Thaddeus73 said:

---

The temple has already been rebuilt...

Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will rebuild it."

The OT prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus....

---

It take is incredible how much you have to disregard in order to " literally interpret" Dispensationalism.

Can you please point out where Ezekiel 37-39 were fulfilled? Also when was Daniel 9:27 fulfilled? Or Daniel 12? Or Isaiah 17?

I believe these are yet to be fulfilled. If that is the case, the question is will they come to pass and if so, what are the theological implications?

Cheetah01 said:

---

Can you please point out where Ezekiel 37-39 were fulfilled? Also when was Daniel 9:27 fulfilled? Or Daniel 12? Or Isaiah 17?

I believe these are yet to be fulfilled. If that is the case, the question is will they come to pass and if so, what are the theological implications?

---

I'll jump in here too.

This comes right back to viewing the scripture through a purely futuristic Old Testament lens and not how the Orthodox Church interprets Old Testament prophecy through a Christocentric, typological and liturgical lens.

Christ Resurrection, visiting Hades and conquering and death.

There is no giant Soviet Army, Gog or Magog etc…. Spiritual battle lasting until the End of Times.

Christ confirms the new covenant. His crucifixion permanently ends the need for animal sacrifice.
"Abomination and desolation" what is fulfilled with Romes destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Obviously, you got a point you have to quit trying to come out with your own interpretations or getting wrapped up in modern day geopolitics and British propaganda.

There are literally millions of Christian ancestors that came before you and entire Apostolic Church traditions that provide you assistance against these heresies.

At a point, you just have to let it go. I find most people who are wrapped up in this are wrapped up in it for political and cultural reasons and struggle to let it go as they identify themselves with it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Cheetah01 said:

---

Can you please point out where Ezekiel 37-39 were fulfilled? Also when was Daniel 9:27 fulfilled? Or Daniel 12? Or Isaiah 17?

I believe these are yet to be fulfilled. If that is the case, the question is will they come to pass and if so, what are the theological implications?

---

I'll jump in here too.

This comes right back to viewing the scripture through a purely futuristic Old Testament lens and not how the Orthodox Church interprets Old Testament prophecy through a Christocentric, typological and liturgical lens.

Christ Resurrection, visiting Hades and conquering and death.

There is no giant Soviet Army, Gog or Magog etc…. Spiritual battle lasting until the End of Times.

Christ confirms the new covenant. His crucifixion permanently ends the need for animal sacrifice.
"Abomination and desolation" what is fulfilled with Romes destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Obviously, you got a point you have to quit trying to come out with your own interpretations or getting wrapped up in modern day geopolitics and British propaganda.

There are literally millions of Christian ancestors that came before you and entire Apostolic Church traditions that provide you assistance against these heresies.

At a point, you just have to let it go. I find most people who are wrapped up in this are wrapped up in it for political and cultural reasons and struggle to let it go as they identify themselves with it.

---

Aw, I love when we agree on things!

It seems that ever since 2016ish, especially 2020, and now all the stuff with Israel, people are end times obsessed. I think the world should have ended like 17 times in the last few years. We barely made it out of the 2024 total eclipse.

I'm wrapped up in interpreting scripture accurately. That's it. No need to condescend.

Your response does not address my question, with the exception of the incorrect assertion that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the equivalent of "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel let the reader understand 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again."

Sorry, what Jesus said in Matthew 24 isn't what happened in 70 AD. Nor was Ezekiel 38-39 ever fulfilled.

I don't have a problem looking at an "Old Testament" lens. I just read what's been said and done. If a prophecy is not fulfilled, then either it will be or it's wrong.

I have never heard anyone say Matthew 24 is not about the destruction of the temple in AD 70...? For example St John says "He speaks of the Jewish wars coming upon them at no great distance" and "when Vespasian did those things."

I believe verses 1-2 are, but not the abomination of desolation. What Jesus and Daniel describe here is different.

