₦airaland Forum

@belloti,

I understand your concerns and should recognise your call for peaceful co-existence between people of various religions.

The problem many people have, however, is that Muhammad set a precedence for killing people indiscriminately, so that it becomes necessary to ask what criteria are used for judging one as "innocent" and another as "guilty".

Take for instance, even when modern Muslims are claiming now that Islam says NO to the killing of "innocent" souls, whose regional sovereignty are they defending when they kill converts from Islam to other faiths?

One really couldn't blame the originator of the thread because that's what they're taught to believe by rote. You can't believe that some Muslims would quote the inspired writings of Paul and all the while stewing a seething and lifelong hatred towards that blessed servant.

Bottomline, Muhammad is not in the Bible and Paul was not a false prophet or teacher.

Yes, that's what's happening to you - blindess of both. Keep crying until the day the true God will open your eyes and mind to see the polytheism ("WE created" in Islam. May He have mercy on your cries.

Logical:
Intellectual opinions reside outside the christian world because they are widely accepted opinions, example of such opinions which are based on fact are:-

1. Taking the life of another individual is wrong.
2. Telling lies is an inapproprite act.

This opinions are well proven, and the basis of that stance are widely accepted by any human being.

So, if your definition of "intellectual opinions" reside outside the Christian world, could we safely conclude that the items you listed below reside within the Islamic world, such as -
1. Taking the life of another individual - (which you have acknowledged is wrong)
2. Telling lies - (which again you said is inappropriate)??

LAHLAXZA:
@m4malik

There is no need to wellcome me back on earth if i was here all the while.

Perhaps sleeping all the while you thought you were on earth, shébi?

LAHLAXZA:
And to the rest of your comments blah blah blah,

Precisely, because it's the yada-yada noise you've been making on the Forum.

Kenya:
As I said before, The first verses I Corinthians 3:16,17 & 6:19,20 pointed out the fact that the holy spirit lives within the human body.
Allah said in the translation that he lives within us and that our bodies are a temple that we must respect and take care of. The spirit of Allah living within us all.

Where in the Qur'an did Allah tell you he lives within us, or that the spirit of *Allah* is living within us all?

elaiho:
some web site says
The "End Days" will begin 3rd August 2006, with the destruction of Jerusalem.
The Earth will then be struck by a comet before 16th September 2006.
These times will end with a hail of rock from space during 2012, and yada'yada'yada

Their deductions are guided by the ever controversial "Bible-Code"
http://www.exodus2006.com/3code.htm

Well, in the part of the world where I live, it's already 3rd August 2006. I'll keep an eye open to follow the news if the destruction of Jerusalem begins today - including the Dome of the Rock Mosque there. Thing is, I believe in the End of Days, but I'm not one for calculating dates based on some mystifying code.

As long as the couple concerned is not priding themselves in their pre-wed pregnancy, the church should seek to help them do the right thing instead of condemning or ostracising them. My fear is that, sometimes there is the abuse that crops up thereto - that if it was okay in one case, then several people will say it doesn't matter anymore so it becomes the norm.

Jesus didn't condemn the woman taken in adultery - in the very act. But He did warn her to go and sin no more (John 8:4, 10-11). While not condoning what is wrong, people should not be ostracised for having failed in some situation or the other, as long as they seek to do the right and not keep up with living in open sin.

Let the couple choose the colour of their dress sense. Afterall, who knows if some with flat stomachs have not done worse than the 'pregos'? Oooops!!

nuru:
We have created you from a single pair and made you into nations and tribes, surely the best among you in the sight of God is the most pious of you '-- Quran

Who are the "WE" in this claim of creating people from a single pair - Allah or his associates?

Does creation belong alone to *Allah* or to several besides him who also claim "WE have created you"?

My dear @syrup,

Now perhaps you see why my reply to yours was "succinct" earlier on - no use arguing with people who can't see what the scriptures say, because they can only see one verse and treat it in isolation.

Bobbyaf:
I will repeat for emphasis. There is one law giver who is God, but different codes of laws for different purposes.

>>>> suryp:

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner [/b]shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

One Law.       One Manner of Law.        One Law and One Manner.

