The Church, and Israel and the Last Days.

[Roger316]

Again, nothing whatsoever is in your reply to refute the AC.
Nothing.
Conjecture is not scripture.

Scripture builds.
You have scripture tearing down via omission.

Whatis the next surprise?
"Daniel never said "Jesus" so Daniel was wrong"

Pure folly

It is not up to me to prove that the Antichrist is absent from Daniel 9:27. The onus is on you to prove that it is.

 

[OMC]

It is not a game. It's called Bible Study. We come to the text to learn from it and we come with two major assumptions: 1) The Bible is without error and 2) The Bible means what the author intended.

Let's look at the passage

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (1) will be cut off and have nothing,
Sometime after the 62 weeks, an anointed one, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing. What does it mean to be "cut off and have nothing"? Scholars speculate, but I think Daniel is speaking into a covenantal context. To be "cut off" is to be removed from the covenant God made with Israel. God promised Israel that if they obey his commandments, they would prosper on the land for many generations. The Messiah will be removed from that covenant through capital punishment.

27 And he (1) will strengthen the covenant with the many for one week ...
The pronoun "he" points back to the previous person mentioned in verse 26: the Messiah. He will strengthen God's covenant with Israel for seven years.

in the middle of the week he(1) will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering
In the middle of the final seven year period, the messiah will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.

on the wing of abominations will come one(2) who makes desolate,
When Israel's abominations can't be surpassed, one will come to make desolate.

even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate(2).”
There are two predictions of destruction: first, there comes the one who makes desolate, second, comes a decreed end to the one who makes desolate.

As we can see from the text above, the messiah(1) is distinct from the one(2) who makes desolate. The messiah strengthens the covenant for seven years; He puts a stop to grain offerings and sacrifices. And in the middle of the week he is cut off from his people. The one who comes later will carry out the ordained destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and then he will also be destroyed just as it is ordained.

This prophecy came true in the first century when Jesus, the Messiah, strengthened God's covenant with Israel. During that week of years, he was arrested and executed by his own people with the permission of the Roman government. He was cut off from his people and left with no land inheritance or offspring.

His death on the cross marked the epitome of abominations; It was the greatest abomination of all time. When he was crucified, God himself stopped the sacrifices and offerings by tearing the veil down the middle.

After that, the Romans came with their armies to put down the rebellion, and during the siege, they destroyed the temple.

Matthew 24:15
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

This verse requires our full attention, as Matthew suggests. And I dare say, given how many threads I have read on this subject, that most people miss the obvious. I have highlighted the significant wording in bold lettering. When Jesus says, "when you see" he is suggesting there will come a time when a person will be able to see the Holy Place. Normally, no one can see the Holy Place since it is located inside the temple.

No ordinary worshiper could see into the Holy Place, and even most priests never saw inside it during their entire lives. Only priests on active duty entered, and the Temple's architecture ensured that those outside had no line of sight into the sacred interior. When would anyone EVER see someone standing in the Holy Place?

I share this not to argue, but help correct the misuse of Grammar. Your reading breaks down at the precise moment you assign the pronoun “he” in וְהִגְבִּיר (Dan 9:27) back to Messiah, because Hebrew narrative continuity does not allow a waw‑imperfect to skip over a newly introduced masculine singular subject without that earlier subject being explicitly reactivated; in verse 26,
the clause וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא (“the people of the prince who is to come”) introduces a fresh masculine singular referent, and once that subject enters the chain, the next waw‑form defaults to that subject unless the text overtly re‑anchors Messiah—which Daniel does not do—so your subject‑chain is not Hebrew grammar but a theological overlay; likewise, your Matthew 24 argument misfires because Jesus cites the standing abomination of Daniel 11:31 / 12:11, not the plural abominations of Daniel 9:27, and “when you see the abomination standing in the holy place” does not require visibility into the inner sanctuary but refers to a publicly visible desecration (as historically occurred through foreign intrusion or idolatrous placement), meaning your reconstruction—Messiah confirming a seven‑year covenant, Messiah stopping sacrifices, Messiah being cut off mid‑week, Messiah’s death as “the abomination,” and Rome’s destruction as the decreed end—rests on a subject‑chain Hebrew grammar does not permit and a New Testament connection Jesus never makes.

 

[Roger316]

Who is the white horse rider in the first seal opened by Jesus?
Who is the one inaugurating the AOD, Standing in the temple?

