stormed the Temple, murdered priests, and seized control of the inner sanctuary. Josephus says they “invaded the sanctuary” and “polluted the Temple” with bloodshed—actions that would have required entering and exposing areas normally hidden behind walls and veils. In other words, Josephus records the very kind of catastrophic desecration Jesus warned about: an abomination standing where it should never stand, visible because the Temple’s sanctity had been violently torn open.

Daniel predicts the event:
Daniel foresaw a moment when the sanctuary would be violently breached, Jesus warned that such a breach would make the Holy Place visibly desecrated, and Josephus records the very intrusion that exposed the Temple’s interior to those who should never have seen it; together they form a single prophetic arc in which Daniel’s prediction of an abomination in the sanctuary, Jesus’ instruction to flee when it becomes visible, and Josephus’ eyewitness account of zealots and soldiers invading, polluting, and opening the Holy Place all converge to show that the catastrophic visibility Jesus describes is precisely the kind of desecration Daniel said would come upon the Temple.

Ok.
What is all that?
Historicist view?
You are preterist?

 

[Roger316]

Is this the new norm for the forums?

View attachment 295944

Arron56,
The Analysis program you are using isn't telling you the complete story. In my hands, the AI is only a tool. The ideas I present are my own. I use the AI tool to rewrite my ideas in a polished, clear, and understandable paragraph.

Many have noticed that AI-generated writing follows a unique pattern, based on human writers who excelled in their fields. I don't need an AI checker to recognize AI-generated writing. I recognize the patterns. But I never copy and paste gobs of information into the forum here. I edit everything I post. Sometimes the AI makes mistakes and I correct them.

We understand that, even in human communication, there is a distinct difference between what we say and how we say it. The same is true when we use an AI tool. What I post is what I want to say but how I say it comes from the AI generator. I know what I am saying. I have been studying the Bible for over 45 years and I have been on discussion boards since they were invented. The AI doesn't tell me what to think. I'm doing the thinking myself. But just so you know, I wrote this entire post myself without the help of AI, even though I am self-conscious about my writing style.

The Lord bless you.

 

[Psalm1]

Is this the new norm for the forums?

View attachment 295944

Yes.
I am basically debating AI.

I use it occasionally if the challenges start to get redundant.

But most of this stuff i already know by heart.
That is why my challengers have extreme difficulty answering specific questions.
They have to look up most every answer.
And those answers are tainted by the doctrine Ai is parroting.
The ai prism is a culmination of one doctrine or another.
....and most have no discernment in end times because they have relied on the crutch of the internet to TELL THEM what is real and what is totally debunked impossibilities.

 

[Roger316]

The argument collapses at four points:
(1) Jesus does not say the abomination will be visible inside the Holy Place; He says “standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15),
but Luke interprets the same saying as “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20), proving Jesus meant a publicly visible desecration of the sanctuary’s sphere, not peering into the inner chamber; the AI’s architectural argument is irrelevant because Jesus Himself defines the referent.
(2) Daniel never predicts the Temple being torn open so people can look inside; Daniel’s abominations are hostile acts that stop sacrifice (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), not architectural exposure.
(3) Josephus’ zealot intrusion is not the abomination Jesus warned about because Jesus ties the event to the Great Tribulation (Matt 24:21) and His parousia (24:29–31), neither of which Josephus’ events triggered; the AI confuses desecration with the abomination.
(4) The AI claims Daniel → Jesus → Josephus form a single arc, but Jesus explicitly places Daniel’s abomination in the future (Matt 24:15), long after Antiochus and long after any first‑century zealot activity, meaning Josephus cannot be the fulfillment.

AI is a tool that answers according to your parameters that you include or that is already programed in. It is not capable of these kinds of conversations. Maybe years down the road but not today.

You are incorrect. My post reflects my ideas, not the AI's. Yes, Jesus DOES say that Abomination is standing in the Holy Place. That is an undeniable fact. Luke is not interpreting Jesus statement when he mentions armies surrounding Jerusalem. That is additional information, not an interpretation.

I agree, Daniel does not explicitly mention architectural exposure, but he does imply it. I am basing my conclusion on what Jesus said. According to Jesus, the warning sign for fleeing the city is when you see something standing in the Holy Place that shouldn't be there, and he says that Daniel predicted this. I'm not prepared to argue the point with Jesus.

We need to be clear here, and this requires us to keep our exegesis of the text in one hand and our interpretation of the symbols in the other. Jesus associates the abomination of desolation with the Great Tribulation; I agree. But the parousia comes after the GT. In any case, the main topic of the Olivet Discourse is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and this is where Jesus, Daniel, and Josephus agree.

