According to the interpretation of Daniel usually used by those who argue that the end is near, the AntiChrist will put an end to the daily sacrifices. That would be a little hard to do unless they restart. May we assume that you reject the idea that those refer to the AntiChrist ?
This is a good question, Paul. I do believe these refer to the antichrist. Many orthodox Jews do sacrifices with foul for Passover and there may be a revival of some sacrifical offerings. However these texts do not say the temple will necessarily be in place for them. There may be a temporary setup for them until messiah, who they still look for appears. I may be wrong and a temple may be built, but with an earthquake in the picture the magnitude of what is prophesied for the region, I don't see it being the messianic temple.
Well Buz I did tell the truth. And you omitted significant facts to misrepresent the truth. Just as you omit Matthew 24:1-2 so you can misrepresent Matthew 24:3
I did show that the prophecies were all leading up to the destruction of the "magnificent buildings" - almost certainly the Herodian additions to the Temple. And you know full well that that invalidates your claims of "fulfilment".
So lets quote Matthew 24:1-2 so we know what Matthew 24:3 REALLY means - what events are referred to by "these things"
quote: 1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
Matthw 24:3 CONFIRMS what I said. The Olivet Discourse IS about events leading up to the destruction of the Heroidan additions to the Temple. Provided, that is, it is read in context.
That's just your strong ideological commitments speaking
You can't objectively that my interpretation is nonsense just because it means that the prophecy failed. That just represents a commitment to denying the possibilty that Biblical prophecies could fail.
Nevertheless I have read Daniel - and in the context of that book the Hellenistic kingdoms indeed are the best match for the feet of iron and clay. Daniel 2:43 for instance is a reference to the failed attempts to ally those kingdoms by marriage.
From reading Daniel and the history of the relevant period - chiefly the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who is a major figure in Daniel's "prophecies", but also the period leading up to it. Maccabees covers the relevant events in Israel. I have read other peoples views on the matter but I have also checked them out against Daniel and the history books.
So what is the basis for your claim that I am wrong ?
of the image. It must include 'nations' of this world before the return of Christ and all the way up to it. These nations most certainly must be represented and are in the imagery of 'iron and clay' and how these substances cannot cohere and will not and cannot ever melt into one. As is so clear when you look around to see what is happening now. When the stone cut, but not by hands, strikes those feet, all of the image tumbles and makes room for Christ's inheritance and his promise of re-creation.
Oh so I'm not objectively wrong, I just disagree with your interpretation. And you can't support your inteprretation other than assuming things that are not in evidence (that it MUST include "all" kingdoms up to the "return" of Christ) The Hellenic Kingdoms fit perfectly well and are clearly a focus of Daniel's concern as seen in other chapters.
Some, precious stones, many. Twelve stories of one precious stone topping another story of precious stone. Quite large, too. Trees bearing twelve different kinds of fruit on the same tree, for the healing of the nations. Charming, eh?
Yes the walls of the city stretch about 6000 miles I think and are about 25 stories high, made out of precious stones. The city, however is 1500 miles high and made out of real, pure, clear gold. Also 1500 miles long and wide. Yes 12 fruits on one tree, every month, I believe, a different one ripens.
This is not in direct reply to your message but I thought you might be a good person to help explain to me an issue in Matthew (sorry if I'm off-base):
Matthew 24:3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, "Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?"
Jesus discusses the many signs, his return, then states:
Matthew 24:34 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
It seems Jesus is talking to specifically to his disciples, and seems to be stating that the end-times will occur within their generation, given a literal interpretation.
I've heard someone use this as prove that Jesus will not return, since it did not happen within that "generation".
Any insight? If figurative, what might "this generation" mean here?