Pilate put an image of Caesar in the temple, and Hadrian's statue was in the Holy of Holies. For example, St Jerome says

Quote:

---

Whenever we are urged to use our understanding, the meaning is shown to be mystical. But we read in Daniel this only: "And for half a week my sacrifice and offering will be removed, and the abomination of desolation shall be in the temple until the end of time, and the end will be given in abandonment." The apostle also said in this regard that the man of iniquity, the enemy, would rise up against everything uttered by God and would dare to stand in the temple and be worshiped as though he were God. After Satan's work is finished, however, Christ's coming will destroy all who raised themselves against him and will return them to the state of divine abandonment. This man of iniquity can be interpreted either simply as the antichrist, or as the image of Caesar which Pilate put in the temple, or as the statue of Hadrian the equestrian which still today stands in the Holy of Holies. Because the Old Testament normally calls the abomination an idol, the word desolation is added here to indicate that the idol shall be placed there resulting in the temple's abandonment and destruction.

---

St John Chrysostom, as mentioned

Quote:

---

And by abomination He means the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calls it, of desolation. Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, When ye see the abomination of desolation.

---

Or (much later) St Theophylact of Ochrid

Quote:

---

The "abomination of desolation" means the monument of the city's captor which he set up in the inner sanctuary of the temple. "Of desolation," because the city had been ravaged; "abomination," because statues and images of men were called "abominations" by the Jews, who hated idolatry.

---

Seems to me that the further removed people got from the reality of what Titus and later Hadrian did in Jerusalem the less clear their understanding of this became.

Anyway sorry just want to point out that the Church is Israel, there is no magic blood, heredity isn't a thing, a mixed multitude went out of Egypt. And in fact much of the NT is spent on this point, and that the firstborn of Abraham which flowed to Israel and not through Esau (and over and over this is an incredibly common trope in the OT prefiguring the elder son Israel outside as in the parable of the prodigal son) or that the promises about land were gained through faith by not Israel alone but also Edom and even the Caphtorites (thus imaging the receipt of the promises by faithful gentiles) and that all the land promises were completed in entirety by the end of Joshua, or that the land promises themselves were condition as shown by the disinheritance of Moabites, and later the Edomites, and later Israel themselves, as the Lord explained in the parable of the wicked tenants.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I'm wrapped up in interpreting scripture accurately. That's it. No need to condescend.

Your response does not address my question, with the exception of the incorrect assertion that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the equivalent of "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel let the reader understand 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again."

Sorry, what Jesus said in Matthew 24 isn't what happened in 70 AD. Nor was Ezekiel 38-39 ever fulfilled.

I don't have a problem looking at an "Old Testament" lens. I just read what's been said and done. If a prophecy is not fulfilled, then either it will be or it's wrong.

---

Your confidence in his "incorrect assertion" is bold. I suppose none of us can know with 100% certainty but history and scripture isn't exactly on your side. Matthew 24 (and Mark) is easily applied to 70AD.

In 168 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up a pagan altar and sacrificed a pig in the most holy place. (But this was before Jesus' prophecy).

In 69 AD, the zealots of Israel made their way by force into the temple and expelled the priests and the Jewish authorities and turned the temple into a military camp and committed all kinds of atrocities in the temple itself (can find information in Josephus' history).

Then in 70 AD, Titus sacked the temple, entering the Roman standard, viewed to be an idol, into the temple. (Abomination that causes desolation; could also be translated as "the devastating pollution"). He also carried off the lamp stand and other artifacts.

It would be unusual for people to flee FROM a city in a situation such as this, yet Christians did. Josephus reported that Christians heeded Jesus' warning and fled to the mountains while the Jews stayed within the walls (which was a typical thing to do). Many Jews perished, but Christians were not among them.

I must say, I am enjoying agreeing with Catholic and Orthodox posters for once!

I just so happened to read Romans 9 today and thought of this thread.

So you believe that "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now and never to be equaled again" happened in 70 AD?

Cheetah01 said:

---

So you believe that "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now and never to be equaled again" happened in 70 AD?

---

Do you know much about the siege of Jerusalem? It was utterly horrific.

I do. I just find it hard to believe that it was unequaled by any event in the history or future of mankind.

Do you also read verses 22 and 29-31 as having already occurred?

