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.

 

Daniel; What is an abomination of desolation?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

Yes, I would agree that the passage in Revelation and the "abomination" passage in Daniel are talking about the same thing.
But the question is how literally the words about "making them worship the image" are meant to be taken.
There are signs elsewhere that it is a human individual who is the object of worship - in 2 Thessalonians ch2 v4 the man "exalts himself against every so-called god...proclaiming himself to be God".
Then there is the point that the image in Revelation ch13 is an image of the "beast from the sea", and this beast has to be a political state (by analogy with the beasts from the sea in Daniel ch7). Can someone cause people to worship a poltical state? I would suggest that this is exactly what Hitler was doing at the Nuremburg rallies, "causing the people to worship" the image of the Nazi state that he was building up, and "making the image speak" by being the spokesman himself. That was the line I was taking in my two threads on the two beasts.
For these reasons I'm inclined to see the Abomination as focussed on the worship of something human.



edit on 3-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by prevenge
 

It's openly acknowledged that Hollywood movies are written according to Studio expectations of what people are interested in watching (and paying for), whether it be romance or horror.
If these movies are based on what people want to believe, and people then start to base their beliefs on these movies, it's all getting rather circular, isn't it?

Since the writers of scripture obviously did not know about Hollywood movies, they can't be part of the intended meaning. We're obliged to go back to the texts.




k you're obviously lost in your own little theological obsession world... i'm not continuing this conversation.. it's banal and pointless.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 

A discussion of the intended meaning of a Biblical passage is neceesarily going to be theological, in the same way that discussion of the meaning of a political speech is going to be political.

You believe in the predictive power of Hollywood movies? And you call me obsessed?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

Yes, I would agree that the passage in Revelation and the "abomination" passage in Daniel are talking about the same thing.
But the question is how literally the words about "making them worship the image" are meant to be taken.
There are signs elsewhere that it is a human individual who is the object of worship - in 2 Thessalonians ch2 v4 the man "exalts himself against every so-called god...proclaiming himself to be God".
Then there is the point that the image in Revelation ch13 is an image of the "beast from the sea", and this beast has to be a political state (by analogy with the beasts from the sea in Daniel ch7). Can someone cause people to worship a poltical state? I would suggest that this is exactly what Hitler was doing at the Nuremburg rallies, "causing the people to worship" the image of the Nazi state that he was building up, and "making the image speak" by being the spokesman himself. That was the line I was taking in my two threads on the two beasts.
For these reasons I'm inclined to see the Abomination as focussed on the worship of something human.


edit on 3-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Good comments and thread Disraeli.
I have similar views. I think that the placing of Zeus/Jupiter in the physical temple was a fore-shadow of the placing of equally idolatrous 'images' in the 'temple' (body of believers) mind. Revelation states that those saints who overcome the mark of the beast are those who 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) remain faithful to Jesus. Paul states that the "man of lawlessness" won't arise until the apostasy occurs, but as this means a departure from truth, I tend to view it as happening throughout the Age - that "man of lawlessness" may not necessarily refer to just one individual, but a term describing the Christian who departs from the truth by becoming lawless - those believing that Jesus destroyed the law and therefore any and all behaviour is acceptable as long as they have 'faith'. These are Christians who profess a faith yet none of their 'works' demonstrate Christ in them.

I lo



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 

Don't forget that the "man of lawlessnesss" also "proclaims himself to be God".
Arnold Toynbee has a phrase about "corporate self-worship" which I find very helpful, and it could be an important clue to what is happening in Revelation ch13.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

Yes, I would agree that the passage in Revelation and the "abomination" passage in Daniel are talking about the same thing.
But the question is how literally the words about "making them worship the image" are meant to be taken.
There are signs elsewhere that it is a human individual who is the object of worship - in 2 Thessalonians ch2 v4 the man "exalts himself against every so-called god...proclaiming himself to be God".
Then there is the point that the image in Revelation ch13 is an image of the "beast from the sea", and this beast has to be a political state (by analogy with the beasts from the sea in Daniel ch7). Can someone cause people to worship a poltical state? I would suggest that this is exactly what Hitler was doing at the Nuremburg rallies, "causing the people to worship" the image of the Nazi state that he was building up, and "making the image speak" by being the spokesman himself. That was the line I was taking in my two threads on the two beasts.
For these reasons I'm inclined to see the Abomination as focussed on the worship of something human.


edit on 3-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Good comments and thread Disraeli.
I have similar views about the abomination of desolation. It is something that desolated worship of God. I think that the placing of Zeus/Jupiter in the physical temple was a fore-shadow of the placing of equally idolatrous 'images' in the 'temple' (body of believers) mind. Revelation states that those saints who overcome the mark of the beast are those who 1) keep the commandments of God and 2) remain faithful to Jesus. Paul states that the "man of lawlessness" won't arise until the apostasy occurs, but as this means a departure from truth, I tend to view it as happening throughout the Age - that "man of lawlessness" may not necessarily refer to just one individual, but a term describing the Christian who departs from the truth by becoming lawless - those believing that Jesus destroyed the law and therefore any and all behaviour is acceptable as long as they have 'faith'. These are Christians who profess a faith yet none of their 'works' demonstrate Christ in them.