I appreciate your attempt to tie it all together, making sense of the overall picture. And we are assembling a picture puzzle without having access to the picture on the box. But before we can assemble the picture, we need to identify the pieces first. And that is what we are doing. Daniel 9 is not the place to find the answers to your questions because that passage doesn't address them.

Jesus said, as you pointed out, that when they see the AOD standing in the holy place, then they should flee the city. When did it become possible to "see the holy place?"

 

[Roger316]

I share this not to argue, but help correct the misuse of Grammar. Your reading breaks down at the precise moment you assign the pronoun “he” in וְהִגְבִּיר (Dan 9:27) back to Messiah, because Hebrew narrative continuity does not allow a waw‑imperfect to skip over a newly introduced masculine singular subject without that earlier subject being explicitly reactivated; in verse 26,
the clause וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא (“the people of the prince who is to come”) introduces a fresh masculine singular referent, and once that subject enters the chain, the next waw‑form defaults to that subject unless the text overtly re‑anchors Messiah—which Daniel does not do—so your subject‑chain is not Hebrew grammar but a theological overlay; likewise, your Matthew 24 argument misfires because Jesus cites the standing abomination of Daniel 11:31 / 12:11, not the plural abominations of Daniel 9:27, and “when you see the abomination standing in the holy place” does not require visibility into the inner sanctuary but refers to a publicly visible desecration (as historically occurred through foreign intrusion or idolatrous placement), meaning your reconstruction—Messiah confirming a seven‑year covenant, Messiah stopping sacrifices, Messiah being cut off mid‑week, Messiah’s death as “the abomination,” and Rome’s destruction as the decreed end—rests on a subject‑chain Hebrew grammar does not permit and a New Testament connection Jesus never makes.

Thanks for the correction. In verse 9:26 what is the main subject? It seems to me that "people, not prince is the main subject. In the phrase “the people of the prince who is to come” (Daniel 9:26), the main noun, the grammatical head of the phrase, is “people.” Everything else in the phrase is subordinate to it.



What is the substantial noun?

 

[OMC]

Thanks for the correction. In verse 9:26 what is the main subject? It seems to me that "people, not prince is the main subject. In the phrase “the people of the prince who is to come” (Daniel 9:26), the main noun, the grammatical head of the phrase, is “people.” Everything else in the phrase is subordinate to it.



What is the substantial noun

In Daniel 9:26 the substantial noun—the syntactic head of the phrase—is indeed הָעָם (“the people”),
But Hebrew grammar distinguishes between the head noun of a construct phrase and the valid antecedent for a masculine singular personal verb;
הָעָם is a collective singular, which means it is singular in form but plural in meaning, and Hebrew does not use collective nouns as the grammatical antecedent for a personal masculine singular waw‑imperfect,
so when the phrase וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא introduces נָגִיד (“prince”), that masculine singular personal noun becomes the nearest valid antecedent for the next masculine singular verb וְהִגְבִּיר, unless the text explicitly reintroduces Messiah—which it does not;
Therefore, while “people” is the head noun, the “prince” is the grammatical antecedent for the “he” of verse 27, because Hebrew subject‑chain rules always prioritize the nearest masculine singular personal referent, not the collective head noun.

 

[Roger316]

In Daniel 9:26 the substantial noun—the syntactic head of the phrase—is indeed הָעָם (“the people”),
But Hebrew grammar distinguishes between the head noun of a construct phrase and the valid antecedent for a masculine singular personal verb;
הָעָם is a collective singular, which means it is singular in form but plural in meaning, and Hebrew does not use collective nouns as the grammatical antecedent for a personal masculine singular waw‑imperfect,
so when the phrase וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא introduces נָגִיד (“prince”), that masculine singular personal noun becomes the nearest valid antecedent for the next masculine singular verb וְהִגְבִּיר, unless the text explicitly reintroduces Messiah—which it does not;
Therefore, while “people” is the head noun, the “prince” is the grammatical antecedent for the “he” of verse 27, because Hebrew subject‑chain rules always prioritize the nearest masculine singular personal referent, not the collective head noun.

so now we decide who is the prince.

 

[OMC]

so now we decide who is the prince.

Daniel consistently uses נָגִיד / שַׂר for future eschatological rulers (Dan 8:23–25; 11:36–45), and Jesus Himself ties Daniel’s abomination to a future figure at the end of the age (Matt 24:15), meaning the prince of Daniel 9:26–27 is the future ruler of the final kingdom, the same end‑time king Daniel describes elsewhere—introduced here by his people’s destruction of Jerusalem, but fully revealed in Daniel’s later visions. So when the world government is established, the head guy is the prince we are looking for.