Bobbyaf:
Since you're not enlightened about this topic I will facilitate you. I'd rather listen to what the bible has to say than your assumptions, because its obvious you love to assume. Let us see if you can continue to deny the word:

Is he really listening to the Word or pushing his own assumptions? And where is it stated that Adam kept the Sabbath - in the Word or his own assumptions?

Bobbyaf:
[b]Exudus 31:18
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Clear as day! The 10 commandments were written by God Himself, and not by Moses. Here is yet another reference that is clear as day Syrup, , although I am not so sure you'll be sweet after this one:

Exudus 32:15,16
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written
16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
.

Exodus 32 does not end in verse 16!!

Exo 32:19 >>  And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Exo 34:1 >> And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Exo 34:2 >> And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Exo 34:27 >> And the LORD said unto. Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Exo 34:28 >> And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote  upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments

The commandment written by God's finger was broken; Moses was instructed to write the same words in the second sets of tables. It was written by the hand of Moses.

This is what happens when people treat verses in isolation to drive their assumptions. That was the reason I left off the argument - you can't make a man see what he does not want to see.

Dear @Bobbyaf,

You keep making the same mistakes over and over again. When carefully considering the whole event of the prophecy in Daniel 9, you'll find that verses 26 through 27 is a whole picture of a sinister individual (no doubt with an army) who wrecks havoc in the holy place. The problem with some interpretations is that in Daniel 9:27 they see Christ; but when in Matt. 24:15 Christ Himself made reference to the same Daniel's prophecy, they no longer see Christ there.

Secondly, you're reading things into it that are not there, and it's only understandable because you're being carried along by the word 'covenant'. Why do you think that the 'New Covenant' is in that text when it actually is not? The new covenant is ratified as an everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20), so it could not be the same as you're reading in Daniel 9:27 which is only for one week!

If you keep reading "Christ" into Daniel 9:27, you'll continue to have the same problems with Matt. 24:15. Take your eyes off commentaries for a moment and prayerfully read the whole texts in their contexts, and you'll see that Christ is neither the figure in Daniel 9:27 nor in Matt. 24:15. It is not the Messiah who wrecks the havoc in Dan. 9, nor is He the one who does so in Matt. 24. You can't see Him in one text and refuse to see Him in the other text that makes reference to the same thing. And because it is clear that Christ is not the figure called "the abomination of desolation" in Matt. 24, it equally does not apply to Him at all in Dan. 9.

Ol'boy, leave the thread open for more inputs from those who might have one or two things more to say. I noticed you're in a hurry to call for the closing of a thread - wetin U dey fear sef? "Deep calleth unto deep" and "iron sharpeneth iron" - let the discussion continue.

This is the way I see it: the Gospel should never be watered down to please anybody - otherwise, that would result in a perversion of the Word of God, the very thing that He warns us against. It doesn't really matter to me if some people feel this way or that and then complain that it casts a shadow of doubt to them. Be not afraid or anxious to believe what God has declared - the opinions of men do not stand up to the established Word.

Second, there are not three "gods" but one; and this one God has revealed Himself in the Trinity comprising the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all and alone co-eternal, the very same in essence. To state that there is only one person in the Godhead is to push monism rather than monotheism. Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of the Father - and He is not the Father Himself nor the Holy Spirit.

@syrup,

Well done - I would've said pretty much the same things as you did in your thesis.

However, I was being facetious about my reply to your questions because I didn't really want to repeat myself over an issue. Perhaps, if someone doesn't want to see the flaws in their arguments, it's just of no use holding it out.

@lordimpaq,

You're right that the sabbath day is saturday. However, the question before us lately has been about if Christians were supposed to keep the sabbath day as found in the Mosaic law. As Christians, is there anything wrong in not observing a Saturday sabbath and instead worship God on the first day of the week - Sunday?

I bear witness that My Creator, My God is One as found in the Biblical faith, and and confessed by all who have experienced His Love in His beloved Son Jesus Christ. I also bear witness that Muhammad is not His messenger and prophet in as much as the true and living God does not approve of a sinner as His messenger.

Islam has never been easy for me to practise.

