Timing of the abomination of desolation

[covenantee]

Fact is, you believe and teach Daniel's AOD in Matthew 24:15, was fulfilled in 70AD when Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, 100% "Preterism"

Fact is, Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 & Daniel 9:27 is future unfulfilled

Using your definition, the Judean Christians were preterists, as they fled in 66 AD.

But preterism as correctly defined did not appear until the 17th century.

Facts which, of course, are irrelevant to df.

 

[Timtofly]

160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "160 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation."

I think you left out the part Clement mentioned the first century.

 

[covenantee]

I think you left out the part Clement mentioned the first century.

I think you left out the part where Clement declared Daniel 9:24-27 fulfilled.

 

[Truth7t7]

Daniel 9:27 does not appear in your H3615 search results.
It's in 3617.

Lexicon :: Strong's H3617 - kālâ

Strong’s Definitions
כָּלָה kâlâh, kaw-law'; from H3615; a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:—altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 22x
The KJV translates Strong's H3617 in the following manner: ...end (11x), altogether (3x), consume (3x), consumption (2x), consummation (1x), determined (1x), riddance (1x).

 

[Truth7t7]

I think you left out the part where Clement declared Daniel 9:24-27 fulfilled.

Not one place in your provided info does Clement state it was fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem as you claim

 

[covenantee]

Not one place in your provided info does Clement state it was fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem as you claim

Not one place does Clement state it was unfulfilled as you claim.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are being a hypocrite:

No just telling you like it is. Through the years, a few have tried to play this game with me, and I won't let them. I realize there is some confusion about how extreme a Preterist has to be to be an official "Preterist." But basically, no matter how one tries to create a personal definition, the reality is that it is a system in which most "future" prophecies are interpreted as having been fulfilled in the past.

What that means is that if a person who believes *some* "future" prophecies were fulfilled in the past, and others still to be fulfilled in the future, there is some question in some people's minds as to whether they are a "Partial Preterist" or a "Partial Futurist." And in my experience, nearly all Partial Preterists feel that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled *in the past.* These are Partial Preterists--I'm not talking about Full Preterists.

So you can choose to call me names all you like. You might even find some aberrations in which some Partial Preterists believe in a future Antichrist. But these "outliers" never determine the definition of a school of theology. It is the mainstream that determines the definition, because people mislabel others all the time.

If you wish to call me a Preterist, you'll have to deal with the above. Otherwise, you're just another proud, pathetic name-caller. Why don't you try to replace some of your hostility with Christian love?

This wasn't said directly to me but if a person is allowed to call you a Partial Preterist then I will as well.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Fact is, you believe and teach Daniel's AOD in Matthew 24:15, was fulfilled in 70AD when Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, 100% "Preterism"

Fact is, Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 & Daniel 9:27 is future unfulfilled

You're beginning to repeat yourself. Are you starting to doubt yourself, or do you think you'll drive your "truth" into others like driving a stake into the ground?

 

[covenantee]

Lexicon :: Strong's H3617 - kālâ

Strong’s Definitions
כָּלָה kâlâh, kaw-law'; from H3615; a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:—altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 22x
The KJV translates Strong's H3617 in the following manner: ...end (11x), altogether (3x), consume (3x), consumption (2x), consummation (1x), determined (1x), riddance (1x).

And consummation includes: complete destruction, annihilation

As in 70 AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

To back up your point about the AoD.

No one is saying 70AD did not happen. We know it happened because of two historians. They do not corroborate your point. I already said Luke was fulfilled in 66AD.

The link I gave you had a lot more than you give it credit for. It's a game to say some authors did not use certain words when what they *meant* was precisely what you deny they said.

For example, when a Church Father said that the Jewish Religion came to an end, what they *meant* was that the temple was destroyed by the Romans, leaving Judaism stripped of its traditional temple worship. That was the end of Jewish religion as it had existed prior to that.

In other words, the Church Fathers didn't have to say the words "70 AD" to mean "70 AD." Let's not play games.