 

[Psalm1]

I appreciate your attempt to tie it all together, making sense of the overall picture. And we are assembling a picture puzzle without having access to the picture on the box. But before we can assemble the picture, we need to identify the pieces first. And that is what we are doing. Daniel 9 is not the place to find the answers to your questions because that passage doesn't address them.

Jesus said, as you pointed out, that when they see the AOD standing in the holy place, then they should flee the city. When did it become possible to "see the holy place?"

Jesus referred to Daniel.
Maybe he should have followed your method.?

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel consistently uses נָגִיד / שַׂר for future eschatological rulers (Dan 8:23–25; 11:36–45), and Jesus Himself ties Daniel’s abomination to a future figure at the end of the age (Matt 24:15), meaning the prince of Daniel 9:26–27 is the future ruler of the final kingdom, the same end‑time king Daniel describes elsewhere—introduced here by his people’s destruction of Jerusalem, but fully revealed in Daniel’s later visions. So when the world government is established, the head guy is the prince we are looking for.

...who inaugurates the AOD after 3.5 years of the 7yr covenant.

 

[OMC]

...who inaugurates the AOD after 3.5 years of the 7yr covenant.

Daniel’s “coming prince” is indeed the future ruler of the final kingdom—the same eschatological king Daniel expands in 8:23–25 and 11:36–45—and when global governance finally consolidates, its head becomes the נָגִיד הַבָּא who makes the seven‑year covenant, breaks it at 3½ years, and inaugurates the abomination of desolation exactly as Jesus cites in Matthew 24:15.

 

[Psalm1]

Daniel’s “coming prince” is indeed the future ruler of the final kingdom—the same eschatological king Daniel expands in 8:23–25 and 11:36–45—and when global governance finally consolidates, its head becomes the נָגִיד הַבָּא who makes the seven‑year covenant, breaks it at 3½ years, and inaugurates the abomination of desolation exactly as Jesus cites in Matthew 24:15.

I am, Pretty sure we agree.

 

[Psalm1]

I appreciate your attempt to tie it all together, making sense of the overall picture. And we are assembling a picture puzzle without having access to the picture on the box. But before we can assemble the picture, we need to identify the pieces first. And that is what we are doing. Daniel 9 is not the place to find the answers to your questions because that passage doesn't address them.

Jesus said, as you pointed out, that when they see the AOD standing in the holy place, then they should flee the city. When did it become possible to "see the holy place?"

So you do not know, or are afraid to say who the white horse rider is?

 

[Psalm1]

It is not a game. It's called Bible Study. We come to the text to learn from it and we come with two major assumptions: 1) The Bible is without error and 2) The Bible means what the author intended.

Let's look at the passage

26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah (1) will be cut off and have nothing,
Sometime after the 62 weeks, an anointed one, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing. What does it mean to be "cut off and have nothing"? Scholars speculate, but I think Daniel is speaking into a covenantal context. To be "cut off" is to be removed from the covenant God made with Israel. God promised Israel that if they obey his commandments, they would prosper on the land for many generations. The Messiah will be removed from that covenant through capital punishment.

27 And he (1) will strengthen the covenant with the many for one week ...
The pronoun "he" points back to the previous person mentioned in verse 26: the Messiah. He will strengthen God's covenant with Israel for seven years.

in the middle of the week he(1) will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering
In the middle of the final seven year period, the messiah will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.

on the wing of abominations will come one(2) who makes desolate,
When Israel's abominations can't be surpassed, one will come to make desolate.

even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate(2).”
There are two predictions of destruction: first, there comes the one who makes desolate, second, comes a decreed end to the one who makes desolate.

As we can see from the text above, the messiah(1) is distinct from the one(2) who makes desolate. The messiah strengthens the covenant for seven years; He puts a stop to grain offerings and sacrifices. And in the middle of the week he is cut off from his people. The one who comes later will carry out the ordained destruction of the city and the sanctuary, and then he will also be destroyed just as it is ordained.

This prophecy came true in the first century when Jesus, the Messiah, strengthened God's covenant with Israel. During that week of years, he was arrested and executed by his own people with the permission of the Roman government. He was cut off from his people and left with no land inheritance or offspring.