LAHLAXZA:
I do not live on another planet buddy , i speak for myself with regards to prior comments, i can't answer for others.And no the Qur'an does not teach us to be violent without reason.It is fine if you want to believe otherwise .Your "charities" are definitely not appreciated here, you can keep them to yourself.

Welcome back to planet earth (psst: and what's that frown doing your face?)

The Qur'an teaches you to be violent all the same - you only need a "reason" to spin off, yes?

Wasn't selling my "charities" to you, so just tune off if you don't like 'em. As long as a post calls for my inputs, I won't be needing to fill out a form for your permission before I make 'em.

My dear nuru,

Blind, deaf and dogmatic are adjectives you use for a person who refuses to consider the obvious polytheism in the Qur'an - e.g., YOU.

My questions received no answers from you and you have the temerity to call me deaf and prejudiced - because you can't see that there's no oneness in 'WE created'? Where is the oneness in the plural pronoun "WE" as used of 'Allah' in the Qur'an? Who actually are the 'WE' in that statement? It's either there's only one creator ('I created' - singular), or there are several of them as in the Qur'an ('WE created' - plural). Is that too difficult for you to understand?

The "Allah" of the Qur'an is not my God, for he is nothing like the true and living God in the Bible. If you have no answers, I'd understand that. But to be additionally arrogant in addressing me as you've done only makes matters worse.

olabowale:
@m4malik. Have you ever read the Qur'an, let alone studying it. this is a book without no equal.

You must also know that the enemies of Islam are many and have existed as soon as the messenger declared his prophetship (AS). In the 19 century England, there was a member of parliament who gave a speech that was very anti islam and in ending of that speech tore up a Qur'an to emphasis his hatred. Immediately, another member got up and told him that even if you gather all the Qur'an copies that are on earth and destroy them all at once, it will not have any impact on this religion because the Qur'an is already memorized and is in the heart of all Muslim. Allah Himself is protecting it.

My concerns really is for you because Allah has promised a double portions of punishmentfor those who believed and then afterwards disbelived.

My dear Sir,

There are three salient issues I would like to deal with in your last reply, and I hope you would not be upset with my honesty.

(1) Indeed I have both read and studied the Qur'an - and it was precisely because of that I left Islam, although it took me several months to openly declare my change of faith to my family (for fear of its consequences). There were questions that had no answers, and all I ever got from Muslim friends and leaders were stern looks to 'shut up and ask no further questions'. Certainly, I came to find the Qur'an as a book without rivals or equals in its inconsistencies, something which I had accused the Bible of previously. . . until Jesus Christ became real to me in salvation.

(2) Certainly sir, the enemies of Christianity are multitudinous and most of them have derided and maligned Jesus Christ, and continue to do so even up to the present. Who have arraigned themselves as sworn enemies of Christians by word and deeds more than any other people group? You know it's Muslims. The typical Christian attitude towards a convert to Islam is prayerful intercession and friendship in hope that such would someday rediscover the unfailing love of Christ and come back to Him before it proves too late. However, the typical attitude of Muslims towards a Christian convert from Islam is outrage and the desire to behead or kill them - and that is what most of them understand the Qur'an teaches. Ask yourself why Muslims would go to the extent of raping a Christian woman all in the game of expressing outrage at her conversion? Her family is not safe, neither are their persecutors at rest until they see them dead.

In my conscience before God, I reject a system of beliefs that promotes sexual vices among its adherents as a weapon against humanity. That is ungodly and thoroughly evil; and until Muslims throw away their hate against people of other faiths, it's really of no use pretending all's well in Islam.

(3) Salvation is not predicated upon wrong beliefs about God; and I fear no religion or "god" who threatens hail and brimestone on people, when in fact immorality and sin dogged the career of its prophet. If Jesus was righteous, as He surely was so regarded even in Islam, then I long to know His saving power to deliver from sin and wickedness, especially from the kind promoted in my former religion under the excuse that a "prophet" received them by "revelation".

God gave me a bold step of faith to stop making excuses for any prophets and objectively examine their claims. At the end of the day, that boldness (albeit I 'secretly' read the Bible) translated into the discovery and experience of God's true mercy in Jesus Christ. Please, take a moment someday and ask God to show you who Jesus Christ really is - and I guarantee you He will never disappoint you. Do it soonest. God bless.