Barnabas writes, “For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built…in the name of the Lord.’ I find…that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (EOB, 16:6)

In saying this, Barnabas is saying that the old temple was destroyed, and a new temple in Christ was raised up. That is an indirect but intended reference to 70 AD.

Clement writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the prophetic language of Daniel’s seventy weeks, “Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here is directly referencing 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem at that time.

Origen writes, “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5).

Origen is showing the majority view of the Church Fathers that Daniel's 70 Weeks were completed with the death of Christ and with the fall of the temple in 70 AD, an indirect but straightforward reference.

Tertullian: “Vespasian vanquished the Jews…and so by the date of his storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel” (AAJ, VII; CID).

Another direct reference to 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. It also shows how Daniel 9 was generally interpreted by the Church Fathers.

Athanasius: “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken” (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

This is more of the same, a direct reference to 70 AD in light of Dan 9.

As you read on in this link, it is mentioned that Irenaeus and his compatriot Hippolytus were just a few from the Early Church to propagate a future theory concerning Dan 9. The vast number of Church leaders, if this is true, were not Partial Preterists, but rather, interpreted Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse historically.

They were all futurists, believing in a future Antichrist. But it was at that time anachronistic to believe that the AoD was a future prophecy--it had been fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

 

[ewq1938]

If you wish to call me a Preterist, you'll have to deal with the above.

Deal with what you already said was ok:

You may choose to go on calling me a Partial Preterist. If so, I will grant you that right.

 

[Truth7t7]

The link I gave you had a lot more than you give it credit for. It's a game to say some authors did not use certain words when what they *meant* was precisely what you deny they said.

For example, when a Church Father said that the Jewish Religion came to an end, what they *meant* was that the temple was destroyed by the Romans, leaving Judaism stripped of its traditional temple worship. That was the end of Jewish religion as it had existed prior to that.

In other words, the Church Fathers didn't have to say the words "70 AD" to mean "70 AD." Let's not play games.

Barnabas writes, “For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built…in the name of the Lord.’ I find…that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (EOB, 16:6)

In saying this, Barnabas is saying that the old temple was destroyed, and a new temple in Christ was raised up. That is an indirect but intended reference to 70 AD.

Clement writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the prophetic language of Daniel’s seventy weeks, “Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here is directly referencing 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem at that time.

Origen writes, “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5).

Origen is showing the majority view of the Church Fathers that Daniel's 70 Weeks were completed with the death of Christ and with the fall of the temple in 70 AD, an indirect but straightforward reference.

Tertullian: “Vespasian vanquished the Jews…and so by the date of his storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel” (AAJ, VII; CID).

Another direct reference to 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. It also shows how Daniel 9 was generally interpreted by the Church Fathers.

Athanasius: “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken” (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

This is more of the same, a direct reference to 70 AD in light of Dan 9.

As you read on in this link, it is mentioned that Irenaeus and his compatriot Hippolytus were just a few from the Early Church to propagate a future theory concerning Dan 9. The vast number of Church leaders, if this is true, were not Partial Preterists, but rather, interpreted Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse historically.

They were all futurists, believing in a future Antichrist. But it was at that time anachronistic to believe that the AoD was a future prophecy--it had been fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Clement and Origen were heretics, from the Alexandrian schools in the Arian heresy

Origen was at the forefront of the heresy, and banished as a heretic at the first council of Nicaea

You want readers to believe his words, smiles!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Clement and Origen were heretics, from the Alexandrian schools in the Arian heresy

Origen was at the forefront of the heresy, and banished as a heretic at the first council of Nicaea

You want readers to believe his words, smiles!

Origen was a regular Christian who was far ahead of most, and being a pioneer was bound to say things out of the mainstream. It's debatable how "heretical" the things he wrote were, eg Trinitarian subordinationism--some of it is still debated today. Some of his views, were unorthodox and wrong, and yet not really damaging, such as preexistence of the soul. I don't accept Origen as a bona fide "heretic," although he certainly indulged in all kinds of theological speculation.