I don't see where you are getting the Idea. from the text, that the AOD is long after any first century event.

 

[Roger316]

Yes.
I am basically debating AI.

I use it occasionally if the challenges start to get redundant.

But most of this stuff i already know by heart.
That is why my challengers have extreme difficulty answering specific questions.
They have to look up most every answer.
And those answers are tainted by the doctrine Ai is parroting.
The ai prism is a culmination of one doctrine or another.
....and most have no discernment in end times because they have relied on the crutch of the internet to TELL THEM what is real and what is totally debunked impossibilities.

You are incorrect. You are debating me. These are my ideas.

 

[OMC]

You are incorrect. My post reflects my ideas, not the AI's. Yes, Jesus DOES say that Abomination is standing in the Holy Place. That is an undeniable fact. Luke is not interpreting Jesus statement when he mentions armies surrounding Jerusalem. That is additional information, not an interpretation.

I agree, Daniel does not explicitly mention architectural exposure, but he does imply it. I am basing my conclusion on what Jesus said. According to Jesus, the warning sign for fleeing the city is when you see something standing in the Holy Place that shouldn't be there, and he says that Daniel predicted this. I'm not prepared to argue the point with Jesus.

We need to be clear here, and this requires us to keep our exegesis of the text in one hand and our interpretation of the symbols in the other. Jesus associates the abomination of desolation with the Great Tribulation; I agree. But the parousia comes after the GT. In any case, the main topic of the Olivet Discourse is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and this is where Jesus, Daniel, and Josephus agree.

I don't see where you are getting the Idea. from the text, that the AOD is long after any first century event.

You’re mistaken because Jesus does not say the abomination is visible inside the Holy Place—He says “standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15), and Luke gives the inspired interpretation as “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20), meaning Jesus Himself defines the sign as a publicly visible military desecration, not architectural exposure, and He explicitly places Daniel’s abomination in the future (Matt 24:15), which means it cannot be the first‑century zealot intrusion Josephus describes.

 

[Roger316]

Ok.
What is all that?
Historicist view?
You are preterist?

If you want to choose sides and give the party line for everything, then I am not interested in that kind of dialogue. Where does that get us? I am forgetting all those labels to think through the issues myself and if I can have your help I am all for that. We don't need to agree on everything, but we can at least agree on the principles of Bible Study. If you want to talk about Daniel 9, then let's talk about what Daniel actually said. We may not have an intermediate understanding of the original languages like @OMC but we have our rationality and we can understand a good argument when we hear it. I am willing to hear his correction because he presents it clearly and thoughtfully. And I am willing to take correction with humility when it makes sense. (and it does)

We can envision prophecies like Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation as an hourglass. Some people see the hourglass as if all the sand is still in the top portion. Some people see the sand in the hourglass as half in the top and half in the bottom. And some see the hourglass as if all the sand is at the bottom. Until I am convinced otherwise, I see the hourglass as having half the sand in the top portion and half in the lower portion.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. To understand each other we really need to suspect our own understanding and provisionally adopt the other person's point of view. Understanding before criticism.

 

[Roger316]

You’re mistaken because Jesus does not say the abomination is visible inside the Holy Place—He says “standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15), and Luke gives the inspired interpretation as “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20), meaning Jesus Himself defines the sign as a publicly visible military desecration, not architectural exposure, and He explicitly places Daniel’s abomination in the future (Matt 24:15), which means it cannot be the first‑century zealot intrusion Josephus describes.

What I see is an interpretive decision that arises as we attempt to harmonize Matthew's account with Luke's account.

A. Mathew: Standing in the Holy Place.
B. Luke: Surrounded by armies.

How shall we resolve this difference?

I propose we evaluate the difference as A + B. Those who see the AOD should leave the city in Haste, while those who see the Armies surrounding Jerusalem should leave in Haste. Both are true and both are valid.

You propose we evaluate the difference as B = A. Jesus' reference to A is intended to be metaphorical or symbolic, and B is the literal description of what A means.

As an aside, I used to believe what you propose. I have since changed my mind. But that doesn't mean I am right. You could be right. What you propose makes sense if Jesus was adopting the Maccabean revolt as an example. The kinds of things that took place during that past event will take place during a future event. It's as if Jesus is saying, "You remember when the Greek Armies surrounded the City as Daniel predicted? The same kind of thing will happen with the Roman armies, or some future army that we haven't seen yet. Am I clear?

