What is a tribulation?

a reply to: DISRAELI
Of the 300 plus prophecies of the coming prince of peace how many did the leadership the abettors of Jewish thought did they they see in Jesus? Zero. When has the enemy ever been reffered to as a prince? Is Daniel 9 about Jesus or the enemy?

a reply to: DISRAELI

What does Man of today worship? Money? Gold?

Were not Crowns made of Gold?


Much as we shed our Crown as we birth from our Mother's Womb, Man would boldly put a crown made of Gold upon his Own Head; and thus forget the true meaning of the Crown, a King, a Kingdom, and thus forsake the Father.

And yet, this greatest of transgressions was put unto you by He unto whom you once placed your utmost Trust.

^_^

a reply to: JON666
As you should have expected, I've got a previous thread on this, and prefer to refer you back to it rather than go so far off-topic. Seventy weeks

I will say this, following on from what I've already tried to explain to you;
The ruler portrayed at the end of Daniel is modelled on the hostile ruler Antiochus Epiphanes. I've explained to you how we know that. That point ought to be recognised as established.
In other words, the whole point of the second half of the book of Daniel is that it is talking about a hostile ruler (the first half is about hostile rulers in general).

Now in the context of Antiochus Epiphanes and in the context of Daniel, "stopping the sacrifice" is a HOSTILE action of a ruler HOSTILE to the worship of God. He sets up an idolatrous form of worship and diverts the original sacrifices to the idol. As a result, the true worshippers feel they have lost contact with their God, because the real sacrifices have stopped, and that is what is meant by "desolation". "Abomination" is God's reaction to the event, "desolation" is the reaction of the worshippers to the same event. That is why it is called "an abomination of desolation". You see, it all fits together, as long as you focus on what the words actually mean. How many times have I said this now?

I've also pointed out already that the New Testament does not make a big deal about "animal sacrifice being stopped" as an important thing to have done. Animal sacrifice is never presented as an evil thing; just, in Hebrews, as something which does not work, and which has now been replaced by a much more effective sacrifice. In fact Hebrews ch8 v4 rather takes it for granted as an intended good; there are sacrificing priests on earth already, which is why Christ has to move to heaven in order to be a sacrificing priest.

The idea of "conitnuing animal sacrifice being a great evil" was invented by modern people wanting an escape route from the concept of a future abomination. In other words, they were allowing their preferred theology to control their interpretation of the text.

I see no real difference between "there will be a rapture" people and "the abomination was continuing animal sacrifice" people. Both groups are obsessively allowing their interpretation of texts to be controlled by their preferred theology.

I will say it, not for the first time; let us focus on what the words actually MEAN.

a reply to: iammrhappy86
I can't find any relevant meaning in that post, so I won't try to respond to it.