To me it seems clear that Jesus discussed what would occur with the temple verses 1-2 while walking with the disciples. Then, subsequently on the Mount of Olives, answered the disciples' three-fold question (which they viewed as one event and Jesus answered as three) about the destruction of the temple, the sign of his coming and the end of the age.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I'm wrapped up in interpreting scripture accurately. That's it. No need to condescend.

Your response does not address my question, with the exception of the incorrect assertion that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the equivalent of "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel let the reader understand 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again."

Sorry, what Jesus said in Matthew 24 isn't what happened in 70 AD. Nor was Ezekiel 38-39 ever fulfilled.

I don't have a problem looking at an "Old Testament" lens. I just read what's been said and done. If a prophecy is not fulfilled, then either it will be or it's wrong.

---

My attempt was not to be overly condescending.

You aren't going to get answers to your questions in the way that you want because historically these questions have never been addressed because they were never questions until recently and remain very fringe.

There are no Church Fathers debating this. The Orthodox and Catholic churches haven't called councils to debate on the issue because it is a far fringe belief system that 95% of Christians don't subscribe to.

Playful & Cheeky Fun Facts:

11-14% of Americans if you include non-evangelical Christians who hold informal, pop-theology views influenced by dispensationalism (Left Behind series) without formally studying the theology. It falls a bit from there, but let's start on the high side.

If you then take that across the planet with evangelicals making up something like 6% of the population, then 2 to 3% of the people share your belief system.

It's basically a theological conspiracy theory that does not hold water across the board. Some other conspiracy theories for context that I Googled.

Astrological Influence on Personality & Fate: 30%

Suppressed Cancer Cure: 24%

Reincarnation (in Western populations) : 22%

Extraterrestrials Disguised as Humans on Earth: 20%
Lizzid People - 4%
Secret Global Cabal / New World Order: 21%

Faked Apollo Moon Landings: 13%

Flat Earth Theory: 7%

Big Foot - 11%

Geocentrism - 9%

Flat earth and Geocentrism potentially have multitudes more believers.

I'm being a little bit cheeky (while trying not to be rude) just to point out and have you recognize that you are arguing an extreme fringe position compared to other well-known fringe theories. Many people in certain circles don't realize how fringe the position is.

You are no more likely to get the answers you seek than you are getting a CIA document saying "we killed Kennedy".

It's possible that you struggle to find the answers that you're seeking because the answers you're seeking don't exist.

That said… we all fall in love with unfalsifiable narratives because they make intuitive sense within our own heads. I believe the CIA did kill Kennedy and that's a semi fringe belief and I'm not going to accept claims otherwise as that's just what I believe and I'm not going to be moved off of it because there's really no way to prove me wrong. But it also doesn't make me right and I have to understand there's a strong possibility that I may be mistaken.

Zobel said:

---

---

Amazing! I feel like I should've watched that show.

Cheetah01 said:

---

I do. I just find it hard to believe that it was unequaled by any event in the history or future of mankind.

Do you also read verses 22 and 29-31 as having already occurred?

To me it seems clear that Jesus discussed what would occur with the temple verses 1-2 while walking with the disciples. Then, subsequently on the Mount of Olives, answered the disciples' three-fold question (which they viewed as one event and Jesus answered as three) about the destruction of the temple, the sign of his coming and the end of the age.

---

Tacitus and Josephus describe the destruction of the temple as a catastrophe of supernatural dimensions with armies appearing in the sky and a supernatural voice. The suffering was unparalleled. I guess it's subjective if anything worse has happened since.

v22 yes, makes perfect sense in the context of 70AD.

v29-31 reflects OT prophetic imagery. But, during 70 AD, contemporaries did report astronomical signs. A comet, shaped like a sword, for example. People in the ancient world were very superstitious about the appearance of comments. The pagan soothsayers interpreted the appearance of a comet signaled a radical political upheaval and the replacement of a king. Nero was terrified to such an extent that he had all his progeny murdered. In 66AD Haley's comet appeared over Rome and Nero committed suicide. During the destruction of Jerusalem, Josephus recorded a multitude seeing chariots and troops running about in the clouds and a voice saying, "Let us depart hence."