The same may be true of Clement of Alexandria. In a time when Christian thought was just being organized, certain Christian leaders indulged themselves in all kinds of creative thinking. Clement has been viewed as a Church Father throughout Christian history, even though his works are controversial and sometimes wrong.

You asked for evidence from Church Fathers, and regardless of whether you agree with their teaching or even with their status as Church Fathers, I gave you evidence. And you try to skirt it. How serious are you?

 

[Timtofly]

I think you left out the part where Clement declared Daniel 9:24-27 fulfilled.

That was my point. You did not include that part. Quoting Daniel 9 does not mean it was fulfilled. Daniel 9 is quoted all the time in these forums. Your quote says it has been 1,000 plus years from Moses. I think you left out the part about anything being fulfilled in the first century.

"From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows"

Daniel said the word of Jeremiah was fulfilled: 70 years. We know that: Daniel 9:2

"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."

Clement points out that Daniel figured out the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. We know that. Gabriel then parallels that 70 years with 70 weeks of years. This is not new. In fact even Daniel mentions Moses in this chapter. Clement is doing a commentary on Daniel 9.

There is nothing in your quote about the first century.

 

[Timtofly]

The link I gave you had a lot more than you give it credit for. It's a game to say some authors did not use certain words when what they *meant* was precisely what you deny they said.

For example, when a Church Father said that the Jewish Religion came to an end, what they *meant* was that the temple was destroyed by the Romans, leaving Judaism stripped of its traditional temple worship. That was the end of Jewish religion as it had existed prior to that.

In other words, the Church Fathers didn't have to say the words "70 AD" to mean "70 AD." Let's not play games.

Barnabas writes, “For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built…in the name of the Lord.’ I find…that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (EOB, 16:6)

In saying this, Barnabas is saying that the old temple was destroyed, and a new temple in Christ was raised up. That is an indirect but intended reference to 70 AD.

Clement writes of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the prophetic language of Daniel’s seventy weeks, “Vespasian rose to the supreme power (Emperor of Rome) and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (STO, XXI, 142-143).

Clement here is directly referencing 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem at that time.

Origen writes, “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5).

Origen is showing the majority view of the Church Fathers that Daniel's 70 Weeks were completed with the death of Christ and with the fall of the temple in 70 AD, an indirect but straightforward reference.

Tertullian: “Vespasian vanquished the Jews…and so by the date of his storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel” (AAJ, VII; CID).

Another direct reference to 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. It also shows how Daniel 9 was generally interpreted by the Church Fathers.

Athanasius: “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken” (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

This is more of the same, a direct reference to 70 AD in light of Dan 9.

As you read on in this link, it is mentioned that Irenaeus and his compatriot Hippolytus were just a few from the Early Church to propagate a future theory concerning Dan 9. The vast number of Church leaders, if this is true, were not Partial Preterists, but rather, interpreted Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse historically.

They were all futurists, believing in a future Antichrist. But it was at that time anachronistic to believe that the AoD was a future prophecy--it had been fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

No, you are putting thoughts into their heads.

I already said an army brings desolation. That is not the same thing Matthew points out. The Assyrians and Babylonian did the same thing. Do you call what they did setting up an AoD? You are placing many AoD's throughout history every time you claim an army comes near Jerusalem. If not then you are cherry picking the point.

Luke mentioned armies, and that was fulfilled in 66AD by Vespasian just like Josephus said. Just like Clement said, just like Tertullian said. You don't know if they meant 66AD or 70AD as both are legitimate dates. You want them to mean 70AD when they could just as easily mean 66AD and still work. Luke was fulfilled and two church fathers agree. Matthew was not fulfilled and you have no church fathers claiming otherwise.

Tertullian was wrong, just as many today are wrong. Only Jesus as Prince can finish the 70th week of Daniel. Tertullian can be considered a preterist and just as wrong as all preterist today.

