It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Abomination That Causes Desolation

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
would you say it is certain flesh claiming superiority above others, even "GOD" status? here are some scripts that lead me to think this is the case, at the same time I beleive all have a purpose as well as most having experienced this attitude


Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Corinthians15

but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass.
Nehemiah2

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin
2Corinthians5

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Galatians3

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Matthew12

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law
Galatians4

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Philippians3

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2Corinthians5

edit on 12-8-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 

would you say it is flesh claiming superiority above others, even "GOD" status? here are some scripts that lead me to think this is the case, at the same time I beleive all have a purpose
No. Not from these verses, as far as being God. There are a few different things going on in these verses that don't necessarily relate to each other.
Jesus did things in the flesh. Jesus was counted among the cast off, to be executed in a barbaric manner not even befitting a regular execution of a Jew by their own law. He was counted a foreigner in their eyes, to be killed as befitting a foreigner. He had no part in the inheritance and would have been shunned by god as an unclean thing. He did this to free all those who were declared less than human and even dogs, by those of the Law.
He became that thing to lift all others of that description up because though the Law condemned him, in the eyes of the One True God, he was righteous, in the flesh, though it had been defiled by the hands of the enforcers of the law, the servants of a not true god. This was done by personal purity of a single man, and not by force of godhood. We being associated with Jesus share in the rewards he earned. But we don't go back to that old system by proxy, by creating another false god in our minds and a new set of laws to make us holy. We are obedient to the Spirit which is holy as coming from God, and sent to us by the virtue of our representative, who is holy now and was before by being obedient to that calling.


edit on 12-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I agree with most of what you're getting at but there are a few different ways to view "flesh", of course loving your neighbor can only be done while in the flesh but this is more like what I'm seeing

Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou.
Isaiah 65

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God
Job19

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans2


so does this mean if one believes they are Abrahams seed according to the flesh they are no good for anything? no, though they all may be in danger, it is apparent that they need to be born again in order to be "of the tribe of Juda" through Christ (the end of the law) who said "if you do not believe who I say I am you will indeed die in your sins" -the one promised seed (Galatians3) who was before Abraham Isaac or Jacob, who is near to all, does this make sense?

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans11

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts3

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans10

edit on 12-8-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I agree with most of what you're getting at but there are a few different ways to view "flesh", of course loving your neighbor can only be done while in the flesh but this is more like what I'm seeing

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God
Job19
Think of the dry bones story, "I will put tendons on you and muscles over you and will cover you with skin; I will put breath in you and you will live." This was to the people of the time of Job, the resurrection.

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans2
Paul seems to be equating being a Jew with being accepted by God. He was a Jew himself and probably was not at that time able to break out of that Paradigm. I may be wrong but my understanding is that this was written before he ever went to Rome and what he thought so many tears later would be quite different, like pthena suggested in the "Descent" thread, we seem to not have any letters that were authentic from Paul in his last days, where he may have broken free of relating everything through Judaism.


so does this mean if you are of Abrahams seed according to the flesh or converted to "their law" your no good for nada, no seems apparent they just need to be reborn to be of the tribe of Juda through Christ who said "if you don't believe who I say I am you will indeed die in your sins" -the one promised seed who was before Abraham Isaac or Jacob, who is near to all, does this make sense?
I think how you were born is irrelevant and is what Jesus pointed out. People born blind were felt to have somehow deserved it. Jesus said no.



And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans11
This is what Paul clung to, this hope that Jesus seemed to have too, that the people of Judea would accept him, the one who was the Messiah, after all.