Daniel 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Jesus talked about the destruction of the temple - that happened, the sign of His coming - Jerusalem's destruction shows Jesus has received the Kingdom's authority, and the end of the age - that happened; it was inarguably the end of the Jewish age.

Haha…I can appreciate the humor and good natured response and it honestly did make me chuckle.

The reality however is that being in the majority does not equate to being correct. Nor is a historical teaching that survives for hundreds of years. Though as I mentioned earlier in the thread, millennial beliefs are found early in church history.

The thing I go back to, whether in the New or Old Testament, does the interpretation make sense? In my opinion, there are numerous prophecies in both that remain unfulfilled unless one stretches into an allegorical understanding that doesn't align with the words themselves.

These are all sound arguments and I appreciate the thorough response. I still don't align Jesus words there and the events that occurred with being cataclysmic on the scale of say the flood, the holocaust, the plagues, etc.

Given that, as well as what I believe are clearly unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies, not to mention the book of revelation itself, the premillennial, dispensational viewpoint carries greater weight with me.

Cheetah01 said:

---

Haha…I can appreciate the humor and good natured response and it honestly did make me chuckle.

The reality however is that being in the majority does not equate to being correct. Nor is a historical teaching that survives for hundreds of years. Though as I mentioned earlier in the thread, millennial beliefs are found early in church history.

The thing I go back to, whether in the New or Old Testament, does the interpretation make sense? In my opinion, there are numerous prophecies in both that remain unfulfilled unless one stretches into an allegorical understanding that doesn't align with the words themselves.

---

I'm glad you took that as intended. I knew that would be your response. We just see things different.

Just remember when you say "millennial beliefs are found early in church history," you're thinking of Early Church Premillennialism, held by Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. But historic premillennialism had no pretribulation rapture, no two separate redemptive tracks for Israel and the Church, and no dispensational division scheme.

Not the same thing and the Orthodox firmly views premillennialism as an ancient theological error that misunderstands the apocalyptic symbolism of Revelation.

We covered that earlier. I don't think we disagree here as to definitions but just in beliefs

Have a good one

Cheetah01 said:

---

Haha…I can appreciate the humor and good natured response and it honestly did make me chuckle.

The reality however is that being in the majority does not equate to being correct. Nor is a historical teaching that survives for hundreds of years. Though as I mentioned earlier in the thread, millennial beliefs are found early in church history.

The thing I go back to, whether in the New or Old Testament, does the interpretation make sense? In my opinion, there are numerous prophecies in both that remain unfulfilled unless one stretches into an allegorical understanding that doesn't align with the words themselves.

---

Do you believe a beast as described in Rev 13 is going to walk out of the sea?

Cheetah01 said:

---

These are all sound arguments and I appreciate the thorough response. I still don't align Jesus words there and the events that occurred with being cataclysmic on the scale of say the flood, the holocaust, the plagues, etc.

Given that, as well as what I believe are clearly unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies, not to mention the book of revelation itself, the premillennial, dispensational viewpoint carries greater weight with me.

---

Death numbers and scale of suffering aside, I don't think you're giving enough weight to what the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple meant from a spiritual perspective.

Of course not. When the scripture is clearly allegorical, we have an obligation to interpret it, usually using context and other scripture. I don't think the moon will literally turn to blood either.

That said, I don't think the nations listed in Ezekiel 38-39 are allegorical. They are actual historical places from the time when the prophecy occurred. Additionally, I don't think Jesus was speaking in allegory in Matt 24 as he gave no obvious indication that he was doing so.

Same to you friend

Cheetah01 said:

---

Of course not. When the scripture is clearly allegorical, we have an obligation to interpret it, usually using context and other scripture. I don't think the moon will literally turn to blood either.

That said, I don't think the nations listed in Ezekiel 38-39 are allegorical. They are actual historical places from the time when the prophecy occurred. Additionally, I don't think Jesus was speaking in allegory in Matt 24 as he gave no obvious indication that he was doing so.

---

Have you read any of The Jewish War? Understanding what happened in the years leading up to and the actual fall of Jerusalem, one would be hard pressed to argue against Matthew 24 and other prophecies not being about that event.