Timing of the abomination of desolation

[ewq1938]

False, I used a Concordance that referred to how similar words were used. When you mention "part of a temple complex," it really matters what you mean by "complex."

I just see "temple buildings" as being the focus, and not every item in the vicinity of the temple that played a role in the environment, arbors, fences, retaining walls, etc. The temple buildings were just that--buildings designed for human habitation. Retaining walls were not inhabited. They were *not* part of the inhabited buildings!

He didn't limit it to inhabited buildings. You are adding that. He just said building which is architecture which is anything built.

Buildings were built on top of their foundations.

Which is a meaningless point. It doesn't matter where a building is, Jesus all all the stones would not be upon each other.

In the English language, we may refer to a house as inclusive of its foundation. But in our sense, the retaining wall may have enclosed the rocks that made up the temple foundation. But it does not in any sense mean that it's part of the temple buildings.

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

"Except they will leave some stones upon each other because the Romans don't think those are buildings, oh and they will also not destroy one building that they want to keep..."

Luke 19 isn't the Olivet Discourse either.

 

[Keraz]

Which is a meaningless point. It doesn't matter where a building is, Jesus all all the stones would not be upon each other.

Your insistence that the prophecy by Jesus in Matthew 24:1-2, is not fulfilled, is error. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and there has been no sacrifice and offerings to God there since.
The Roman soldiers removed every stone of the building in order to get at the gold which had melted into the cracks.

The Temple Mount, 150,000 sq meters or 37 acres, is surrounded by a wall, which on the west and south sides, goes below the platform to retain the filling that was required to level the site. These walls had nothing to do with either the first or the second Temple.

 

[Timtofly]

Israel was not destroyed in 70 AD?

Matthew 24
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Right, it was destroyed by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC. Judaea was the term used after the Babylonian captivity. It was called Judaism as a religious political system. That was not destroyed in 70AD either. The only thing destroyed was their pride, temple, and the city of Jerusalem.

When exactly do you think the two branches were/will be put back together as one?

Jesus said:

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Israel was not a nation. That is why I asked the question. Instead of an answer, you just asked me instead. Obviously you have no answer, unless you actually give one in reply.

 

[Timtofly]

There were no Christians in Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. They had all fled in 66 AD, fulfilling Matthew 24:15-16.

So you agree that 70AD had nothing to do with the OD. Luke mentioned 66AD. That was the extent of the OD in relationship to the Roman/Jewish war. Christianity has endured way more wars and rumors of wars in the centuries after that first war. None of them was the greatest and last one. The end has not happened yet.

"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Unless you think the church stopped in 70AD, you have to accept 70AD had nothing to do with these verses, as 70AD was the first war, not the last one. 70AD was not the end.

 

[Timtofly]

The point is, it was not part of the temple itself, which was given specific instructions and dimensions while still in the tabernacle/tent stage. So to add external buildings, or out-buildings, and then call it part of the temple is outrageous.

It is, in fact, a big retaining wall that you speak of. Anything beyond that is playing the dice with God's general instructions about what the temple building was supposed to be.

So is calling the Roman Army the AoD. The Roman Army as the AoD started back in 40BC to 6AD. They did garrison in the same complex built by Herod. How much closer can you get? Outside the city wall is your closest estimation? They had already desecrated the area for nearly 100 years.

 

[Timtofly]

You overlooked the disciples' very first question:

Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

"These things" is not referring to the second coming, but to the temple and its destruction in verses 1 and 2.

You do realize Jesus was teaching in the Temple between 6 and 10 hours during the day. We do not even know what "these things" are. All we know is Jesus said the temple would be destroyed. Something He even associated with His own body. Until you can come up with two days worth of items Jesus was teaching, you cannot declare "these things" as all about 70AD. Perhaps they were, perhaps they were not. Quote one verse that literally states the actual destruction. That would be the percentage of the OD actually about something like what happened in 70AD. That the city would be trampled by the Gentiles could be symbolic of something or could be a literal fact for the last 1992 years. Certainly not just 70AD. There is no temple, and the city is still under the foot of the Gentiles. Jesus as Prince has not taken over control and declared a untied Israel. Yes, some humans in 1948 declared Independence. But they are still lacking a few key ingredients.

I and the witness of history disagree with your futurist interpretation of the Olivet discourse.

There is not one recognized Christian expositor in all of Church history prior to the 19th century who futurized the entirety of the Olivet discourse.

Not one.

Not one declared it 100% fulfilled until the last 50 years. It is all future until it happens. After 1948 many declared part of it complete. But not like Preterist do. Part of the OD was fulfilled as promised.

Not one declared it 100% fulfilled.

 

[Timtofly]

The debate is over because you're unreasonable. Jesus said the stones of the temple would be disassembled--not the stone of the retaining wall surrounding the temple plaza!

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?"

The Temple is just one building singular. They asked about buildings plural. Jesus said all these things. Jesus did not say, "only the temple".