For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts3
Peter imagined that the Jews would accept Jesus as their Messiah, despite already killing him. I suppose that if they had, at this point, there could have been a new system but I don't think so, even if every Jew became Christian, Jesus had no desire to rule the world as a physical king. The spirit was probably actually talking about a spiritual kingdom but phrased in such a way as to be understandable to that audience. It may be that most the converts later gave it up once they came to the realization that there was not going to be an earthly kingdom.
Jesus could have declared himself king on day one, but did not because he knew the people would support him for all the wrong reasons.
The NT sounds Jewish oriented because it was mostly written by Jews and according to the legend, was 100% authored by Jews. They were very close to their roots and had no overt command to completely separate themselves from it. People come Judgement Day will have no excuse for not understanding the implications of the Gospel, being so distant from when the Jesus movement was closely confined to Judea.
edit on 12-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I do not see the kingdom of Christ manifesting any place else but on earth, but your right in it being a spiritual one, the new Jerusalem descending as a bride.. the tabernacle of God is with men..the whole earth will be filled with the knowledge etc.-

Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matt28

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
6

be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Romans12

sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
Ephesians5


as for the Jewish question where the good news was first preached "first for the Jews" and before every creature or nation they became known as followers of Christ or the Way~Christian and most all that believed Him got out of dodge for the coming "not one stone will be left on another"
edit on 12-8-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 
Well good and you may be ahead of me on this aspect.
I am going to have to start from scratch to figure out what these prophecies are.
That is what this thread is for. Toss out preconceived notions and take a new look.
Your guess is as good as mine at this point.
I am forced to not be satisfied with yesterday's interpretation.


edit on 12-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


That's what His 2nd coming is all about, bringing His heavenly kingdom to Earth. That's symbolized in Daniel's dream by the big rock from heaven crashing into the foot of the metalic statue, then growing into a mountian that fills the entire Earth.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hosea 8:4
They enthroned kings without my consent! They appointed princes without my approval! They made idols out of their silver and gold, but they will be destroyed!

Here you see Cut being used towards a people in the positive sense, (not positive as in being a good thing for the people being cut), meaning without a, Not, in front of it.

This is also an interesting verse because it involves princes and a reference to at least one temple. The phrasing suggests it is the idols that will be destroyed, rather than the people. People make them, God destroys them.

Zephaniah 3:7
I thought, ‘Certainly you will respect me! Now you will accept correction!’ If she had done so, her home would not be destroyed by all the punishments I have threatened. But they eagerly sinned in everything they did.

Here Cut is used to describe what happens to the dwelling place in this analogy about Israel.

2 Samuel 3:29
May his blood whirl over the head of Joab and the entire house of his father! May the males of Joab’s house never cease to have someone with a running sore or a skin disease or one who works at the spindle or one who falls by the sword or one who lacks food!”

Here is an example of Cut being used with the Not before it but not in a nice way. The thing not being cut is a curse. So, by extension, Cut could be used in a sense of ending a curse but that does not seem to fit into the Daniel verse we are concerned with.

My conclusion after looking at the twenty five verses that use the exact same form of the word Cut, is that it most likely means to be killed with a possible further consequence to the person's descendants having no inheritance or part in any God ordained national government/religion system.


edit on 12-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


yes, that would be the stone rejected by men and the builders I believe

edit on 12-8-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


My conclusion after looking at the twenty five verses that use the exact same form of the word Cut, is that it most likely means to be killed with a possible further consequence to the person's descendants having no inheritance or part in any God ordained national government/religion system.

There was a time when I thought the abomination had to do with James the Just, brother of Jesus, first Bishop of Jerusalem. Wikipedia cites various sources, was closely associated with the temple, maybe high priest even. One source has him tossed off the temple top and having his head crushed with a fuller's tool. 62 AD, then buried on the spot, right next to the temple (dead body abomination?)

Then I looked up Paul. The various dates don't seem to be sorted out. If he arrived in Rome in 60 AD, spent two years under arrest, then beheaded, that would have also been 62 AD.(although date given is 67 in one place and 68 in another)

(Unrelated side note: evidently in 2009, the pope had the traditional tomb of Paul opened. About the time I had that dream of looking for the lost manuscripts of Paul in a tomb)

Both of these men, blameless as far as keeping the Law, died shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the temple which occurred in 70 AD. I'm pretty sure that would mark the end of Judeo/Christian religion. Just the contemplation of walking in the shoes of James or Paul staggers my mind!