Yes the Romans made Jerusalem a place of desolation. No one points out an AoD was set up. Daniel 9:27 does not state an AoD is set up. It states exactly what Revelation 13 declares. God allows Satan a time where an AoD will be set up. The fulfilled prophecy of an AoD was Antiochus Epiphanes. When his act is repeated is what Matthew states. His act has not been repeated, not even in 70AD. Because no AoD was set up in the Temple, as it was destroyed before such a prophecy could be fulfilled.

If you reject a future fulfillment that is fine. But you cannot use 70AD to fulfill Matthew 24. No one witnessed one in 70AD, unless the Jews themselves had set one up. Titus Vespasian did not set one up. Jesus did not give Satan the authority to set one up in 70AD. Just a bunch of modern day people think one was set up, but who cannot give the proper event to do so. Only if they change the entire meaning of Jesus' words.

In saying this, Barnabas is saying that the old temple was destroyed, and a new temple in Christ was raised up. That is an indirect but intended reference to 70 AD.

No it is not. It would be about the church in 30AD. How has anyone set up an AoD in their personal body?

Barnabas could easily have been a futurist and was saying in the future a temple will be built thus ending the 70th week. The church did not start after 70AD. This quote is too vague.

 

[covenantee]

That was my point. You did not include that part. Quoting Daniel 9 does not mean it was fulfilled. Daniel 9 is quoted all the time in these forums. Your quote says it has been 1,000 plus years from Moses. I think you left out the part about anything being fulfilled.

You obviously enjoy embarrassing yourself.

"From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows:.."

 

[Timtofly]

You obviously enjoy embarrassing yourself.

"From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows:.."

No, Clement and you are embarrassing yourselves.

Neither one of you mention the first century.

I did not post those words. You and Clement did.

Explain how Daniel's 70 weeks fulfilled Jeremiah's 70 years.

 

[covenantee]

No, Clement and you are embarrassing yourselves.

Neither one of you mention the first century.

I did not post those words. You and Clement did.

Explain how Daniel's 70 weeks fulfilled Jeremiah's 70 years.

You don't know in what century Clement knew that the fulfillment occurred?

I and our discerning readers thank you for the guffaws.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, you are putting thoughts into their heads.

A complaint without explanation? I could just as easily say you don't under what they said, or refuse to acknowledge what they said.

I already said an army brings desolation. That is not the same thing Matthew points out. The Assyrians and Babylonian did the same thing. Do you call what they did setting up an AoD? You are placing many AoD's throughout history every time you claim an army comes near Jerusalem. If not then you are cherry picking the point.

You don't seem to get my point, which I've repeated a number of times. An AoD is a specific event, and not the definition of many events that have some vague similarity. For example, the AoD contains the word "desolation." That does not mean that any act of desolation in history is an AoD!

What defines an AoD is the context of its use in the Bible. Jesus applied it to the desolation of the temple in his generation, based on the book of Daniel, ch. 9. And Daniel, in ch. 9 applied the term to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (vs. 26).

Finally, the AoD term is applied in Daniel to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus, specifically when he tried to turn the more orthodox Jews into Hellenists, and murdered them if they refused to comply.

Not all acts of desolation are AoDs. Words mean what they mean *in context.* And in context the term AoD is applied in very specific ways, in very specific forms of desolation. The *abomination* of desolation indicates an event in which sacrilege and desolation both are being committed in a specific time in history. The context therefore indicates that the abomination and the desolation is taking place in the reign of Antiochus 4 and in the time of the 1st Coming of Messiah, when the Romans came to destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Luke mentioned armies, and that was fulfilled in 66AD by Vespasian just like Josephus said. Just like Clement said, just like Tertullian said. You don't know if they meant 66AD or 70AD as both are legitimate dates. You want them to mean 70AD when they could just as easily mean 66AD and still work. Luke was fulfilled and two church fathers agree. Matthew was not fulfilled and you have no church fathers claiming otherwise.

I've said from the start that there were 2 dates and 2 armies--both Roman. When Daniel speaks of the "ruler to come," I believe he was generically speaking of Roman leaders--plural. It was a Roman leader each time, whether initially approaching Jerusalem or later approaching Jerusalem and destroying it.