My dear nuru,

English has rules of grammar is not confusing - it's either a singular pronoun (I, ME, MY, or MINE) or a plural pronoun (WE, US, OUR, or OURS). "Allah" in the Qur'an used the plural pronouns "WE" in "WE created".

Simple question - Who are the 'WE' in 'WE created'?

You keep going round in circles dodging this question. Is it because the truth is obvious - that Islam is actually polytheistic but just brags that it is not? With whom did Allah create the world that he could not have used the singular pronoun "I created" instead?? Who are the 'WE' in 'WE' created?

@Bobbyaf & Dru,

I notice you both have some difficulty being consistent with your convictions, and you're not making it any easier for your pals. In a moment you stated that the figure in Daniel 9:27 that causes desolation was Jesus or Christ, and Bobby you went on to quote Matt. 24:15 as confirming that. However, you stated retracting on that assertion when you saw that the context does not give credence to your previous idea, so that while Dru denies her previous assertion that she saw Christ in the texts, for Bobby the Jesus you earlier saw in those texts becomes a Roman Emperor! Let me show you -

In reference to Daniel 9:27

Drusilla said:

Drusilla:

[size=10pt:
m4malik[/size] link=topic=19243.msg533647#msg533647 date=1154278828]
To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether. You've completely jumped off the previous verse that identifies the one who causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - he's "the prince that shall come", and who destroys the city and the sanctuary (v. 26). Is that Jesus as well?

Malik,

The he in verse 27 refers to Christ. Not to the antiChrist.

And Again,

Drusilla:

Malik,
Here is another. According to the way you are reading Daniel, we must believe the "he" in verse 27 is talking about the Anti Christ mentioned in verse 26 and NOT to Christ mentioned in all 4 verses.
. . .

So the idea that the Daniel Verse 9:27 MUST refer back to the antiChrist in verse 26 because he is the last one talked about, does not pan out.

It's just not true. The verse refers to the Messiah.

Now you can see that Drusilla was convinced that the fugure in Daniel 9:27 was Christ, the Messiah.


The Case of Matthew 24:15

Now tying the strings together, Bobbyaf introduces Matt. 24:15 and said -

Bobbyaf:

[size=10pt:
m4malik[/size] link=topic=19243.msg533647#msg533647 date=1154278828]
To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether.

@ Malik

The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah, lets take another look at the grammer again, . . .

The He in verse 27 is a continuation of the main subject, ie the Messiah who was the only person who made the sacrificial system null and void through His death, being the same thing as "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

Also in verse 27 the expression "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation" is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words when he said:

Matthew 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

The "he" is Jesus again telling us that he will make jerusalem desolate even until the end, whih is the same thing as saying shall make it desolate, even until the consummation The word end and consummation mean the same thing, and of course the word end would naturally mean the end of this system of things.

So, Bobby says that the figure in Daniel 9:27 "clearly has to be Jesus the Messiah", and he next quotes Matt. 24:15 to buttress his assertion, making the inferences that (1) "is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words" that Dan. 9:27 was pointing to the Messiah; (2) the "he" is Jesus who would make Jerusalem desolate even until the end.

So far so good until. . . the moment you both began to realise that the contexts of the texts you quoted did not give credence to your assertions, you began to retract and renege on your earlier convictions. Take a look -

Drusilla:

Malik,

The word Abomination there does not refer to a person. Period. Not Jesus nor the antichrist. It is a hated event of desolation for the Jews. If it had of refered to a person, it would have been a different word.

And Bobbyaf? This is his reneged opinion -

Bobbyaf:

The reference  "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

Whatever happened to your earlier conviction that - "The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah"?? So, which is it in Daniel 9:27 - "Jesus the Messiah," or "the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor"??

This is just my observation, and the reason I have begged time and again that you guys just calm down and prayerfully consider any text before you pour out anything. None of us is above mistakes; but I hardly know what to do with a mistake that is strongly opinionated without carefully reading texts in their contexts.

Drusilla:
I would just like to ask if the Jews may have not experienced a great tribulation at that time? Do you think they were sitting in mountains of Judea, thinking to themselves that there was something worse to come, than the slaughter of over a million Jews and the rest taken as slaves, and their temple and such destroyed?

