The two Church Fathers do link the Olivet Discourse and the AoD with 70 AD. I can say this not just because of what their quotations suggest, but also because of the way the Church Fathers generally agreed with this perspective. Nearly all of them saw a relationship between Dan 9/the AoD and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse.
I simply asked for this evidence and you did not provide it. You are putting thoughts into their heads and connecting the dots for them. You could not even give a quote but bits and pieces that you claim is the same body of text. I can only take your word for it. But you are still connecting the dots even in this post for them. You claim the majority agrees with you, and yet it is still your words I am reading and not theirs.
I already pointed out what an AoD is and you reject that. Just the word "desolate" works for you. You will never give up this tiny thread of hope that desolate just means turning over some stones and removing a single building from existence.
Not to mention Gabriel said Jesus is the Messiah the Prince.
No one here grasps the fact Jesus will be here during the Trumpets and Thunders. I guess not many thought Jesus was the Messiah on earth for 3.5 years, either, who had to die on the Cross, instead of being a Prince.
Certainly your early church fathers had given up hope for the Jews. Many of them were totally against them, and seemed to welcome their predicament. None of them claimed Israel would be a nation again. Here is Barnabas in entirety:
"Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [
Jews], wandering in
error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of
God. For almost after the manner of the
Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: Who has meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?
Isaiah 40:12 Thus says the Lord,
Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will you build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?
Isaiah 66:1 You perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again. It has so happened. For through their going to
war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of
Israel were to be given up. For the
Scripture says, And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of
God. There is — where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in
glory in the name of the Lord.
Daniel 9:24-27;
Haggai 2:10 I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we
believed in
God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of
idolatry, and was a habitation of
demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the
will of] God. But it shall be built, you observe, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in
glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of
sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God
truly dwells in us. How? His word of
faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to
man, but to Him who dwells in him, and speaks in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord."
Barnabas wrongly claims each person is the temple built after the week is finished. But he did say a temple would be built future tense at the end of the week, ie 70th?
"For it is written, And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in
glory in the name of the Lord.
Daniel 9:24-27;
Haggai 2:10"
Haggai: The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts. In the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet, saying,"
Daniel 9 never mentions a temple being built. But these two passages indicate the decree to build a temple. What Barnabas is implying is not what he said. The Temple was built in the first week. Or at least started. So remove all eschatological bias and think for a moment.
Barnabas is declaring the building of a Temple, not the destruction.
"For it is written, And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in
glory in the name of the Lord.
Daniel 9:24-27;
Haggai 2:10"
What is he really saying here? That when the 70 weeks are over, a temple will be built. That point is correct. At the Second Coming, Jesus will build a throne and temple and sit upon it at the end of the 70th week.
Neither you nor Barnabas are viewing his point correctly. You claim along with him the destruction of the temple is complete, not the building of a temple is complete. Then he claims the human body is that temple. That is not even what Jesus said. Jesus was talking about His body, not each individual body. Nor does Barnabas even quote Paul, about the entire church being the body of Christ. A point that would have made sense in his argument. Read the whole text again to see that point missing. I am not going to put the thought into his head. Even so, Barnabas is not linking 70AD to this point. He just confirms the Jews were abandoned, and to Barnabas they deserved it for being wretched.
I am not rejecting Barnabas' result that indeed the church is the body of Christ. I am pointing out he based that on the wrong premise that the prophecied temple was the church. If that was his intent. Daniel and Haggai were talking about the physical temple being built at the beginning of the 70 weeks.
Yet in doing so Barnabas was declaring a temple of glory being built at the end of the 70th week. You just found that single quote instead of giving the whole chapter as context. Barnabas was not using reverse psychology. Your abbreviated quote made no sense for your argument.
Barnabas was literally misquoting both Daniel and Haggai to make a point. Something Many posters here would definitely flip out over. Daniel and Haggai were not around to defend themselves.
Still not proof Barnabas thought 70AD was the end of the 70th week. That is you misquoting Barnabas. I doubt Barnabas was intending to claim the Second Coming is when the temple will be built. But that is how it sounds, unless one claims the 70th week ended at the Cross. As I stated that is wrong. Messiah being cut off means just that cut off. Being cut off is never construed as a finished tasked. Unless of course you can prove otherwise. Jesus was not a Prince in the first century with a kingdom. That at least should be acknowledged.
BTW: Barnabas was a Jew. He as a "christian" condemned his own people. He seems to be of a view the church replaced Israel. But you cannot use him as a proof source. He was misquoting Daniel to make his point that as a Christian he was the temple that was built. That was his point. Not that an AoD happened in 70AD.
