When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[Davy]

The original poster is throwing out a TRICK QUESTION, not written in God's Word.

In Matthew 24 and Mark 13, Jesus gave seven main SIGNS of the end of this world leading up to His future coming. At Matthew 24:15 Jesus quoted from the Book of Daniel (Dan.11:31) about the coming final Antichrist ending sacrifices in Jerusalem and placing the "abomination of desolation" IDOL in the "holy place"...

Matt 24:15
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
KJV

That "holy place" is Jesus referring to a future IDOL setup in a future Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem.

It is for the end of this world when the final Antichrist/false-Messiah appears in Jerusalem just prior to Christ's future return. That Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 Scripture Lord Jesus quoted is pointing to an IDOL being setup at a future Jewish temple for the end, at Jerusalem. And that's a SIGN Jesus gave for the very end of this world, not back in 70 A.D., and not back at His time of crucifixion.

So beware of Tom-foolery questions by those who seek to twist The Scriptures with loaded questions, where neither of the two choices can be true.

In the OP's case, he is wrongly suggesting that the "holy place" Jesus referred to no longer exists today, when in reality Jesus was pointing to a future 3rd standing stone temple to be built by the Jews for the end where that IDOL "abomination of desolation" event will take place.

Apostle Paul warned about this same thing with the "man of sin", but he didn't mention that "abomination of desolation" IDOL to be setup in the "temple of God." He instead pointed to the coming false-Messiah ("man of sin") exalting himself as God in that future 3rd stone temple in Jerusalem. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

(Also beware of those why try... to twist Apostle Paul's phrase in 2 Thess.2:4 about that "temple of God" for the end of this world. Some attempt to twist that "temple of God" phrase into being Christ's Temple of The Spirit, which should be obvious to ANY Bible-believing Christian that such an idea as that comes from the false-Jews of the "synagogue of Satan", simply because Christ's True Temple of The Spirit cannot... ever... be corrupted, not even by Satan or his angels! And no TRUE Bible-believing Christian would ever think Christ's Temple of The Spirit could ever be corrupted, since its very foundation is made up of His Apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Christ Himself as its Chief Corner Stone! See Ephesians 2.)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He said it twice in a 24 hour period of time, but only once in the Olivet Discourse. Luke 21 is not the Olivet Discourse. Luke 21 was the daytime before the Olivet would begin.

I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your post because anyone who makes a claim like this can't be taken seriously.

You think, after Jesus telling them that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed, the disciples asked Him this....

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

And then hours later asked Him the same questions again?

Mark 13:4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

What do you think, that they had already forgotten how He had already answered those questions? That is completely ludicrous and not something that anyone can take seriously. You only believe that because of extreme doctrinal bias.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I argue that just because Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 use almost identical language this doesn't necessarily mean they are the same event.

Yet, you claim that Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 have to be referring to the same event because of the similar wording used in those verses. So, why are you not consistent in your approach to interpreting scripture? Why can't you just admit that you are very selective in the type of approach you use in interpreting scripture? Can you admit that verses having similar wording can mean they are referring to the same event, but not necessarily, and that applies to Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 as well?

You argue that it does mean they are the same event. Then I argue that because Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 are using almost identical language this means they are involving the same event. You then argue that it isn't the same event. You then argue why am I not being consistent?

Right. And you never answer that question. If you are going to insist that two verses are about the same event because of having almost identical wording then you should always apply that logic without exception. But, you don't. The fact of the matter is that most of the time when two verses have almost identical wording they ARE about the same event, but it is not always the case. So, that type of logic alone cannot be used to prove that two verses are about the same event. You have to also look at the context of each verse to determine that.

First I argue that even though Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 use almost identical language this doesn't mean they are the same event. Then you argue that I turn around and argue, that since Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 use almost identical language, this means they are the same event. And now all of a sudden I insist it is meaning the same event because both passages are using almost indentical language, you argue. Which then contradicts how I was arguing in regards to Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21, you argue.

