Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Douggg]

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The messiah (the true messiah):

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

The prince that shall come (the anti-messiah):

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The messiah (the true messiah):

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Right!

The prince that shall come (the anti-messiah):

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Wrong! The key word is "and"

The prince is still Jesus Christ, PER CONTEXT. You can't insert a third party or evil prince from somewhere here. Go take some English class.

Premillennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

 

[Davidpt]

Premillennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

LOL. Where have you been in this thread? Out to lunch or something? What does this have to do with Premil when there is at least one Amil in this thread that also places the 70th week in the future but takes it to be involving literal days, 490 days not 490 years? Why then, if you were to be fair here, didn't you say this instead---Premillennialism and Amennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

To prove my point. There are some Premils who don't take the 70 weeks to have a gap anywhere. Abd there are also some Premils that do. Therefore, you are implying that the Premils who don't believe there is a gap is because of this---Premillennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context. LOL again. I don't know how some of you can expect some of the rest of us to believe you are always interpreting Scripture correctly when you are being blatantly dishonest in regards to what you charge all Premils with here, even the Premils that don't agree there is a gap---Premillennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

Not to mention, you then turn your head and look the other way, thus ignore when one of your own does exactly what you are complaining all Premils do since you did not say 'some' Premils, thus not all Premils, therefore, implying all Premils. But since that person is an Amil not Premil, he gets a free pass in your book of fairness, thus it doesn't equal this in his case---Amennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context

 

[Davidpt]

The messiah (the true messiah):

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

The prince that shall come (the anti-messiah):

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It seems we already agree that the prince to come is meaning the AC. But that doesn't have to mean that the one that causes the sacrificing of animals to cease has to be meaning the AC. Granted, for a very long time I too used to take the one meant in the middle of the week to be meaning the AC, I no longer do since there is no way to make any sense out of anything by doing so.

There is not going to be a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming, then in the middle of it the ac causing them to cease yet again. Why even start them back up if 3.5 years later they are going to cease yet again? And not only that, they should not have start back up to begin with. Therefore, per this scenario, by the ac causing them to cease, he would be doing a good thing not a bad thing. As if it makes sense that the ac does good things every once in awhile.

Clearly, the prince to come can't be meaning Christ, and that I feel I argued that pretty well since someone from verse 25 through verse 27 has to explain the 'he' in verse 27 pertaining to abominations, and that it would be blasphemy to insist Christ is the one who fits that pronoun in question..

 

[covenantee]

Therefore, E) can't be meaning Christ because Christ can't remotely fit the pronoun 'he' in H). It's that simple.

"The prince" is the grammatical referent of "He", and "Messiah the Prince" is the grammatical referent of "the prince", thus "He" is Messiah the Prince.

At Calvary "He" confirmed the Covenant and caused sacrifice and oblation to cease; and in 70 AD He made Jerusalem desolate. Daniel 9:27

It's that simple.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. Where have you been in this thread? Out to lunch or something? What does this have to do with Premil when there is at least one Amil in this thread that also places the 70th week in the future but takes it to be involving literal days, 490 days not 490 years? Why then, if you were to be fair here, didn't you say this instead---Premillennialism and Amennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

Shhhh... The point I was making is anyone tried to make the prince in verse 26, "the people of the prince" to be a different prince or evil prince than Messiah the Prince Himself despite the flow of the context. I was not discussing about the so-called gap theory, whether 490 days is literal days or years, etc. coming from BOTH camps. I am talking about the prince according to the flow of the context. You were trying to distract the subject without actually dealing with this issue.

I stand by my testimony.

 

[TribulationSigns]

"The prince" is the grammatical referent of "He", and "Messiah the Prince" is the grammatical referent of "the prince", thus "He" is Messiah the Prince.

At Calvary "He" confirmed the Covenant and caused sacrifice and oblation to cease; and in 70 AD He made Jerusalem desolate. Daniel 9:27

It's that simple.

No, it is not simple. You are confused and wrong with this faulty interpreation. First, you need to realize who did Christ confirmed a covenant with? Was it with the physical city? Was it with a piece of land called "judea?" Was it with the Jews only? Of course not. it was with the new Testament Church that the Lord was empowered to go forth with gospel Truth into the world. Get this part right first.

therefore, the prophesied apostasy and desolation will be found in New Testament Congregation after Christ has secured all of His Elect through the testimony of Two Witnessed. It did not occur in 70AD since the church has already gone out under the new covenant Christ confirmed! You got the wrong sacrifice and wrong Jersualem on this matter to begin with!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This is who all I see in the text.

