Let's study Matthew 24

[LaMontre]

LeMont, I continue to be confused by your responses. Do you think that I'm Amil??? I'm dispensational to the core.

Well, dispensational is not necessarily NOT Amil.

I am simply pointing out that the commentator you are espousing to support your view IS INDEED Amil "to the core". Which will affect (literally) ALL of his eschatological beliefs.

But that doesn't mean that I buy every jot and tittle of the standard dispensational line. With a few glaring exceptions, I don't have much problem with most of the points below. The AC is alive and well today, and he isn't a Jew, he's Moslem. His revelation as the AC is what triggers the last half of Daniel's 70th week.

Ok, so what IS your point then?? :scratch

Now, LeMont, you're not playing along. So once again, "show me where in the book (of Daniel) it states, in the original Hebrew, that some entity will put an end to sacrifice and offering." I'm trying to make a point here, but I need your cooperation. You're supposed to give me some obvious passage, like So let's shortcut this process. Tell me, what specific Hebrew word in this verse is properly translated "sacrifice"?

In the KJV the word sacrifice is implicit. But if it is not the daily (or continual) "sacrifice" then what daily or continual "thing" do you propose it is that is taken away?

[Arkycharlie]

Well, dispensational is not necessarily NOT Amil.LM, surely you jest.
Ok, so what IS your point then?? I still want to know what it is that you can't discuss around here??? :hehee In the KJV the word sacrifice is implicit. But if it is not the daily (or continual) "sacrifice" then what daily or continual "thing" do you propose it is that is taken away?Nothing is taken away. In this particular verse, it says that those involved in the abomination of desolation will defect or turn aside from the faith continually.

Just as a point of information, I was not using Jerome to support anything that I am proposing. My only point was that much of Jeromes interpretation is still held today amongst dispensationalists, which I assume you are (as am I), and since the book was still sealed and concealed in his time, is most likely wrong. The idea that the AOD involves removing the "daily sacrifice" is among those wrong interpretations. It is also wrong because that is not what the Hebrew actually says. The only sacrifice and offering that was prophesied to be caused to cease in Daniel is in Chapter 9, and it was Yeshua who put a stop to it through His once for all sacrifice.

[LaMontre]

I still want to know what it is that you can't discuss around here??? :hehee Nothing is taken away. In this particular verse, it says that those involved in the abomination of desolation will defect or turn aside from the faith continually.

Just as a point of information, I was not using Jerome to support anything that I am proposing. My only point was that much of Jeromes interpretation is still held today amongst dispensationalists, which I assume you are (as am I), and since the book was still sealed and concealed in his time, is most likely wrong. The idea that the AOD involves removing the "daily sacrifice" is among those wrong interpretations. It is also wrong because that is not what the Hebrew actually says. The only sacrifice and offering that was prophesied to be caused to cease in Daniel is in Chapter 9, and it was Yeshua who put a stop to it through His once for all sacrifice.

Sheesh....took ya long enough.....

I disagree. :wave

[LaMontre]

....since the book was still sealed and concealed in his time

Wanted to address this point directly:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

It is clear that the last days began after Christs first coming.

And Jesus openned the book of Daniel in Mat 24:
Mat 24:15 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: )

This is the prayer (or perhaps command) that officially openned up the prophecy of Daniel.

[HeIsEnough]

I still want to know what it is that you can't discuss around here??? :hehee

Here you go...


[15] This board is traditional Pre-Tribulation Rapture, Pre 6 Seals, Pre 70th week, and Pre-Millennial Dispensational in our position of End Times Prophecy. We also believe in a literal 7 year Tribulation period, after the instantaneous Rapture of all regenerated believers in unison, during which God finishes His discipline of Israel and finalizes His judgments on the unbelieving world. In order to stay within our scriptural position and keep order and peace, all discussions on these topics must follow suit. Our Lord Jesus Christ told us that we won't know the day or hour of His return and to always be ready keeping watch.

[LaMontre]

Nothing is taken away. In this particular verse, it says that those involved in the abomination of desolation will defect or turn aside from the faith continually.

I would say that is obvious, and one would get that (by implication) from the verse. But I don't see that, "and shall take away the continual _______" should be inferred to read "faith" instead of "sacrifice".

After all, it is nestled between two references to the temple.

[Arkycharlie]

An excellent example of the futility of these "discussions". The objective is rarely to actually try and get to the truth. Rather, it is to show everyone else how much better informed we are than they are. I count myself as guilty as anyone. So I really should have known better. If you get the time sometime, dig into the Hebrew here. You might learn something.

[LaMontre]

An excellent example of the futility of these "discussions". The objective is rarely to actually try and get to the truth. Rather, it is to show everyone else how much better informed we are than they are. I count myself as guilty as anyone. So I really should have known better. If you get the time sometime, dig into the Hebrew here. You might learn something.

Thanks for caring enough to break it down for us. :tsk

[goinghome]

An excellent example of the futility of these "discussions". The objective is rarely to actually try and get to the truth. Rather, it is to show everyone else how much better informed we are than they are. I count myself as guilty as anyone. So I really should have known better. If you get the time sometime, dig into the Hebrew here. You might learn something.

I don't think that's very nice. I've had a lot of "discussions" (it's OK to call them arguments) with many posters. I know they want me to see the truth because they love God, and I want them to see the truth for the same reason. I'm in love with God and His Word, I believe knowledge of the truth really and truly does set us free. It's a passion that comes through sometimes as being disagreeable. But we all, most of us anyway, understand it's out of love that we stringently argue our points. And to LaMontre's defense, I've never seen him argue a point from his own vanity. I've been lurking here for years, and he is not one of this board's problem children. He's really good at discussing things and being straight to the point. You shouldn't assume he's arguing with you out of vanity, because that's not his style.

[HeIsEnough]

An excellent example of the futility of these "discussions". The objective is rarely to actually try and get to the truth. Rather, it is to show everyone else how much better informed we are than they are. I count myself as guilty as anyone. So I really should have known better. If you get the time sometime, dig into the Hebrew here. You might learn something.

Well Charlie, you did come here with a 'I'm in the know' sort of air about you.

If you have a teaching, just teach it. No need for the accompanying drama.

If everyone learned first how to interact with people, we wouldn't feel compelled to say "You might learn something." That sort of thing often invalidates the message.