His death on the cross marked the epitome of abominations; It was the greatest abomination of all time. When he was crucified, God himself stopped the sacrifices and offerings by tearing the veil down the middle.

After that, the Romans came with their armies to put down the rebellion, and during the siege, they destroyed the temple.

Matthew 24:15
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

This verse requires our full attention, as Matthew suggests. And I dare say, given how many threads I have read on this subject, that most people miss the obvious. I have highlighted the significant wording in bold lettering. When Jesus says, "when you see" he is suggesting there will come a time when a person will be able to see the Holy Place. Normally, no one can see the Holy Place since it is located inside the temple.

No ordinary worshiper could see into the Holy Place, and even most priests never saw inside it during their entire lives. Only priests on active duty entered, and the Temple's architecture ensured that those outside had no line of sight into the sacred interior. When would anyone EVER see someone standing in the Holy Place?

You are trying to connect the dots (" this means this, and that means that") but some of it is off.

 

[Roger316]

Daniel consistently uses נָגִיד / שַׂר for future eschatological rulers (Dan 8:23–25; 11:36–45), and Jesus Himself ties Daniel’s abomination to a future figure at the end of the age (Matt 24:15), meaning the prince of Daniel 9:26–27 is the future ruler of the final kingdom, the same end‑time king Daniel describes elsewhere—introduced here by his people’s destruction of Jerusalem, but fully revealed in Daniel’s later visions. So when the world government is established, the head guy is the prince we are looking for.

It seems to me that Jesus might fit that description. No?

 

[Roger316]

Jesus referred to Daniel.
Maybe he should have followed your method.?

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.

 

[Aaron56]

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.

Is this the new norm for the forums?

 

[Roger316]

So you do not know, or are afraid to say who the white horse rider is?

I would appreciate a Biblical reference when you ask a question. There are two references to a White Horse Rider in Revelation.

Revelation 6:1-2
Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

In my view, the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2 symbolically represents the Roman Empire. The key detail is the bow: John’s audience would have immediately associated a bow‑shaped weapon with the Roman arch, the signature engineering innovation that enabled Rome’s military expansion, road systems, aqueducts, and monumental triumphal architecture. The arch was not merely decorative—it was the structural technology that allowed Rome to project power across the Mediterranean world. By portraying the first rider as carrying a “bow” and going out “conquering and to conquer,” John evokes the Empire’s relentless advance, its engineered strength, and its triumphal ideology. In this symbolic reading, the white horse does not represent purity but imperial victory, and the bow points to the very technology that made Rome’s conquests possible.

By contrast, the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19:11 unmistakably symbolizes the Lord Himself, and John signals this through a completely different set of images than those used in Revelation 6. Here the rider is called “Faithful and True,” He judges in righteousness, His eyes blaze like fire, He wears many diadems, and His robe is dipped in blood—each detail echoing earlier Christ‑descriptions in Revelation 1 and 5. Unlike the first rider, who carries a bow and receives a crown, this rider bears a sword that proceeds from His mouth, the emblem of divine speech and sovereign judgment. The white horse in this scene is not imperial conquest but divine victory; the rider is not a human empire but the Lord of lords. John intentionally contrasts these two white horses: one represents earthly power that conquers for a time, the other represents the Messiah who conquers forever.

 

[Roger316]

You are trying to connect the dots (" this means this, and that means that") but some of it is off.

I'm spending a lot of time sharing my interpretation with you. Can you be specific in how it is off?

 

[OMC]

It seems to me that Jesus might fit that description. No?

No—Jesus cannot be the נָגִיד הַבָּא of Daniel 9:26–27 because the text itself disqualifies Him:
the prince is introduced after Messiah is cut off,
his people destroy Jerusalem (which Jesus’ people did not do),
he makes a seven‑year covenant, breaks it at half‑week, stops sacrifice, and brings the abomination of desolation, all of which Jesus denies doing (Matt 24:4–5, 23–27);
Daniel’s eschatological ruler in Dan 8:23–25 and Dan 11:36–45 is a blasphemous king who exalts himself, persecutes the saints, and is destroyed by divine intervention, whereas Jesus is the Son of Man who receives the kingdom (Dan 7:13–14), meaning Daniel has two distinct figures: the Messiah (cut off, brings atonement, receives the kingdom) and the coming prince (destroys, deceives, desecrates, is destroyed); Jesus in Matt 24:15 identifies the abomination as future, not His own act, proving He is not the prince who causes it.

 

[OMC]

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.

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.