A) Messiah the Prince(verse 25)

B) Messiah(verse 25)

C) himself(verse 25)

D) the people of the prince that shall come(verse 25)

E) the prince that shall come(verse 25)

F) he shall confirm the covenant(verse 26)

G) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease(verse 26)

H) for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate(verse 26)

In my mind I have no issue accepting that A), B), C), F), and G), are all referring to the same person, that being the Messiah the Prince in verse 25.

What some of you are not factoring in is that there is H) to consider. Someone per A)-G) has to explain the pronoun 'he' in H). Clearly, A), B), C), F), and G), can't explain that pronoun if all of those are meaning Christ. We have E), though. That has to be the only logical thing that can explain the pronoun in H), that it has to be the prince that shall come. Therefore, E) can't be meaning Christ because Christ can't remotely fit the pronoun 'he' in H). It's that simple. It is absurd to take the prince to come per E) to be meaning Christ when E) is the only thing that can explain H) if Christ is meant per A), B), C), F), and G) .

Some of you would have us believe that there is no one in the text anywhere from verse 25 through verse 27 that can explain the 'he' meant in H)?

You might argue that the pronoun 'he' in question is not in the original manuscripts, therefore, a moot point. Do you in turn, in order to remain consistent in how you are arguing that, assuming you might argue that, argue in the same manner per this pronoun 'he' he shall confirm the covenant, and this one as well, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease?

I think we should just read the passage in succession of events that will take place.

The first person mentioned in Messiah the prince, who will appear at the end of the 69th week
He is the same person that will get cut off after this event.

the next event is the people who destroy the city and sanctuary, this occurs almost 40 years after messiah is cut off. and in this context. another prince is mentioned, It is his people who destroy the city in 70 AD.

the next event is that a He will confirm a covenant with many for 7 years (1 week) but in the middle of that 7 year period. this he will cause sacrifice and burnt offering to cease. Much like antiochus epiphanies did when Greece controlled Jerusalem, By placing his own abomination of desolation i n the Holy Place. and causing sacrifice and burnt offering to cease. This also caused the macabean revolution by the way an event the jews in Jesus day would know well. So when jesus mentions an abomination of desolation mentioned by Daneil the prophet. this would immediately come to their mind as this is the kind of event he is talking about. since they experienced it before. and the outrage it caused.

This cessation of sacrifice and burnt offering is said to be cause by the abomination which causes desolation in the wong of the temple (the most holy place)

this desolation would continue until the end which is determined, is poured out on the desolate (the great tribulation period) and would come to an end when Christ himself returned to put an end to gentile dominion over jerusalem (see Daniel 2, 7, 9, and matt 24 and many other passages which speak of these events)

and finally know. that this prophecy in context concerns the nation of Israel and the holy city only. it is the answer to daniels prayer. and should be read in that way, It is not about messiah, his death or what happened in 70 AD or after. It is about the time alloted to the nation..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, it is not simple. You are confused and wrong with this faulty interpreation. First, you need to realize who did Christ confirmed a covenant with? Was it with the physical city? Was it with a piece of land called "judea?" Was it with the Jews only? Of course not. it was with the new Testament Church that the Lord was empowered to go forth with gospel Truth into the world. Get this part right first.

therefore, the prophesied apostasy and desolation will be found in New Testament Congregation after Christ has secured all of His Elect through the testimony of Two Witnessed. It did not occur in 70AD since the church has already gone out under the new covenant Christ confirmed! You got the wrong sacrifice and wrong Jersualem on this matter to begin with!

Christ did not confirm any covenant with anyone,

He fulfilled the abrahamic covenant, and the mosaic covenant concerning the salvation to the whole world. and eternal covenant which could not be broken.

Nor did he break his covenant half way through the 7 year period..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Right!



Wrong! The key word is "and"

The prince is still Jesus Christ, PER CONTEXT. You can't insert a third party or evil prince from somewhere here. Go take some English class.

Premillennialism is a false doctrine by manipulates the flow of the context.

Wrong
'Messiah was cut off. He is out of the picture as far as prophetic events in this period goes.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Christ did not confirm any covenant with anyone,

Oh really?

Dan 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

And this Prince did confirm the Covenant with many, and it was that same Prince Messiah in that same context. Not an evil prince, not the prince Titus, not the Antichrist of future events, but the same Messiah the Prince that was spoken of in that verse. In our exegesis, which is the one where scripture interprets scripture, the only prince mentioned there (according to God's word) is Messiah, the anointed.

So who are the "many" in verse 27 that Christ confirmed a convent with, humm? (note: not for everyone in the whole world as you alleged.) The answer is the Election in Christ, to whom the promise pertain to, in Christ Jesus!

Galatians 3:15-16

• "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
• Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Only In Christ can "the many" be of the Covenant. Thus, the many are all who are in Christ Jesus. His chosen people, not everyone in the world.

Romans 11:27

• "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

It is the election, who have their sins taken away in Christ! This is whom the Lord made a covenant with. Now with everyone else in the world. Selah!

