Abomination of Desolation Was Indeed Already Fulfilled

Why start with a Torah? and not a Bhagavad Gita or Quaran? Talmud or Mishnah?

When was your bar mitzvah? Under what rabbi?

I want to know how you started. Like if you run into a rabbi and he teaches you vs one day as a christian i learned Jesus was Jewish so now i'm going to make myself a jew.

Also are you actually JEWISH? Not faith-wise but actual?

 

Being Jewish is cool nothing wrong with that, But like God parted the sky and a book floated down?
Who put the book in your hands?
What even compelled you to even consider reading the Torah?

What confirms that when you are reading something like Leviticus, is this the genuine wording the actual text.

 

“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand, Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Matthew 24:15–21)

Why did all Christians heed this and flee Jerusalem if they thought as many do? That it would not happen until thousands of years later?

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” (Luke 21:20)

“But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.” Jeremiah 22:5 (KJV 1900)

 

By the combining of the facts in Daniel 9, 2 Thess.2, & Rev. 13 concerning the beast & his "image".

 

The AoD happened in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the altar of the second temple. Jesus uses this as a symbol for the continued animal sacrifices that remained standing after he replaced them with the sacrifice of himself.

 

You're ignoring a lotta history and Scripture. After the Romans left after sacking Jerusalem, the Jews slowly rebuilt it, & lived peacefully under Roman rule. (The Romans hadn't sacked ALL Judea; just Jerusalem & its surrounding villages.) but about 50 years later, some started rebelling against Rome again. This time, Caesar Hadrian decided to end the problem for good. His armies drove the Jews entirely out of Judea, killing many in the process. And some Roman Christians spread the word that the Jews had murdered Jesus.

From then on, the Jews were hated & persecuted wherever they went for over 1800 years, their punishment culminating in the nazi holocaust, with some 6 million utta a world population of 13 million Jews dying in it. After the nazis fell, God began to lift their punishment.

No other people in history have endured such persecution for nearly that long & still survived as a people! But GOD'S POWER preserved them as a people !

Jerusalem is still "trampled on" by gentiles today, even tho it's Israel's capital again. Whole sections of it are occupied by Arabs & Palestinians. A procession of gentile Christians comes & goes from several Christian shrines in the city. A procession of Moslem gentiles comes & goes from El-Aqsa Mosque & the Dome of the Rock every day.

Daniel 11:31 And forces shall be mustered by him,(the king of the north) and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.

Rev. 13 explains this will be an image or statue of the beast/antichrist. You may read on in Daniel 11 to see this will be the same one man, assisted by the false prophet, the "beast from the earth".

Now, Titus had no sidekick assisting him, as this coming ruler will have. and, of course, Titus never proclaimed himself to be above all gods & proclaim himself to be "the" god.

And the Roman title "imperator" did NOT mean a god; it was the title given to generals who won a great battle, such as Titus had done. Josephus likely got that one right, as it flattered the Flavius family

In summary: You have ignored mucho Scripture & history !

 

No; it hadn't yet occurred, & STILL hasn't ! Jesus made it plain, E. G. "When you see". And He said, "STANDING in the holy place".

Please read post #47.

 

Aint happened yet. After Titus first brought an army against J, he left with it to help make his father Vespasian Caesar. He returned some 8 months later with an army. So, there was plentya time to flee J back then. But with a modern, mechanized army, there won't be much time.

 

The animal sacrifice remained standing as an abomination that brought desolation in AD 70.

 

Jesus said it would happen when it did. The Jesuits want you to think as you do so you won't recognize the papacy as the Antichrist. Documentation available.....

 

Why many think the AoD is yet future according to Clarence Larkin; Dispensational Truth p5.

The Jesuit Origins of Futurism


“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times.

In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.

It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

Yeah, Readers, just ignore actual history and Scripture in favor of the garbage brought by this person's imagination & goat roping. Easy for you to check out the actual history I presented in any encyclopedia, and Scripture in your Bible.

Like many other purveyors of bunk, you both add to & subtract from God's word with your incorrect private interps, making Scripture say what YOU want. Well, it won't work with us REAL Christians. Truth is, the events of 66-70 mAD didn't fulfill many of the Scriptural prophecies about the antichrist & great trib. Besides that, Jesus said He'd return IMMEDIATELY AFTER He ended the great trib, and, of course, that hasn't happened, yet, either.

Your whole speil is phony as a Chevy Mustang.

 

Your stretch of words is wrong, of course.

 

No, He didn't. He just said it will happen. And it's not happened yet. And no, the papacy isn't "the" antichrist. He will be ONE MAN, as Paul wrote in 2 Thess.2 & Daniel wrote in Daniel 9 & 11.

 

Well, at least, two of the most-prolific purveyors of bunk are both on the same thread Both of you dudes' knowledge of Scripture & history is abysmal.

 

The Papacy = one man at any given time. Take heed; "Vicar of Christ' = Antichrist in Greek.

 

A response by an anonymous Protestant.

"Vicarius Christi" has a very specific meaning within Catholic theology with regard to the Papacy. It stands to reason that its meaning should be defined according to the Catholic understanding of its usage. Why would one impose another meaning upon it which the Catholic Church does not have since it is a term used by it within a particular theological context. "Vicarius" in Latin means a "substitute," "deputy," "viceregent," "adjutant," "proxy," etc.(cf. Harpers' Latin Dictionary, Vol 2, American Book Company, 1907, p. 1985). It does not have the meaning of the Greek preposition "anti" which means "opposite" or "against" (the Latin preposition "ante" means "before"). In order to make such a connection, one would have to find such usage in the Latin/Greek lexicographical works, and it would have to be common or usual, not anomalous in order to be of academic value. What is happening here, frankly, is the injection of prejudicial, theological Protestant agendas that have little relevance to an objective definition of a simple term in Catholic theology. This is an article about a term that references a Catholic doctrinal understanding of the Papacy. Protestants do not normally use this term, nor do they use it with a different theological meaning. If they did, then the complaint would be just that this is a one-sided "Catholic definition," and the Protestant usage and definition would also have to be included. Now, if I am incorrect, and there is some Protestant denomination out there that in fact normally uses this term in a theologically different way than the Catholic Church does, then its definition should be presented here with source documentation/references to support the claim. I might also point out that Dandanx is incorrect when he asserts that Catholics believe the Pope is "exempt from the liability of sin." The Catholic Church teaches no such thing regarding the personal morality of its Popes. It merely teaches that the Pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" (in his office as teacher/Bishop of the universal Church) on questions of "faith and morals." This is not the same thing as saying that he is personally "sinless," or not responsible or "liable" for his own sin - which he is. KStahl M.Div., M.A. - BTW: I'm a Protestant! (Nov 27, 2006)​

And response in same discussion.

Thank you for your lengthy comment. You were correct when you said the Pope was not exempt from the liability of sin and yes, it is correct that Catholics believe the Pope is Christ Himself when he is speaking from "ex-cathedra", which is found nowhere in the Holy Bible. I guess this was how the Pope and the RCC gained so much power during the Middle Ages. I am a Protestant myself and I am saddened by some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. [source: Wikipedia,Talk:Vicar of Christ]​