Again, the answer to your question is in that very verse, and perhaps you'd like to look at it again - "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24:21). Notice a few things about the tribulation spoken of here:

     (a) it would be "such as was not since the beginning of the world"

     (b) "to this time" (at the time Christ spoke)

     (c)  "no, nor ever shall be"

Nothing in history was comparable to the tribulation that would befall the Jews as Jesus prophetically declared in that verse. There have been times in history when Jews came under heavy tribulation - during Daniel's time as well when the Jews were carried off captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; back in AD66 and AD70; . . . and not too long ago in the last century when Hitler murdered millions more then at anytime in history. All these are not to be compared to the tribulation spoken of by Jesus, for there would be none like it in the history of the world, no, nor ever shall be!

Drusilla:
As you know scriptures have meaning for more than one time period. Isreal is an an example to us.

Glad you know that, and it helps to very carefully consider all things before fixating our idea on any particular interpretation of events.

Drusilla:
Why would the bible call any human being an "idolatry", when there is a perfectly good greek word for "idolater"?

I'm not the writer of the Bible, only shared what I saw there. It is in carefully reading the context and construct of that verse that in fact most commentators are agreed that "abomination of desolation" could not be referring to an event but rather to a person or persons who shall "stand in the holy place" (Matt. 24:15). They would see the figure (whether an individual or group of persons collectively) stand in the holy place as a sign for them to understand the events that would follow.

Drusilla:
The word Abomination there does not refer to a person. Period. Not Jesus nor the antichrist. It is a hated event of desolation for the Jews. If it had of refered to a person, it would have been a different word.

You'd have to speak to your commentators and convince them otherwise than they stated. Even Bobbyaf here does not agree with you -

Bobbyaf:
The reference "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

In any case, other commentaries on that verse mostly identify "the abomination of desolation" not as an event; but rather as either a sinister individual or an enemy army force.

Robertson's Word Pictures
"The desolation in the mind of Jesus is apparently the Roman army (Luke 21:20) in the temple, an application of the words of Daniel to this dread event."

Barnes (Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible)
"This is a Hebrew expression, meaning an abominable or hateful destroyer. The Gentiles were all held in abomination by the Jews, Acts 10:28. The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Luke 21:20. The Roman army is further called the “abomination” on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honors.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"This abomination of desolation, St. Luke, (Luke21:20-21), refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem; this, our Lord says, is what was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in the ninth and eleventh chapters of his prophecy; and so let every one who reads these prophecies understand them; and in reference to this very event they are understood by the rabbins."

The context of Matthew 24:15 does not identify "the abomination of desolation" as an event - as the event does not "stand in the holy place."

@Drusilla,

I beg you again to look at the text in Matthew 24:15. The exact words used in that text are -

οταν ουν ιδητε το βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως το ρηθεν δια δανιηλ του προφητου SBεστως TAεστος εν τοπω αγιω ο αναγινωσκων νοειτω.

Notice the two words emboldened in red - (a) βδελυγμα = (bdelugma) - detestation, specifically idolatory.
                                                                   
                                                         (b) ερημωσεως = (erēmōsis) - despoliation, pillaging, spoiling.

The word used for 'abomination' in that verse is not  ειδωλολάτρης (eidōlolatrēs) but βδελυγμα (bdelugma), and the latter is used in Greek to express something 'detestable' and specifically idolatory (See a Greek NT lexicon or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries).

At any rate, the question still stands as to if at all the figure called "abomination of desolation" refers to Jesus Himself? This is where a lot of commentators and Bible students get confused, because they understand that the context would not point to Jesus as "the abomination," and then they wonder if actually Daniel 9:27 was referring to Jesus in the first place. It is clear that those who say that Jesus was the one referred to in Matt. 24:15 are in fact calling Him "the abomination!" Does that make any sense according to the context?

@nuru,

Your concern for language - Yoruba or any other - is still missing the mark. My question was, is, and will continue to be -

Who do the WE in "WE created" refer to? To Allah alone, or to Allah and his partners? Who are his partners in the "WE"?