He fulfilled the abrahamic covenant, and the mosaic covenant concerning the salvation to the whole world. and eternal covenant which could not be broken.

Not Abrahamic Covenant.

Not Mosaic Covenant.

It is a NEW covenant - an eternal covenant with many (His People, not everyone on the world). Selah.

Nor did he break his covenant half way through the 7 year period..

Break? Where did it say in Daniel 9:27? No. He (Christ) caused the sacrifice and the oblation necessarily for salvation to cease now that He has secured all Elect for salvation, Revelation 7:1-4. The sacrifice simply ended, not breaking the covenant itself which is eternal! Oh boy!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Wrong
'Messiah was cut off. He is out of the picture as far as prophetic events in this period goes.

Do you ever THINK that Christ has confirmed the covenant at the same time he died? This is how the testament/will has been confirmed - the moment he died! With his Blood. Hebrew 9 confirmed this! Didn't you ever read?

Heb 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Get it??

There is time gap between cut-off Messiah and the confirmation of a covenant that need to take place later. Oh boy.

 

[covenantee]

No, it is not simple. You are confused and wrong with this faulty interpreation. First, you need to realize who did Christ confirmed a covenant with? Was it with the physical city? Was it with a piece of land called "judea?" Was it with the Jews only? Of course not. it was with the new Testament Church that the Lord was empowered to go forth with gospel Truth into the world. Get this part right first.

therefore, the prophesied apostasy and desolation will be found in New Testament Congregation after Christ has secured all of His Elect through the testimony of Two Witnessed. It did not occur in 70AD since the church has already gone out under the new covenant Christ confirmed! You got the wrong sacrifice and wrong Jersualem on this matter to begin with!

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins; YLT


The birth of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The ministry of Messiah was physical and spiritual events.
The death of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The resurrection of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.
The ascension of Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.

The desolation of Jerusalem by Messiah was a physical and spiritual event.

Get used to it.

 

[covenantee]

Christ did not confirm any covenant with anyone,

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins; YLT

Sounds like many doesn't include you.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oh really?

Dan 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Really

That was not Jesus.

And this Prince did confirm the Covenant with many, and it was that same Prince Messiah in that same context. Not an evil prince, not the prince Titus, not the Antichrist of future events, but the same Messiah the Prince that was spoken of in that verse. In our exegesis, which is the one where scripture interprets scripture, the only prince mentioned there (according to God's word) is Messiah, the anointed.

Jesus never confirmed a covenant for 1 week. He fulfilled a covenant he was sent to confirm. An eternal covenant

So who are the "many" in verse 27 that Christ confirmed a convent with, humm? (note: not for everyone in the whole world as you alleged.) The answer is the Election in Christ, to whom the promise pertain to, in Christ Jesus!

Galatians 3:15-16

• "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
• Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Only In Christ can "the many" be of the Covenant. Thus, the many are all who are in Christ Jesus. His chosen people, not everyone in the world.

Romans 11:27

• "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

It is the election, who have their sins taken away in Christ! This is whom the Lord made a covenant with. Now with everyone else in the world. Selah!




Not Abrahamic Covenant.

Not Mosaic Covenant.

It is a NEW covenant - an eternal covenant with many (His People, not everyone on the world). Selah.



Break? Where did it say in Daniel 9:27? No. He (Christ) caused the sacrifice and the oblation necessarily for salvation to cease now that He has secured all Elect for salvation, Revelation 7:1-4. The sacrifice simply ended, not breaking the covenant itself which is eternal! Oh boy!

lol

Jesus was sent to the world. so whoever in the world believes will be saved.

Jesus fulfilled the abrahamic covenant - In You (literally your seed) shall all nations be blessed.

He fulfilled the mosaic covenant, As the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Its for everyone, But only those who believe will recieve it..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Do you ever THINK that Christ has confirmed the covenant at the same time he died? This is how the testament/will has been confirmed - the moment he died! With his Blood. Hebrew 9 confirmed this! Didn't you ever read?

Heb 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Get it??

There is time gap between cut-off Messiah and the confirmation of a covenant that need to take place later. Oh boy.

lol

1. He confirmed a covenant for 1 week.

In the middle of the week, he caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

No you want me to believe in the cross he confirmed a covenant, and then at the same time 3.5 years later, his same death caused sacrifice and burnt offering to cease?

Come on man.. Your not helping..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Daniel 9
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many...

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins; YLT

Sounds like many doesn't include you.

for 1 week

The new covenenat is eternal

Your not helping either.

well yeah actually you are. Your helping confirm my belief is the only possible interpretation.

 

[covenantee]

for 1 week

The new covenenat is eternal

Your not helping either.

well yeah actually you are. Your helping confirm my belief is the only possible interpretation.