LOL! Yes, exactly. The solution to this is just for you to acknowledge that two verses having very similar wording does not automatically make them about the same event. I acknowledge that. Can you? I don't know why you wouldn't when that's clearly what you believe.

Notice what you do yourself, though.

Stop right here. The difference between us is that I don't insist that two verses are about the same event only because they have similar wording like you do with Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1, for example. There are obviously exceptions to that, as you acknowledge with not interpreting Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16 and not interpreting Luke 21:23 and Matthew 24:19 as being about the same event. So, if we can just agree that verses having very similar wording does not necessarily mean they are about the same event, then we can stop wasting time going back and forth arguing about that and instead start looking at the context of each verse that has similar wording in order to determine if they are about the same event or not.

. First you argue that because Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 use almost identical language this means they are the same event.

It isn't that reason alone that I make that argument, though. You're always looking at things so narrowly. The other reason I see those verses are referring to the same event is because I don't believe it makes any sense to think that Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 and then shortly after said something very similar again without any explanation that He was talking about a different event the second time He said something very similar.

Keep in mind that it's highly likely that the disciples believed at the time they asked Him those questions is that they were only asking about one event without realizing at the time that the temple buildings would be destroyed at a separate time than His coming at the end of the age. In other words, they very likely would have assumed that the temple buildings would be destroyed at His coming at the end of the age, but that was not the case. So, with that in mind, imagine how confused they would have been if He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 separately from what He said in Matthew 24:15-22. Let's say, in that case, that He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 first.

Imagine how confused the disciples would have been after He said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22? They might have thought, "Didn't you already basically say this already? Why are you saying it again? Okay, we get it. When we see signs indicating the impending desolation of Jerusalem, then those in Judea need to flee into the mountains because great tribulation and distress is about to take place and it will be difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee. Yeah, we got that the first time you said it.".

Believing that Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 are about the same event, as you do, is different than believing that Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16 are about the same event because Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 were not both said during the Olivet Discourse. We don't see similar wording directly surrounding the Luke 17:31 verse that we see surrounding the Matthew 24:17 verse the way we do with Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16. The Luke 17:31 verse is clearly directly related to "the day the Son of Man is revealed" which is referenced in the previous verse. In contrast to that, there is no indication that Matthew 24:17 is directly related to the day Jesus returns.

Then you argue that just because Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 use almost identical language, this doesn't make them the same event.

Why would I argue something stupid like that? No, I do not argue that. I argue that because the verses have a different context. And, I understand, as you do, that two verses having the almost identical language does not necessarily make them about the same event. But, would never argue that two verses having almost identical language means they can't be the same event as you are falsely accusing me of here. Why would anyone ever make that kind of argument? The tendency instead is to assume that two verses with very similar wording refer to the same event, but we both know that is not necessarily the case.

Yet, because Luke 17:26-28 and Matthew 24:37-39 use almost identical language this means they are the same event.

I am not arguing that verses are the same event solely based on having almost identical language. When did I ever indicate as such? Never. That alone is not enough to determine if two verses or passages are the same event and I never said otherwise. You, however, insist that verses like Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17 must be the same event for no other reason than because they have very similar wording. But, we both know that alone is not enough to determine if they are about the same event. It seems that only one of

You are doing the exact same thing you find fault with me doing and I'm doing the exact same thing I find fault with you doing. Then we are both insisting it's because of doctrinal bias.

Wrong. As usual, you're only telling part of the story. It's only a problem to conclude that two verses are the same event if the only basis for that is because they have similar wording while not taking context into account. I don't believe I'm doing that, but I believe that's what I see you doing with Luke 17:31 and Matthew 24:17, which are not even both in the Olivet Discourse like Luke 17:21 and Matthew 24:16 are.

And so what if Luke 17 might not be the Discourse involving Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21?