In other words, the distinciton between Cestius Gallus and Titus is incidental and not relevant to the point. This prophecy in Dan 9 and the Discourse in Matt 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 all spoke of a *judgment* to come via Roman armies. Many argue about whether the AoD was an idol the Romans put in the temple, a corrupt act of Jewish priests in the temple, or just the Roman armies themselves. But the point is, in the time of Messiah this would result in divine judgment against the Jewish religion, which had become hypocritical and corrupt.

Tertullian was wrong, just as many today are wrong. Only Jesus as Prince can finish the 70th week of Daniel. Tertullian can be considered a preterist and just as wrong as all preterist today.

Since Preterism did not yet exist in Tertullian's time, no he cannot be considered a "Preterist!" And I've exhausted my arguments over what a Preterist is with you, Truth, and ewq. You either don't follow, or don't care. You can mislead others if you wish--your choice. But a slanderous spirit will be judged by God as a form of corruption.

I know some of this is debatable. But none of you have shown an ounce of understanding of the point I've made. That isn't true discussion. And I don't think it's honorable debate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian was wrong, just as many today are wrong. Only Jesus as Prince can finish the 70th week of Daniel.

Jesus did bring the 70 Weeks prophecy to completion. It was completed when he was "cut off," causing "sacrifice and offering to cease." That happened at the cross.

And then Daniel says that the AoD, the "people of the ruler to come," would destroy the city and the sanctuary (vs. 27). This indicated, to Jesus, Roman armies, coming to destroy Jerusalem and the temple in his generation. It was the completion of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

Yes the Romans made Jerusalem a place of desolation. No one points out an AoD was set up. Daniel 9:27 does not state an AoD is set up. It states exactly what Revelation 13 declares. God allows Satan a time where an AoD will be set up. The fulfilled prophecy of an AoD was Antiochus Epiphanes. When his act is repeated is what Matthew states. His act has not been repeated, not even in 70AD. Because no AoD was set up in the Temple, as it was destroyed before such a prophecy could be fulfilled.

If you reject a future fulfillment that is fine. But you cannot use 70AD to fulfill Matthew 24. No one witnessed one in 70AD, unless the Jews themselves had set one up. Titus Vespasian did not set one up. Jesus did not give Satan the authority to set one up in 70AD. Just a bunch of modern day people think one was set up, but who cannot give the proper event to do so. Only if they change the entire meaning of Jesus' words.

On the contrary, I provided a link showing that the Church Fathers largely recognized the AoD, the prophecy of Daniel, and the Olivet Discourse as being all about the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. It was an historical interpretation, and not Preterism, which systematically eliminates most all future prophecies.

Historical interpretations *do not* remove all future prophecies! So you are misleading others when you say Tertullian and others, like myself, who interpret some prophecies historically, are "Preterists." You are engaging in a form of slander, and redirecting a reasonable discussion into personal attack methodology.

Since you and maybe ewq seem less "hostile" than Truth, perhaps you can find a way to tone down the use of Preterist labeling, which takes this discussion in another, angrier direction?

No it is not. It would be about the church in 30AD. How has anyone set up an AoD in their personal body?

Barnabas could easily have been a futurist and was saying in the future a temple will be built thus ending the 70th week. The church did not start after 70AD. This quote is too vague.

It is a little brief to be able to be certain, but in my opinion, Barnabas was taking the standard Early Church position that Dan 9 was fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ and in the following fall of Jerusalem. He acknowledged that the prophecy, generally, spoke of the need for a rebuilding of the temple, destroyed by the Babylonians. And that happened in the Persian Empire.

But Barnabas is concerned about the seeming failure of that temple to persevere, meaning that he was acknowledging that it had been destroyed once again! So he asserted that God had in mind a better temple all along, the temple of Christ and the temple of the Church.

In making this argument, Barnabas acknowledged the fall of the temple in 70 AD and its replacement with a spiritual temple. Barnabas assumed that with the disappearance of the temple, God had in mind the temple of the Church.