The Abomination That Causes Desolation

reply to post by pthena

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

Probably nothing.
I was thinking about something and then went into another topic.
I'm loosing my religion in like a death spiral, seeing how there really isn't one definitive, authoritative guided by the hand of God, word, out there.
Here's the link to the son of man thing,
www.biblicalstudies.ru...

reply to post by jmdewey60

I'm loosing my religion in like a death spiral, seeing how there really isn't one definitive, authoritative guided by the hand of God, word, out there.

Allow me then to put an end to your spiral.

We have been discussing physical Zionism, ie a constant never ending war of people trying to kill and take a city so that it can be the capital of the world, ruling over the world, and getting its tribute from the rest of the world.

That's physical Zion. Pretty ugly and bloody.

Hold that image in your mind as I say.

"But real Christianity is spiritual Zion." Now, does that make you feel better?

As for me: If the physical repulses me, then the spiritual repulses me more. That's why I'm not a Christian.

If Jesus rose from the dead, to go sit on a throne in heaven, then his spirit is no longer with us. If he did not, then his spirit is with us still. The spirit of Christ is not a book, it is one "as a son of man" who receives the inheritance on behalf of "the saints". The saints then are the ones who give what they have, rather than sit on a throne receiving tribute.

reply to post by pthena
I know you wrote this definition of the bread and wine on the . . .cautionary tale thread, which is going in that direction, as in what you are saying now. The new covenent, in a manner of speaking.
"My religion" is something more in the concrete, like what you were saying to hold for a minute. The book you can pick up and read with an assurance of reliability, explaining real historical events, where if we see how it worked in the past, we can project out into the future to see where history is going.
Maybe the job for magicians, soothsayers and fortune tellers. Not of practical value to ones living in a spiritual kingdom. Daniel would have been in the power center of the world empire so he could have a manual at hand to where if a king or ruler asks, he could say, "It's all written down right hear, as spoken by Gabriel." Of course only he could make any sense of it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Daniel would have been in the power center of the world empire so he could have a manual at hand to where if a king or ruler asks, he could say, "It's all written down right hear, as spoken by Gabriel." Of course only he could make any sense of it.

And Peter was in the would be power center of the world when this happened:

AC 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
. . .
AC 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

AC 4:36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

AC 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

AC 5:3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

AC 5:5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

AC 5:7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

AC 5:9 Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

AC 5:10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Jesus may not have made it quite plain to Peter that he was a black shaman, but it's obvious to me. You've read how Paul describes opposing Peter to his face, for duplicity. I would also charge him thus:

Me:" Why did you kill these people Peter?"

Peter: "It wasn't me. The Holy Spirit killed these people!"

Me: "Would they have died if you didn't think they should?"

Maybe James recognized in Peter the same thing that Jesus had. Maybe that's why James took over from Peter.

The Christ cannot to be used for a hierarchical purpose, disaster follows.

reply to post by pthena


Looks like he was possessed with the same spirit as the Levites.
The ones in Judges (we were talking about in the Descent thread), ordered hundreds of thousands of basically murders.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Levites aren't bad for being Levites (I have to believe that)

AC 4:36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement),

There is more textual evidence that Jesus himself was a Levite rather than of Judah, is there not? Why would his uncle be a priest? Why would his brother possibly be high priest?

So Levites have some skill for making up religions, not all religions are bad. Some are quite helpful.

reply to post by pthena
No, they would not be bad by default, maybe more by ambition.
Ambition would equate to evil since the tempting spirit is always there for those seeking personal advancements.
I was thinking of the Levite in Judges 18, and it seems to not name him for some reason.
But he ends up working for the tribe of Dan.

The priest said to them, “Go with confidence. The Lord will be with you on your mission.”

The mission being to destroy a whole city (including all its inhabitants) for no other reason than they needed one and the opportunity presented itself.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60
Levites aren't bad for being Levites (I have to believe that)

AC 4:36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement),

There is more textual evidence that Jesus himself was a Levite rather than of Judah, is there not? Why would his uncle be a priest? Why would his brother possibly be high priest?

So Levites have some skill for making up religions, not all religions are bad. Some are quite helpful.

It still says Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, which side of the family are we speaking of, he was not a blood relative of his father Joseph, maybe it was his cusons relatives where were more levite, I am not sure but that is the only thing that makes sense.

Hebrews shows us that the Lord rises out of Judah.

Verse 7: 14
" For it is evident that our Lord has risen out of Judah concerning which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priests.

Matthew 1:3
" And Judah begot Pharez and Zarah of Tamar and Pharez begot Hezron and Herzon begot Aram."

Revelation 5:5
Do not weep; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David has overcome so that He may open the scrools and its seven seals.

reply to post by The time lord

Hebrews shows us that the Lord rises out of Judah

Hebrews shows us what Christians taught to Christians.

Edit to add: Why really should it matter?