It figures you would say "so what" about that. It does matter because you have Jesus saying something very similar to something He had just said maybe a minute or two earlier, which is not the case with Luke 17 and the Olivet Discourse. Yes, of course, He sometimes repeated things He had previously said, but not only a minute or two after having said them. Yet, that's what you expect me to believe about things He said in the Olivet Discourse. You expect me to believe that He said something related to seeing certain things happen that would indicate that the desolation of Jerusalem was imminent and that those in Judea would need to flee into the mountains and that it would be difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee and that great tribulation/distress would occur at that time a short time after already saying those same things.

You still argue that Luke 17:26-28 and Matthew 24:37-39 are referring to the same event, do you not? Well, what Luke 17 records via Luke 17:31, Matthew 24 records via Matthew 24:17, does it not? Except you insist they are not the same event, do you not?

Yes, because of context. Do you look at context at all? Clearly, determining whether two verses or passages are the same event or not cannot be determine only by them having similar wording.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In the OP's case, he is wrongly suggesting that the "holy place" Jesus referred to no longer exists today, when in reality Jesus was pointing to a future 3rd standing stone temple to be built by the Jews for the end where that IDOL "abomination of desolation" event will take place.

You have exposed your lack of reading comprehension skills once again. While I disagree with his interpretation, I can at least recognize that he is NOT suggesting "that the holy place Jesus referred to no longer exists today". Instead, he is suggesting that the holy place refers to the church which obviously still exists today. He relates "the holy place" Jesus referenced directly with "the temple of God" Paul referenced in 2 Thess 2:4.

Apostle Paul warned about this same thing with the "man of sin", but he didn't mention that "abomination of desolation" IDOL to be setup in the "temple of God." He instead pointed to the coming false-Messiah ("man of sin") exalting himself as God in that future 3rd stone temple in Jerusalem. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

(Also beware of those why try... to twist Apostle Paul's phrase in 2 Thess.2:4 about that "temple of God" for the end of this world. Some attempt to twist that "temple of God" phrase into being Christ's Temple of The Spirit, which should be obvious to ANY Bible-believing Christian that such an idea as that comes from the false-Jews of the "synagogue of Satan", simply because Christ's True Temple of The Spirit cannot... ever... be corrupted, not even by Satan or his angels!

Yes, let's just ignore that every other time Paul referred to "the temple of God" it was in reference to the body of an individual believer or to the body of Christ (the church) collectively. You think we should foolishly believe that he was referring to some other temple of God in 2 Thess 2:4 than the one he referred to everywhere else in his writings. No one is saying that Christ's church as a whole would be corrupted, but instead that individuals within the church can be corrupted and that's what some of us believe 2 Thess 2:4 is about.

And no TRUE Bible-believing Christian would ever think Christ's Temple of The Spirit could ever be corrupted, since its very foundation is made up of His Apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Christ Himself as its Chief Corner Stone! See Ephesians 2.)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What in the world do you then think Jesus could have possibly meant by---no, nor shall ever be---if not that it will be the greatest tribulation since the beginning of time, and that no tribulation in the future will be as great?

What in the world is causing you to equate the words "no, nor shall ever be" with the scope or greatness level of the tribulation He was talking about in terms of whether He was talking about a local, regional or global tribulation event? Only doctrinal bias could lead you to that conclusion. He did not refer to the scope of the tribulation He referred to in Matthew 24:21 in terms of whether it would be a local, regional or global tribuation. He only said it would be unlike anything else that had occurred or would ever occur again.

Can a local event not be something unlike anything that has ever happened anywhere in the world? Of course it can. Do you think there has ever been an event like what happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD? There hasn't. So, that event fits the description of Matthew 24:21. Only doctrinal bias can cause you to change the context of what Jesus actually said, as if He said it would be a global event that would be greater in scope than any other global event. Based on that understanding, how can anything ever be greater than the flood in Noah's day that killed all but 8 people in the world?

You can't even discern the difference between tribulation and the wrath of God leading to judgment.