Notice the important qualifier - "created". If "Allah" is alone the only creator, there should be no "WE" in such a divine work, because then nobody should share in any way in that glory.

But if "Allah" is not alone the creator, by the constant use of "WE" in 'WE created', he has qualified himself with partners - and that is the essential thing you're failing to see.

Creation is something that only the creator is involved with - and if that's true, there should be no ambiguities about this and that immediately nullifies the 'WE' in the refrain.

Now, as concerning the numbers, how has that helped us to understand our relationship with God if Allah's number is 1 and he reduces everyone else to 0?

Dru, why don't you calm down and look at the context rather than snatch texts to drive a pretext? Read the whole context of Matt. 24:15-21 inclusive, please.

¹⁵When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand ¹⁶Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: ¹⁷Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: ¹⁸Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. ¹⁹And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! ²⁰But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: ²¹For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I think verse 21 gives the clue when the event in verse 15-20 inclusive will take place. This is the sad reason why all the major commentators got it wrong! Barnes et al said Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ; but when they came to Matt. 24:15, they were not so sure who was being referred to there! Why? Simply because when they got it wrong in Daniel 9, they expectedly got it knotted in Matthew 24. This is usually what happens when someone takes texts and treats them in isolation.

My basic question has been and still is: Is Jesus Christ the "idolatory" ("bdelugma" [Gk. βδέλυγμα]) that causes the "desolation" ("erēmōsis" [Gk. ερήμωσις]) spoken of by the prophet Daniel? Those who say 'yes' are calling Him the idolatory!

@Dru,

Matthew 24:15 -

ABOMINATION - bdelugma [Gk. βδέλυγμα], meaning detestation; specifically idolatory.

DESOLATION - erēmōsis [Gk. ερήμωσις], meaning despoliation, pillaging, spoiling.

Is Jesus Christ the "idolatory" that causes "despoliation"?

Just as an example of why I really don't lick the boots of commentators but rather get my understanding straight right out of Scripture, Barnes would see Christ in daniel 9:27, but he plays politics in Matt. 24:15 - go check it out. Unfortunately not all commentators are consistent with what they state.

@Dru,

Thanks for those references, but I'm usually not one to read commentaries before I've read the Bible. There surely are big names in the commentaries that have been much used by God. However, I'm not the one with the 'new' belief, and just because people have been preaching something for years doesn't mean that I'd have to swallow what they say if it does not correspond to what the Bible actually teaches. There's just no substance to the inference that the figure in Dan. 9:27 and Matt. 24:15 has to be Jesus Christ, unless such a person is bent on calling Him the 'abomination of desolation'.

Damest09:
If only i can understand myself

If only you could come close enough
If only you'd not try so hard to

Tunic

Both.


summer or winter?

Yunnan


Z

@Bobbyaf,

You guys just need to prayerfully consider the context of Scripture before you pour out anything. Please. If you are asserting that Jesus is the figure in Dan. 9:27, then try again looking hard enough at the context and identifying the traits of the one in that verse:

From verse 26 -

who is this personality? - he is "the prince that shall come" (clearly in reference to someone else)

what does he do? - he "shall destroy the city and the sanctuary"

what will mark his era? - (a) "the end thereof shall be with a flood"

(b) "unto the end of the war desolations are determined"

From verse 27 -

what else shall he do? - (a) "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week"

(b) "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

what characterizes this event? - "the overspreading of abominations"

what's his next move? - "he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation"

what's the effect of all this? - "that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"

Your use of grammar does not correctly identify this character, for you're misconstruing the figures the one for the other by the word "prince". When you made mention of Matt. 24:15, does it not become all the clearer that the character identified there could not be pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ? See again:

"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"

Here is a figure - an individual - called simply "the abomination of desolation". This sinister being is abominable in his character, causing desolation in his operations, and seeking to establish his base in the holy place. No one in their right mind would ever think that Jesus is the "abomination of desolation" unless such a person is saying that Jesus is abominable!!

Besides, the Lord Jesus was speaking prophetically of events in the endtime (see verse 3). So, He could not have been referring to Himself as the "abomination of desolation" that would cause such unspeakable catastrophe in the world at that time (verses 15-21 inclusive).