The context of Daniel receiving the prophecy is that he was reading what Jeremiah had said or written about the 70 years and praying the prayer of national repentance


DA 9:17 "Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name."

DA 9:20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill-- 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.
DA 9:24 "Seventy `sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Rather than hearing about the short term situation of Judea and Jerusalem, he heard the long-term (right up to the end) situation of his people, the Judeans and their form of worship. I'm fairly certain that it ended in 70 AD, at the latest.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

I'm fairly certain that it ended in 70 AD, at the latest.
It makes no sense to me that you have 70 weeks, then two verses later, it says at 62, the city is destroyed. The Old Greek translation which is probably older than the current Masoretic text, says in verse 26, after the 70 and another 62, then the city is destroyed. So something got switched and I don't think it could have been the Greek that got changed, no way.
The Old Greek makes sense, the MT to me does not.

ETA: Wikipedia puts the finalizing of the Hebrew version of Daniel at AD 130. Isn't that interesting.
I seriously think I have to go with the Old Greek and discard the "modern" translations other wise, any attempt at an interpretation is worthless.


edit on 12-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


yes, that would be the stone rejected by men and the builders I believe


Perhaps, I've never considered the correlation with that before, however a "mountain" is an allegorical reference to a kingdom in Rabbinical literary devices.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


I seriously think I have to go with the Old Greek and discard the "modern" translations other wise, any attempt at an interpretation is worthless

Was that the MT you did the word for word on? The Septuagient is much older than 130AD.

I was focusing mainly on the people rather than numbers and dates.


24 Seventy-weeks have been shortened for thy people and upon the holy city, for sins to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring about everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy of Holy Ones. 25 And thou shall know and shall understand, from the going forth of the decree to respond to and to rebuild Jerusalem until Christ, the Prince arrives, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and He will return, and streets will be built, and a wall, * and the seasons will be emptied. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be destroyed, and there is no judgment therein. And he will destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the Prince Who is to come. And a flood will cut them off, and until the end of the war that has been decreed there will be destruction, which will quickly end. 27 And he will strengthen a covenant with many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will take away sacrifices and drink offerings, and upon the temple there will be an abomination of desolations even until the end of time, and an end will be given for the desolation.
The Holy Orthodox Bible - THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT IN ENGLISH

But then this doesn't exactly match the Old Greek text either

edit on 12-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60


I seriously think I have to go with the Old Greek and discard the "modern" translations other wise, any attempt at an interpretation is worthless

Was that the MT you did the word for word on? The Septuagient is much older than 130AD.
I was focusing mainly on the people rather than numbers and dates.
That was the MT that I was sketching out. I am looking at the Hebrew and I think what it is doing is wording verse 26 in such a way as to have a possible second translation that essentially repeats verse 24. To make it work, you need to make the dates the same which they do by dropping the 70 from the 64. People think I am crazy when I say that verses are designed in the Hebrew to where you can translate it two completely different ways and have it make sense.
Bottom line:
They wrote the Hebrew to make the destruction of Jerusalem a cleansing of it.
ETA: It's a little hard to explain but it is like a code, like what I was doing earlier with the word Cut. They could change the wording in a verse to mean exactly the same thing, if you read it a certain way, Anyone listening would not notice the difference because the story seems the same. They use ambiguous words when they could easily use precise words and if you search, you can find a secondary meaning to that word that seems on the surface, perfectly normal. If you do that for the whole verse, where you switch like six word meanings to the alternative, you get a different story. So you have a flood of people under a prince of nations coming in and killing the Messiah, and destroying the sanctuary and destroying the city and wars continue on for a determined time.
Switch that to, The ground is anointed with the flood of the blood from the people of the city sanctifying it, while the wars go on for a determined time.
edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


you know I had plenty of scripts to paste
but have to say "eternal immortal invisible King" sums everything up nicely



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


The ground is anointed with the flood of the blood from the people of the city sanctifying it, while the wars go on for a determined time.

That doesn't sound like a very good place to be then.

I've read 3 different translations from the LXX and they each are different. This must be the most worked over passage in the Bible! So many wax noses that all you have to do is pick the appropriate one for whatever you want to prove and say it's the real one and the others are not.