LOL. How ironic for you to say that about me when it clearly applies to you instead. Are you somehow unware that the word "tribulation" can refer to God's wrath?

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

2 Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Nowhere are we ever told that what happened per the flood was tribulation.

LOL! Yes, I'm sure that no one had any tribulation during the flood. Are you kidding me?! Please get serious. What caused you to think that the word "tribulation" can't refer to God's wrath? That is absolutely not true. See the verses I referenced above.

It was judgment involving the wrath of God, the same way the DOTL will be judgment involving the wrath of God . Nor was it a time of trouble during the flood, where a time of trouble typically involves one side persecuting the other side.

Total nonsense. Your doctrinal bias shines through with every post you make. If only you could set your doctrinal bias aside and read scripture objectively for once. Why don't you try it and see what you discover?

No one was being persecuted by anyone during Noah's flood. You have to ignore context to come to some of the absurd conclusions you often come to at times.

You are making a fool out of yourself with these comments. I'm not ignoring context at all and I'm also not foolishly trying to claim that the word "tribulation" can only refer to persecution rather than God's wrath like you are.

The context pertaining to Noah's flood does not involve a time of trouble compared to the context involving Matthew 24:21, where that involves a time of trouble.

Both involve God's wrath. The parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 shows that Matthew 24:21 involves God's wrath.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The word "distress" is a synonym of the word "tribulation" and this passage shows that great distress or tribulation can refer to God's wrath, just as the other verses I cited earlier prove.

To then compare with the flood in order to make Jesus out to be a liar per what He said--no, nor ever shall be, is absurd.

Everything you're saying in your post is absurd becuase you are clearly looking at all of this with doctrinal bias rather than looking at it objectively. If I say that what happened in 70 AD was something unlike anything that happened before it, no, nor ever shall be, is that not true? It is true. So, your argument that Jesus had to be talking about a global event just because of the words He used is very weak.

Only doctrinal bias could cause someone to do something like that.

Says the person who bases everything on doctrinal bias.

Except in your mind, when it comes to doctrinal bias, that is only something others do, never anything that you ever do as well.

It's something you do, for sure, and I have shown why. You, meanwhile, have failed to show how I'm supposedly using doctrinal bias. Falsely representing my views does not prove my supposed doctrinal bias.

The way you are reasoning the flood would be like you arguing that the DOTL is involving great tribulation when you know good and well great tribulation would be in the past at this point no matter how you look at it.

Total nonsense. The DOTL will involve great tribulation because it involves Christ taking vengeance on those who are evil and reject God's word and reject the gospel because, as Paul said, there will be "tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" and, when Jesus comes, "it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you".

 

[Davy]

HEY BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
Want a good Bible example of how an IDOL in a Jewish stone temple makes our Heavenly Father really angry?? In Ezekiel 8 God calls that IDOL an "image of jealousy"! It's because GOD is jealous when His people go off worshiping anything besides HIM.

Think of Christ's warning for the end of Matthew 24:15, when He gave the SIGN of the "abomination of desolation" IDOL setup in a Jewish stone temple in Jerusalem, per the Book of Daniel (Dan.11:31; Dan.8:9-14; Dan.9:27; Dan.12:11).


God gave His prophet Ezekiel a Vision of an abomination IDOL involved in a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. God did not reveal WHEN these events would take place. This is a VISION He gave Ezekiel, not HISTORY as if it already happened, because it has not yet.

Ezek 8:1-6
8 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me.
2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber.

That "fire" is actually Hebrew 'ish', which means a 'man', not 'esh' which means fire. Ezekiel saw a man, meaning an angel because this is a vision he is being given.

3 And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy.

Ezekiel sees an IDOL image at the door of the inner gate that looks toward the north. The IDOL is called an "image of jealousy" because it provokes The LORD.

This is about the temple in Jerusalem, not some far away city.

4 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain.
5 Then said he unto me, "Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north." So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry.