 

[Timtofly]

Whom to believe?

Jewish and Roman historical testimony
or
Davy's imagination

Your debate is over.

Trashed by the Jews and Romans.

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

History & Overivew of the Western Wall (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

"When the Romans razed the Second Temple, they left one outer wall standing. They probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them since it was not part of the Temple itself, just a retaining wall surrounding the Temple Mount."

Point out where Josephus declared the OD was 100% fulfilled. Do you accept God's Word or Josephus' incomplete mention that the OD had anything to do with 70AD. Josephus claims they fled from the armies in 66AD. If Josephus knew that very specific detail, why did he not just declare the AoD had actually happened? It was not until 100 to 200 years later, some theologians added their speculations. Josephus was certainly aware of the AoD Antiochus Epiphanes set up. He was the one who put the account into the history of the Jews as an historian. The outside source you are quoting as another record to the book of Maccabees.

Perhaps you could quote more as proof Josephus declared 70AD the AoD?

 

[Randy Kluth]

He didn't limit it to inhabited buildings. You are adding that. He just said building which is architecture which is anything built.

Which is a meaningless point. It doesn't matter where a building is, Jesus all all the stones would not be upon each other.

"Except they will leave some stones upon each other because the Romans don't think those are buildings, oh and they will also not destroy one building that they want to keep..."

Luke 19 isn't the Olivet Discourse either.

Okay, you and I have beat this one into the ground. Be happy with what you're convinced is true.

 

[Randy Kluth]

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?"

The Temple is just one building singular. They asked about buildings plural. Jesus said all these things. Jesus did not say, "only the temple".

That's true. The temple building involved porches and courtyards, all of which were buildings, used and inhabited by human beings. Retaining walls, however, were not inhabited by anybody, nor were they "architecture," nor were they "part of the buildings of the temple," which had foundations underneath them. The retaining walls may have supported, horizontally, those foundation stones. But they were not part of the building foundation, nor were even the foundations for the buildings being viewed here as part of the buildings to be removed. My opinion. You can certainly have yours.

 

[Timtofly]

I agree. It was.

But, it was also destroyed physically in 70 AD. The disciples were marveling at the physical temple buildings standing at the time in Jersuslaem and then Jesus said they would be destroyed. This is undeniable as far as I'm concerned. And then the first question the disciples asked Him was "when will this happen" in relation to the temple buildings being destroyed. The other question related to when His coming and the end of the age would be.

I'm not saying dual fulfillment if you think I'm saying that everything He said had a fulfillment in 70 AD and will also have a fulfillment in the future. No. I'm saying that part of what He said related to 70 AD and the rest relates to His coming and the end of the age. The part that I believe relates to 70 AD is Matthew 24:15-22 and its parallel passages of Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

Jesus did not tell them in 40 years these things will happen in the answer given. If He did no one put that in the OD.

If you point out that the temple destruction was the totality of "these things", you are not being honest. What Jesus answered was about the church, not the coming destruction. Yes, 70AD happened. The point is, that is not the answer Jesus gave. This is the answer:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

That is the exact answer about the end. There is nothing figurative nor literal remotely declaring the destruction of the temple nor Jerusalem. The question was asked after the walk from the temple to the Mount of Olives.

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Jesus addressed not only the words actually written in Matthew. All "these things" Jesus had said in the temple that day. Certainly what Jesus said as they were leaving was not the only "thing" they asked about. Nor did Jesus even specifically give them any details about 70AD in His specific answer.

If you claim the answer was only about that specific destruction, then Jesus did not give them a specific answer and totally changed the subject. Jesus may have told them every specific detail about 70AD. Certainly not in the answer that was written down for future generations to read.

 

[Timtofly]

The retaining wall supporting the plaza is hardly a temple structure! The temple had buildings associated with it, walkways, porches, courtyards, overhangs, etc. But the retaining wall was not a temple building, period.

This is not exactly correct. Those temple buildings literally sat on top of this retaining wall. The temple itself in Herod's day was a single building with actual stone walls around it, the inner courts. The temple buildings were further out, surrounding the outer courtyard. They sat on top of this retaining wall, as the Temple complex extended out past the natural hill, and thus needed these huge retaining walls. Who is calling a wall a building here? Only you. All these things would include the walls. Jesus never said all these buildings or all these structures. He said all these things which included the very foundations. These things were all the stones, not just a percentage of the stones.

Besides in Revelation, John mentioned a severe earthquake or even multiple ones. Did an earthquake help the Romans, or did they do all the work? When Jesus sets up His throne and temple, it will be because an earthquake leveled the works of mankind, which subsequently are dissolved in fire somehow as well. Jesus will make all things new, not scrap leftovers, we see today.

Have you been to the temple plaza? I have. What I saw was a retaining wall--not a foundation! I'm having a house built right now. I had to build a foundation for the house, and also a small retaining wall. The retaining wall is *not* the house foundation. However, one of the walls of our house foundation also acts as a retaining wall.