1CO 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

If you want a label for me, you may call me a Crypto Neo-Marcionite, I'm not aware if that label's been taken yet. As you know, or can at least look up, we take whatever we want from the scripture and leave the rest. Heresy? absolutely.

reply to post by The time lord

. . .he was not a blood relative of his father Joseph. . .

You don't see any irony in this statement?
To make sense, Jesus would be a descendant of his father, Joseph.
Also his mother, Mary, was most likely a Levite.
The Levites and Judah were very closely allied, in the Judges and Kingdom ages.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Do you see why I didn't want to stray into Christian territory?

Think of the story of the wheat and the tares. "Should we go out and take out the weeds?" they asked.
"No, let them grow together, you may accidentally tear out the wheat."

How can I take away the Messiah from the Christians without also taking away the Christ? Taking away the Christ is what I really want to avoid.

reply to post by pthena
Right, and I wanted some of your opinion on that son of man document and I think you gave it.
It was surprising to me because we are always given a one dimensional view of it and more in the proof text sort of way, when it is more about us, and our responsibility as recipients of whatever it is that is being dispersed.

So what are you guys trying to say because I'm kind of lost it does not make much sense where it is leading to.

1: Is the point stated that you believe Jesus the the Bible is not Christ born of virgin birth through the Holy Spirit?

2: If he has levite reletives he can not be from the ancient bloodline of Judah, bloodline is what counts he fulfills all humanity not just Jewish tribes as long as he held some historical connection.

3: Now he is the lamb makes all believers Jew or gentile spiritual decendants of Abraham so it does not matter afterwards.

4: So is the message here saying his real dad was Joseph and the story is made up, that is a common Jewish view which is not secret anyway and maybe it is written in their dna to strongly reject Christ untill the second coming which before hand will have the The Abomination That Causes Desolation in which Jews will be decieved and persecuted so History will repeat it self.

In Matthew 24:15, Jesus was speaking some 200 years after the abomination of desolation described above had already occurred. So, Jesus must have been prophesying that some time in the future another abomination of desolation would occur in a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Most Bible prophecy interpreters believe that Jesus was referring to the Antichrist who will do something very similar to what Antiochus Epiphanies did. This is confirmed by the fact that some of what Daniel prophesied in Daniel 9:27 did not occur in 167 B.C. with Antiochus Epiphanies. Antiochus did not confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years. It is the Antichrist who, in the end times, will establish a covenant with Israel for seven years and then break it by doing something similar to the abomination of desolation in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
Text

www.gotquestions.org...

Apart from that not sure where this thread was heading.

reply to post by The time lord

So what are you guys trying to say

I'm just a guy looking at the Abomination of Desolation and what that could be. This is a forum, I don't want to misrepresent any other member's views.

As for me. You can look up Marcion if you like, and get some idea where I stand. The "Neo" I put in front means I don't particularly follow Marcion, some of the views are similar. But I speak only for myself.

Originally posted by The time lord
So what are you guys trying to say because it does not make much sense where it is leading to.

1: Is the point stated that you believe Jesus the the Bible is not Christ born of virgin birth through the Holy Spirit?

2: If he has levite reletives he can not be from the ancient bloodline of Judah, bloodline is what counts he fulfills all humanity not just Jewish tribes.

3: Now he is the lamb makes all believers Jew or gentile spiritual decendants of Abraham so it does not matter afterwards.

4: So is the message here saying his real dad was Joseph and the story is made up, that is a common Jewish view no secret about that anyway.

I was saying some things about it. pthena was just commenting on something I brought up in another thread, so he was just repeating what I had told him a while back.
I am concerned about the genealogy of Jesus.
A long time ago, there was no such thing as in vitro fertilization so people did not understand how Mary could have become pregnant without lying with a man. Now we know better, giving us more options. I believe the holy spirit could have taken the seed from Joseph to impregnate her. That is very simple, in today's terms.
So Jesus would literally be a descendant of David. I don't see what is so difficult about that.
People all have two parents, so they have two bloodlines, one through the father and one through the mother, in this case Judah and Levi.
I, speaking only for myself, think the Gospel story is OK and I think it needs to be looked at without a lot of doctrinal and dogmatic baggage. Mary found herself inexplicably pregnant. Angel explained it to her.
Joseph found his intended to be inexplicably pregnant, the angel explained it to him. They got married, she had the baby and the child grew and flourished and became strong and intelligent.
The purpose of this thread is to look at the messianic and end time prophecies of Daniel and see if they can actually be interpreted in any meaningful way. So far with little results other than the conclusion that they were used to instigate wars.

I read this and you can say if it is true or not and that is up to you.

Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) was an utterly alien god; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it. Out of mercy, he intervened in the world to save humanity.[8]
Text

en.wikipedia.org...

Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to men in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.[8]
Text

In this case the Bible clearly states he was in body because he had the scares to prove it to his deciples but then again I am not sure what you believe I ma just going by this.