I look around me today at the millions of descendants of once faithful Christians who have forsaken God and who have Zeus/Jupiter in their mind as their creator - fallen angels posing as extraterrestrials. God promised to write His laws in the hearts of those who accepted Jesus as their Messiah, AND into the hearts of THEIR descendants - the millions of young adults who populate the western lands who have lapped up the science fiction indoctrination that is heavily promoting ETs as their creator (and soon to be saviour!). They now have broken "Thou shalt have no other God". As creation permeates the entire Bible, Satan had to attack this single most important commandment to love God with your whole heart and mind. There is truly no more effective method than the delusion of the theory of evolution to destroy the belief of God as Creator - the delusion allowed by God to separate out those who do not love the Truth - God is Truth. The sacrifice of a pig on the alter is equivalent to the eating of foods sacrificed to idols (consuming the doctrines of demons).

Likewise, the image and mark of the beast is stamped on anyone who does not obey the commandments of God and remain faithful to Jesus, for they have forsaken God for the beliefs of the world. You mentioned Hitler, and he effectively changed the beliefs of his countrymen through his ministry of Propaganda and Indoctrination through the use of film, radio and newspapers. Let's expand today's scenario with 100 tv channels and the Internet....it's the greatest source of indoctrination imaginable - free porn, occultism, lies and the doctrines of demons - all designed to create a desire and lust for those things that God asks His Faithful to remove themselves from. A person hooked on pornography will despise the idea of a God who detests such corruption, likewise a person duped into occultism, alternative lifestyles and adultery will reject God because their love of the lust is stronger than ever seeking God in the first place. Our own Minstry of Propaganda and Indoctrination has changed the belief system of millions from the commandments of God to one of lawlessness simply by creating and promoting the love of sin and reclassifying it from evil to good. The beast owns them in mind and actions, and unless they seek God for the Truth, they will perish never having understood that the power of God is there for those who love the Truth - that Jesus was the ransom to separate His Sheep out of the beast's kingdom.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
They are political entities that have parallel fulfillment's, in different times.
The first was one for bible times, when the bible was not yet complete.
The second one would come in our time the 21st century.

1st=Roman Empire and it's armies, especially when it occupied and destroyed Jerusalem from 66 AD - 70 AD
As Jesus warned 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),


Another bible say in parenthesis "let the reader use discernment" it's the only place in the bible this specific direction is given to all would be readers, WHY? Because the reader has to come to understand that this has a minor and major fulfillment like much of Matthew 24 does.

Thus the second fulfillment would not be at a singular geographic event, but world wide and it would involve another political entity, that has the ability to effect the entire world, which is the United Nations



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I've got an enormous problem equating Matthew ch24 with the events of A.D. 70.
Everybody says they match, but they don't, because the events are in the wrong order.

Matthew gives the sequence;
1)Abomination
2)Flight of believers
3)Troubles and wars.
The Abomination amounts to being the cause of the other two

But A.D. 70 (identifying the Abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem) has got the sequence;
1) Flight of believers
2) Troubles and wars
3) Abomination
The supposed Abomination is reduced to being the aftermath of the other two

That's why I was going back to first principles and examining what the phrase actually means, ie;
Abomination= idolatrous object of worship
Desolation= the fact that the idolatrous object of worship is displacing the legitimate object of worship.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I've got an enormous problem equating Matthew ch24 with the events of A.D. 70.
Everybody says they match, but they don't, because the events are in the wrong order.

Matthew gives the sequence;
1)Abomination
2)Flight of believers
3)Troubles and wars.
The Abomination amounts to being the cause of the other two

But A.D. 70 (identifying the Abomination with the destruction of Jerusalem) has got the sequence;
1) Flight of believers
2) Troubles and wars
3) Abomination
The supposed Abomination is reduced to being the aftermath of the other two

That's why I was going back to first principles and examining what the phrase actually means, ie;
Abomination= idolatrous object of worship
Desolation= the fact that the idolatrous object of worship is displacing the legitimate object of worship.





No Matthew 24 gives the signs all the way to verse 14 including troubles and wars as the first then the abomination second, followed by flight to survive, then tribulation last. You need to track the other gospel accounts too.
What was the abomination and who was it an abomination too? It was the Romans with there pagan ensigna's and ideology attacking and placing themselves within the temple walls, this was sacrilege to the Jews, not so much to the new Christians. As this was no longer a center of worship for them. But it was a clear sign for them to flee the region of Judea as Jesus commanded. Those that did, survived the brutal years that followed in that area.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

For the sake of safety, even the Christians would have had to flee long before the Romans got into Jerusalem.
And indeed church tradition records that they did just that, fleeing to Pella.
It would certainly not have been safe to hang around until the Romans destoyed the Temple; yet in Matthew ch24 the Abomination itself is the signal for flight, and not anything that happens beforehand. So if their flight came before the Abomination, the events are in the wrong order.