Yes, Matthew 26:28 is for only 1 week.

I see you're already flunking your English lesson.

 

[Phoneman777]

seriously, you guys are so steeped in antisemitism, you can‘t see this covenant is about the nation of Israel and the temple sacrifice. And has nothing to do with Christ.

"...and through you ALL the families of the Earth shall be blessed".

The New Covenant has always been about EVERYONE, not just Israel.

Thats interesting, considering the blasphemous rebuilt temple in Jesus day which had no bearing on anyone’s salvation and had not as far as I can see ever seen the presence of God in the most holy place. Was called the house of God by Jesus himself.

That temple stood in the shadow of the coming Messiah.

YOUR "FUTURE REBUILT TEMPLE" will stand in the inescapable darkness of the prince of darkness.

In fact, Jesus will rule from that “blasphemous rebuilt temple”

No He won't! He will rule over the "temple of God" - the church when He comes into His kingdom!

Actually I am told it last for eternity. Its called ETERNAL LIFE.

Do you understand English? I said a thing that is promised no longer requires confirmation of the promise when the promise is finally fulfilled.

This covenant is made with many for 1 week, (seven years) the cross is a covenant made wit all for eternity.

You will not find a single verse that says the New Covenant is confirmed for all eternity - what is eternal is the New Covenant itself, not the process of confirming it, which was 7 years, and in case you missed it:

You don't continue confirming a hotel reservation after you've checked out and left.

Jesus made this clear in John 3, He came to die for the WORLD (all) that WHOEVER believes in hi will NEVER PERISH, but have ETERNAL LIFE (there is that pesky word eternal you hate)

What's that got to do with the 7 year process of confirming the promise of a New Covenant which is now a reality for us?

Israel was supposed to first recieve the promise, then they were supposed to be Gods witness to the world

That's exaclty what I said, bro! The promise of New Covenant Salvation was to be confirmed by Jesus for the Jews ("thy people and thy holy city") so they could take the Good News Gospel to the world after it had been carried to all Israel - did not Jesus tell them to "go not the way of the Gentiles, but first go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"? After having been fully confirmed to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", the New Covenant finally was opened to "all the families of the Earth" so they could "be blessed" with salvation...RIGHT OR WRONG?

God said she would. She will be a greater witness when God restored them to prominence after they repent. And he rules in their (his) city and his high place.

They will never be restored as a nation - read Isaiah 5, for heaven's sake.

The church is now the "Israel of God" while your Israel suffers "wrath...to the uttermost".

Did they not cry, "His blood be upon us and our children FOREVER?"

Are not "all the promises of God yea and amen in Christ"?

Did He not "confirm the promises of the fathers" in Zechariah and other books for Himself and those who follow?

 

[Davidpt]

the next event is that a He will confirm a covenant with many for 7 years (1 week) but in the middle of that 7 year period. this he will cause sacrifice and burnt offering to cease. Much like antiochus epiphanies did when Greece controlled Jerusalem, By placing his own abomination of desolation i n the Holy Place.

Per this scenario since it would be involving a rebuilt temple in the future, what does the Holy Place have to do with that? How could a rebuilt temple in the future possibly involve a Holy Place? That would be like saying after Jesus died and rose, and before the 2nd temple was destroyed, the 2nd temple was still the holy place and remained the holy place until it was destroyed.

Understanding it like that is to pretty much spit in Christ's face by insisting that the 2nd temple was still the holy place for another 40 years. One is basically saying that Christ's death and resurrection did not make the 2nd temple obsolete, thus no longer the holy place, that that wasn't accomplished until 40 years later. No wonder some of us can't get on board with the absurd Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 that it is involving the 2nd temple in the first century. That interpretation has the 2nd temple remaining the holy place all the way up until it is destroyed, rather than it no longer being the holy place the moment Jesus rose after He had died.

The Holy Place is now meaning the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving. That should not be understood as a literal temple, though. Not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. The verses that surround verse 4 in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, can you or anyone else point out anything in those verses that support that verse 4 involves a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem?

Let's try something here. Let's assume verse 4 is not even in that chapter. That chapter looks like this instead.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

If one were to read that chapter like that, is there anything in any of that that might lead one to think it might involve a literal brick and mortar temple in Jersusalem?

Speaking for myself, and maybe my reading comprehension is different from someone else, thus that explaining why, if they come to a different conclusion altogether, while I see zero in any of that that might lead me to think it might involve a literal brick and mortar temple in Jersusalem, but that someone else does. The point being, in order for verse 4 to involve a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem to begin with, there has to be support for that in some or all of the verses that surround verse 4. If anyone is seeing a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem in verse 4, they are reading that into the text which is not what one should be doing if the idea is to try and interpret something correctly.