I wish I knew what James was up to! Was he volunteering to be the Messiah that gets killed by the invading army or what? And who was the king? Was there no king? Did James have some plan?

I'm tired and confused. I doubt I'll find a book called The Plan of James the Messiah to Save Jerusalem

Edit to Add:


The Bar Kokhba revolt 132–136;[2] Hebrew: מרד בר כוכבא‎ or mered bar kokhba) against the Roman Empire, was the third major rebellion by the Jews of Judaea Province being the last of the Jewish-Roman Wars. Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the revolt, was acclaimed as a Messiah, a heroic figure who could restore Israel. The revolt established an independent state of Israel over parts of Judea for over two years, but a Roman army made up of six full legions with auxiliaries and elements from up to six additional legions finally crushed it
en.wikipedia.org...

So the Bar-Kokhba revolt started 2 years after the MT rework. "City is cleaned by the blood of the slaughtered under Titus! Go! Go! Go! Take possession of the now sanctified city!" I wonder who instigated that? Babylonian scribes or what?
edit on 13-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Old Greek Daniel 9:24
seventy sets of seven were judged upon people your and upon city Sion to be ended the sin and the to lack to wipe out the iniquities and conceive the vision and to be given righteousness eternal and to be ended the vision and to gladden a holy of holies

Old Greek Daniel 9:25
and you will understand and you will conceive and you will be glad and you will find commands to answer and you shall build Jerusalem city to the Lord

Old Greek Daniel 9:26
and after seven and seventy and sixty two will be omitted an anointing and not will be and king of the nations will destroy the city and the holy place with the Christ and will come closing stages His with anger and until the time closing stages from war he will be attacked

Old Greek Daniel 9:27
and will have power the covenant for many and again it will turn back and shall be rebuilt in broad and long and according to completion of times and after seven and seventy seasons and sixty two years until the season closing stages of war and will be taken away the devastation in the strengthening the covenant for many sets of seven and in the end of the sets of seven will be taken the sacrifice and the libation and in the temple abomination of the desolations will be until closing stages and [the] end will be given unto the desolation



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
That's why I said not long after starting the thread that my position is that it may be impossible to figure out.
According to my theory, before the approval of the 130 AD MT version, they put in an ambiguous word for the Messiah/King or whatever, and used a word which could be a verb. So if you look at it right, instead of a person, something is being done. Instead of Holies of Holies, they make it Tabernacle that can also be a verb for sanctifying. Switch, have or whatever, that describes something happening to the city, and reverse it, meaning instead of it modifying city, that comes after it, you have it modify cut which comes before it, making it a negative application of the word. So you end up stopping a curse by anointing and sanctifying the city with this flood of the people, cleansing it.
All very weird but a sneaky way to pass on a hidden meaning to the destruction of Jerusalem, making it a good thing and after so long, it is good to go, all they have to do is move in and it is already holy.
Or just my imagination.


edit on 13-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

So the Bar-Kokhba revolt started 2 years after the MT rework. "City is cleaned by the blood of the slaughtered under Titus! Go! Go! Go! Take possession of the now sanctified city!" I wonder who instigated that? Babylonian scribes or what?
Wow. and you did not want to get into Christianity, yesterday.
I wonder what version the Gospel writers were looking at of Daniel.
I found an interesting PDF of a little examination of an Old Greek version of the Son of Man vision, found with the Qumran documents. So, the Greek Daniel?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


Wow. and you did not want to get into Christianity, yesterday.
I wonder what version the Gospel writers were looking at of Daniel.

What? I don't see the connection between manipulated scripture to incite war and Christianity. Aren't Christians against Holy War?

ETA: I downloaded a LXX with Old Greek and Theodotion. I'm too tired to look at it now.
But more on wars: Even when Herod Messiah of Jove attacked Jerusalem with Roman help, didn't he kill a Messiah or two in Jerusalem who had Parthian support?

I never want to go to Jerusalem. Ever.
edit on 13-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join