In the case of the temple plaza, the retaining wall is separate from the foundation of the temple. It holds up the plaza, and not the temple buildings. I was there. Have you been there? Have you looked at any online pictures? I rest my case.

You visited Herod's Temple in 30AD?

When you say things like walls have stones upon stones, making them a "building," I start losing faith in your ability to understand construction. But I do see your point about how a retaining wall in ancient times plays a role in providing a foundation for the temple. I grant you that.

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History - Biblical Archaeology Society
In this article you can read how the new retaining walls were extended out from the original walls of the Temple Mount, with fill dirt filling the gaps. As such, these were creating a mound for the temple to sit on.

Thanks for the proof we have no way to know one way or the other. If the original foundation was never moved, but later built upon, it did not happen in 70AD. The stones are still there, because the stones in the original retaining wall are still there. You would have to remove those stones, all the dirt, and then the original foundation. They all are still the stones allegedly removed. They are still where they were 40 years prior to 70AD. They all are still standing and never moved out of the way. Too much work for little to gain. The Romans were not going to rebuild Jerusalem nor did they. It all burned down and Titus was so disgusted with the Jews he did not want to rebuild any kind of memorial to their religion, after it was destroyed. Yes he wanted to use the same structure as His point of glory over their religion. But his army did not remove every single stone, and the foundations did sit desolate for centuries. But the stones were never moved out of their places. There is a chance that even Solomon's foundation is still there.

 

[covenantee]

Not one declared it 100% fulfilled until the last 50 years.

Dispensational futurism's version of the Olivet discourse has no support in recognized historical Christian orthodoxy.

It had not one recognized historical Christian expositor, scholar, or apologist for over 17 centuries.

Not one declared it completely unfulfilled during that time.

Not one.

It is the epitome of modernism.

 

[Timtofly]

The Temple Mount, 150,000 sq meters or 37 acres, is surrounded by a wall, which on the west and south sides, goes below the platform to retain the filling that was required to level the site. These walls had nothing to do with either the first or the second Temple.

Jesus did not mention the first or second temple. The people with Jesus pointed out the entire structure that Herod built. It was Herod's Temple complex including all stones used, even the foundation.

Man's works, period. No one is denying there was great destruction in 70AD. What is being mentioned is the point the OD, the parts recorded, was not about 70AD.

The Scriptural foundation for this erroneous interpretation, is the mention of a destruction in Daniel 9:26. This verse has nothing to do with the OD, the same as 70AD has nothing to do with the OD. Jesus claimed they would be destroyed. But while at the temple itself, not on the mount of Olives. And His answer on the mount had nothing to do with the destruction in 70AD. At least not as recorded in Matthew.

 

[Timtofly]

Dispensational futurism's version of the Olivet discourse has no support in recognized historical Christian orthodoxy.

It had not one recognized historical Christian expositor, scholar, or apologist for over 17 centuries.

Not one declared it completely unfulfilled during that time.

Not one.

It is the epitome of modernism.

What is this alledged theology you talk about? How could the first or second century church refute these alledged modern points? Of course you are not even arguing honestly, but trying to prove a negative.

You have no proof they declared the OD 100% fulfilled. You argue that they never mentioned modern theology, duh. They never had access to modern theology.

 

[covenantee]

Those temple buildings literally sat on top of this retaining wall.

Thanks for the guffaw du jour.

 

[covenantee]

What is this alledged theology you talk about? How could the first or second century church refute these alledged modern points? Of course you are not even arguing honestly, but trying to prove a negative.

You have no proof they declared the OD 100% fulfilled. You argue that they never mentioned modern theology, duh. They never had access to modern theology.

What to believe?

1. More than 17 centuries of historical orthodox Christian exegesis
or
2. Less than two centuries of modernist futurist eisegesis

I know what I believe.

Futurism is not theology.

It is ideology.

 

[Timtofly]

What to believe?

1. More than 17 centuries of historical orthodox Christian exegesis
or
2. Less than two centuries of modernist futurist eisegesis

I know what I believe.

Futurism is not theology.

It is ideology.

You believe man's theology, not God's Word. You don't even have a definition for this alledged futurism. If it is not theology, then why even bring it up in a Christian forum? You just seem to make stuff up and then sit in the seat of the scornful:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful."

 

[covenantee]

You don't even have a definition for this alledged futurism.

Maybe the internet does. Let us know if you find it.

You can't even spell "alleged". Even with a spell checker.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nope. Those verses cover when the antichrist comes to rule from Jerusalem. None of them are about the Romans. Jesus never said a word on the mount about some 40 years later some Jews would rebel against Rome and Rome would get revenge and destroy the city.

So, you think, for some inexplicable, unknown reason, Jesus decided it wasn't worth His time to answer their question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. I see.