I can't help thinking that if we identify Matthew ch24 with A.D. 70, even as a "first fulfilment", we play into the hands of those who would restrict it to A.D. 70 and turn it into a prophecy after the event.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

For the sake of safety, even the Christians would have had to flee long before the Romans got into Jerusalem.
And indeed church tradition records that they did just that, fleeing to Pella.
It would certainly not have been safe to hang around until the Romans destoyed the Temple; yet in Matthew ch24 the Abomination itself is the signal for flight, and not anything that happens beforehand. So if their flight came before the Abomination, the events are in the wrong order.

I can't help thinking that if we identify Matthew ch24 with A.D. 70, even as a "first fulfillment", we play into the hands of those who would restrict it to A.D. 70 and turn it into a prophecy after the event



Your correct but you need to look at history a little closer, General Gallus attacked and undermined the temple wall in 66 AD, but suddenly withdrew for reasons unknown, this was the window for Christians to flee, then General Titus came in 70 AD and finished the job. The Abomination was 66 AD, as there was penetration to a holy place by pagans that shouldn't have been there. Why else does the bible specifically direct that the reader of this specific bible verse needs to use discernment in this particular instance, more than other area's of the bible? Because the chance of getting it wrong was much higher.

edit on 6-5-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The Abomination was 66 AD, as there was penetration to a holy place by pagans that shouldn't have been there.

But the case of this thread is that it takes more than that to make an Abomination.

Look through the Old Testament at all the places where the word "abomination" is used. You will find that an "abomination" is an object of idolatrous worship; it is used of a god other than the God of Israel; it is used of an image of such a god; it is used of objects which belong to the worship of such a god. When Antiochus set up the image of Jupiter, it was an Abomination because it was being offered as an object of worship.

The mere fact that the Romans had set foot on the Temple was not being offered as an object of worship, so it doesn't match the meaning of the word "abomination".

I go back to my primary point that we need to understand the meaning of the phrase "abomination of desolation" before we try to identify it;
It is called an "abomination" because it offers an alternative object of worship.
It is called "of desolation" because it displaces the legitimate object of worship.
The temporary arrival of the Roman soldiers did neither of those two things.





edit on 6-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





I go back to my primary point that we need to understand the meaning of the phrase "abomination of desolation" before we try to identify it; It is called an "abomination" because it offers an alternative object of worship. It is called "of desolation" because it displaces the legitimate object of worship. The temporary arrival of the Roman soldiers did neither of those two things.


From your perspective yes, but this is to be taken from the perspective of Jews practicing Judaism living in Jerusalem, which by your definitions and explanations would all be true to them, not to the new Christians, you are so close to seeing this correctly.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

My definition of "abomination" is taken from the Jewish usage of the Old Testament.
It is in the Old Testament usage that an "abomination" is an object of idolatrous worship.
Why not take up a concordance and look through the passages for yourself?

Or does your comment, which is slightly ambiguous, mean that the Jewish understanding is not the one to be followed?
I think the meaning of the phrase is the same either away; whether we apply it to Jews or Christians; it needs to be something which offers an alternative object of worship and obstructs the legitimate worship.
You are taking "abomination" to mean something which defiles,I think, but the meaning is a lot more specific than that.

We need to understand what the phrase means before we try to identify it.
If you disagree with my definition, please offer your own.



edit on 6-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





It is in the Old Testament usage that an "abomination" is an object of idolatrous worship.


I agree, but their pagan insignia's and deities brought by the Romans were worshiped by the Romans so it was idolatrous, to the Jews and Christians, who weren't worshiping them especially in Jerusalem. Pagan idols in a holy place would be disgusting to the Jewish people, "An Abomination"



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

It is not enough for Roman images to be there; they need to be deliberately presented to the people as substitute objects of worship. That's the significance of the Antiochus Epiphanes parallel.
What the Romans brought with them in A.D. 66 were not, at the time, being offered as objects of worship for God's people in Jerusalem (abomination) and they were not, at the time, preventing God's people from carrying out their traditional worship (desolation).

To sum up, the present candidates for "abomination" in that war are
a) The fact that the Roman soldiers touched the temple in A.D. 66, which doesn't match the definition.
b) What the soldiers did to the Temple later,which doesn't match the order of events in Matthew.





edit on 6-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




It is not enough for Roman images to be there; they need to be deliberately presented to the people as substitute objects of worship.


And that is an just an opinion presented as fact, this is why you as the reader of the verse simply don't understand it yet.
I hope you understand it in the future, because we need to understand the second major fulfillment to survive that "great tribulation" that is incoming. I wish you well in your continuing studies.

edit on 6-5-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I draw my opinion from the Old Testament usage of the relevant words.
It is a fundamental principle of interpretation; understand the intended meaning of the phrase before trying to apply it.
Unthinking acceptance of the standard assumptions can sometimes be misleading.






edit on 6-5-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join