So there is two ways to see this point that this version of Jesus is alien like he did not make the earth.

Or like most Christians would react to it is to think that this is like most smaller type of Christian denominations that denouce Christ as lord and creator is a comon factor in smaller groups of believers.

Then many could argue that these smaller groups have more in common with another being who is less than their vesion of Christ who rules the world, some may say this is the shadow of one of Christ's adversaries.

It is not for me to argue here but I feel there are many smaller groups that all have the same thing in common and being conspiracy minded you can see where it is heading when making comparisons.

Like I said it has nothing to do with me in what individuals believe but as point of view it either is going to help or it might not, the message on ATS I believe are points of view to be shared.

reply to post by The time lord
The part of understanding I share the most in common with is this:

Marcion affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as His chief apostle. In contrast to the nascent Christian church, Marcion declared that Christianity was distinct from and in opposition to Judaism. Marcion did not claim that the Jewish Scriptures were false. Instead, Marcion asserted that they were to be read in an absolutely literal manner, thereby developing an understanding that YHVH was not the same god spoken of by Jesus, e.g. in the Genesis account of YHVH walking through the Garden of Eden asking where Adam was, Marcion read this to mean that YHVH physically walked through the Garden without foreknowledge of Adam's whereabouts. Marcion argued that this proved YHVH inhabited a physical body (unlike the Heavenly Father) and that YHVH was ignorant and without universal foreknowledge, attributes wholly incompatible with the Heavenly Father professed by Jesus
en.wikipedia.org...

.
I don't follow the idea that YHWH is creator, or that Jesus only seemed to be human.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I wanted some of your opinion on that son of man document and I think you gave it

I haven't actually read it yet, got distracted. See what word usage is for:

7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

DA 9:24 "Seventy `sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression

reply to post by pthena
MS Daniel 7:25
words against high will speak saints of the Highest and wear will intend to make time laws will be given his hand until a time times and half a time

u·mil·lin le·tzad il·la·ya ch il·la·'ah k ye·mal·lil, u·le·kad·di·shei el·yo·v·nin ye·val·le; ve·yis·bar le·hash·na·yah zim·nin ve·dat, ve·yit·ya·ha·vun bi·deh, ad- id·dan ve·'id·da·nin u·fe·lag id·dan.

This verse is actually entirely in Aramaic. There are four instances in the Bible with this spelling of changed, three in Daniel and one in Ezra.

Ezra 6:12 May God who makes his name to reside there overthrow any king or nation who reaches out to cause such change so as to destroy this temple of God in Jerusalem. I, Darius, have given orders. Let them be carried out with precision!

Daniel 6:8 Now let the king issue a written interdict so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed.

Daniel 6:15 Then those men came by collusion to the king and said to him, “Recall, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no edict or decree that the king issues can be changed.”

Not what you asked for. I'll do another post for the next word but I thought this was interesting.

reply to post by jmdewey60
It was "set times" that I underlined, not change.

From: The "One Like a Son of Man"
According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14
Benjamin E. REYNOLDS
University of Aberdeen
King’s College
Aberdeen AB24 3UB-UK
PP 71-

Footnote:
(2) There are only three known witnesses to the OG text of Daniel in existence today:
Codex Chisianus 88 (9th-11thcentury CE),

a Syriac version translated from the Greek called theSyro-Hexaplar (7thcentury CE),

and Papyrus 967 (2nd-3rdcentury CE).

Only Papyrus 967 is witness to the OG prior to Origen’s reworking of the Greek Old Testament into his Hexapla.

I. The Similarities between the "one like a son of man"
and the Ancient of Days

Four similarities between the "one like a son of man" and the Ancient of
Days can be noted in the OG. First, the son of man figure arrives like the
Ancient of Days. Second, the "one like a son of man" appears on the clouds of
heaven. Third, the Danielic son of man receives service that suggests cultic
worship, and fourth, those standing before the Ancient of Days approach the
"one like a son of man" and appear to stand before him.
1. The "one like a son of man’s" Arrival like the Ancient of Days
The most commonly noted and most significant verse in the OG of Dan 7
is v. 13, particularly line c. The entire verse reads: "I saw in a vision of the
night and behold on the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man.
And like the Ancient of Days he arrived, and those standing there came to
him."

So of course the OG English Translation changes "And like the Ancient of Days he arrives" to "And he came as far as the Ancient of Days" as is almost universally done.

When Jesus poured himself out completely, he did so, as the Father had done before him. "And like the Ancient of Days he arrives", that is, as not a discreet entity, but as spirit alone. The cloud is the symbol of "what you see is merely a vision of invisible reality".The "those standing there came to him" would also be what Jesus was thinking of when he said, "If you had known the Father, you would have recognized me..." "All that are the Father's come to me" "All that the Father has, has been given unto me" etc etc etc

Good find of this paper.