BTW, all this business about AI is a pebble in my shoe because I love how AI can save me a bunch of writing time. I am a YouTube creator, and I publish two videos a week, so I am very busy writing and editing scripts. AI speeds up my writing process so I can create scripts faster, and it corrects my spelling and grammar too. I love making posts on the message board and YouTube videos on Bible subjects, and AI is helping me save a bunch of time. The ideas are mine, and I correct the AI when I disagree with it. Without it, I would have to take the slower route. Oh Well.

But anyway, thanks for the discussion and your thoughtful answers.

 

[OMC]

What I see is an interpretive decision that arises as we attempt to harmonize Matthew's account with Luke's account.

A. Mathew: Standing in the Holy Place.
B. Luke: Surrounded by armies.

How shall we resolve this difference?

I propose we evaluate the difference as A + B. Those who see the AOD should leave the city in Haste, while those who see the Armies surrounding Jerusalem should leave in Haste. Both are true and both are valid.

You propose we evaluate the difference as B = A. Jesus' reference to A is intended to be metaphorical or symbolic, and B is the literal description of what A means.

As an aside, I used to believe what you propose. I have since changed my mind. But that doesn't mean I am right. You could be right. What you propose makes sense if Jesus was adopting the Maccabean revolt as an example. The kinds of things that took place during that past event will take place during a future event. It's as if Jesus is saying, "You remember when the Greek Armies surrounded the City as Daniel predicted? The same kind of thing will happen with the Roman armies, or some future army that we haven't seen yet. Am I clear?

BTW, all this business about AI is a pebble in my shoe because I love how AI can save me a bunch of writing time. I am a YouTube creator, and I publish two videos a week, so I am very busy writing and editing scripts. AI speeds up my writing process so I can create scripts faster, and it corrects my spelling and grammar too. I love making posts on the message board and YouTube videos on Bible subjects, and AI is helping me save a bunch of time. The ideas are mine, and I correct the AI when I disagree with it. Without it, I would have to take the slower route. Oh Well.

But anyway, thanks for the discussion and your thoughtful answers.

The AI dont bother me. It is usually wrong anyway when folks use it in that fashion. I wish you well in your Youtube thing. Im not an online guy but i do know what that is. anyway, Your A + B proposal fails because Jesus Himself makes B interpret A—
Matthew gives the symbol (“standing in the holy place”), and
Luke gives the inspired explanation (“Jerusalem surrounded by armies”),
so the two aren’t parallel signs but the same sign described two ways, and since Jesus says Daniel’s abomination is future (Matt 24:15), it cannot be what Josephus records. Just food for thought.

 

[Psalm1]

If you want to choose sides and give the party line for everything, then I am not interested in that kind of dialogue. Where does that get us? I am forgetting all those labels to think through the issues myself and if I can have your help I am all for that. We don't need to agree on everything, but we can at least agree on the principles of Bible Study. If you want to talk about Daniel 9, then let's talk about what Daniel actually said. We may not have an intermediate understanding of the original languages like @OMC but we have our rationality and we can understand a good argument when we hear it. I am willing to hear his correction because he presents it clearly and thoughtfully. And I am willing to take correction with humility when it makes sense. (and it does)

We can envision prophecies like Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation as an hourglass. Some people see the hourglass as if all the sand is still in the top portion. Some people see the sand in the hourglass as half in the top and half in the bottom. And some see the hourglass as if all the sand is at the bottom. Until I am convinced otherwise, I see the hourglass as having half the sand in the top portion and half in the lower portion.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. To understand each other we really need to suspect our own understanding and provisionally adopt the other person's point of view. Understanding before criticism.

Saves time if I know where you stand.
I am not at all understanding your destination in your theories or interpretations. ( end game)...a phrase that is strangely, bothersome to you.
It has nothing to do with a game, or playing a game. It simply points to someone's panoramic view, or how their individual components play out in the end.

Stop all the paranoia.
Asking questions should be a good thing.
Are you historicist?
Futurist?

Those 2 camps are miles apart and most will have the courtesy to express the prism they are looking through.

It helps both sides of the debate.

I will not waste my time on a preterism of historical view.

I was saved into a church with that doctrine.
It is bogus.
Not worth my time

 

[OMC]

Saves time if I know where you stand.
I am not at all understanding your destination in your theories or interpretations. ( end game)...a phrase that is strangely, bothersome to you.
It has nothing to do with a game, or playing a game. It simply points to someone's panoramic view, or how their individual components play out in the end.

Stop all the paranoia.
Asking questions should be a good thing.
Are you historicist?
Futurist?

Those 2 camps are miles apart and most will have the courtesy to express the prism they are looking through.

It helps both sides of the debate.

I will not waste my time on a preterism of historical view.

I was saved into a church with that doctrine.
It is bogus.
Not worth my time

The system may not be worth the time, but people are always worth the time.