Replies

I appreciate biblical speculation. When we engage in it, however, it is best to very clearly spell out that it is speculation, i.e., the opinion of the writer.

There are some strengths to your speculation.

1. The attempt to explain the "abomination of desolation."
2. An additional attempt to explain the "time of the Gentiles."
3. The gutting of preterism with Paul's warning believers NOT to believe the event had occurred in his day and would not until man of sin revealed.

There are also weaknesses.

1. There simply is no evidence that Paul ever visited Mecca. Just because he visited Arabia is no reason to assume he visited Mecca.
2. The Temple did not exist for Mohammed to "sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is god."
3. The mystical play with "black stone/white stone" is not mentioned in scripture. Any attempt to assume a direct interpretation from Revelation is just that: an assumption/speculation.

I do commend you on your efforts to piece together the puzzle. I encourage you to continue looking and rearranging the pieces. Your theory, in its present form, isn't quite there yet.

It is as likely that Paul visited Mecca, as it is that Frances Trollope visited Cleveland or Philadelphia. What city or center of interest existed in Arabia BUT Mecca?

The little PS about the white and black stones, I seriously considered omitting it for the very reason that someone like you would think it had something to do with my thesis or argument, rather than just a special commendation of Jesus to the Orthodox faithful, so badly needed at this hour...

"sitteth in the PLACE of God, showing himself that he IS God." might be the better translation, which this version does have. The Dome of the Rock is sitting in God's temple today. That temple is not a building, but the holy place itself, and Jews would have no problem understanding this clearly in the way I do.