Now Ezekiel looks north, and sees this "image of jealousy", an IDOL, at the gate of the altar.

6 He said furthermore unto me, "Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from My sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations."
KJV

That man Ezekiel saw from the start most like is our Lord Jesus Christ back in Old Testament times, sometimes called The Angel of The LORD (though Lord Jesus is GOD The Son, and not angel, yet the word angel simply means a 'messenger'.)

Why is that "house of Israel" mentioned there with this vision, and why not the "house of Judah" along with them? After the split of old Israel per 1 Kings 11, the "house of Israel" was put for the northern ten tribe "kingdom of Israel" with its capital at Samaria in the northern holy lands. Solomon's son Rehoboam, of the house of David, was king of Judah at Jerusalem, over the "kingdom of Judah" (3 tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi). What does this mean?

Per Ezekiel 3, God made Ezekiel a prophet specifically to the ten tribe "house of Israel". So this vision so far is about how the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) turning to false IDOL worship in a temple at Jerusalem. And this vision was given after... Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had destroyed Jerusalem and Solomon's temple, and Ezekiel was in captivity to Babylon. So this IDOL could not have been about the time of Solomon's temple, for it was already destroyed at this time. At this time, the ten tribes were still in captivity a little farther north from where Ezekiel was, and God sent Ezekiel to the ten tribes to give the Book of Ezekiel prophecies. Then the ten tribes would be later scattered further through the countries, never to return to the holy land, even as it is to this day.

Ezek 8:7-13
7 And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall.
8 Then said he unto me, "Son of man, dig now in the wall": and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door.
9 And he said unto me, "Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here."
10 So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about.
11 And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.

Images on the walls inside the temple, PAGAN images in false worship! And this is about the leaders of the ten tribes ("house of Israel") recognizing these pagan idols from various pagan religions?? Just when... is this VISION for? The END maybe?

12 Then said he unto me, "Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, 'The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.'"
13 He said also unto me, "Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do."
KJV

(Continued...)

 

[Davy]

(Continued...)


Ezek 8:14-18
14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

Tammuz was an IDOL personifying vegetable and animal life, an IDOL of the Babylonians and Phoenicians.

15 Then said he unto me, "Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these."

16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

Ancient sun worship, a PAGAN religious practice.

17 Then he said unto me, "Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: Mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in Mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.
KJV

Mind you, Ezekiel and the "house of Judah" are in the Babylon captivity at this point of time. Judah was captive to Tel-abib per Ezekiel 3:15. So Judah's false worship was already ended at this point of time by the king of Babylon who destroyed Jerusalem and Solomon's temple.


The RESULT:
Ezek 9:1-6
9 He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, "Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand."

2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.

3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon He was, to the threshold of the house. And He called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;

4 And the LORD said unto him, "Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof."

Recall Revelation 7 about the sealing of God's servants with His seal by The Holy Spirit. That's what this "mark" represents with God's servants being 'sealed' prior to the four winds being loosed upon the earth that will end this present world.

5 And to the others He said in mine hearing, "Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary." Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
KJV

Recall 1 Peter 4:17 where Peter said Christ's future Judgment will begin first at God's House, i.e., Christ's Church.

I strongly believe this VISION Ezekiel was given is about the END of this world, for during the coming "great tribulation" time all the way until Christ's future return and Judgment.

Recall 2 Thessalonians 2:4 about the coming "man of sin" at the end, who will exalt himself in Jerusalem in a new 3rd stone temple built by deceived Jews, and will also exalt himself as God over all that is called God, or that is worshiped. That points to a one-world religion to include ALL religions of the world! That means PAGAN IDOLS of those many other religions! That tells me this VISION given through Ezekiel is very likely to be about the last days when that "man of sin" arrives at Jerusalem, and sets himself up in place of God, and then places the "abomination of desolation" IDOL in that new 3rd temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Scott Downey]

Except I'm not taking these things in the literal sense in Matthew 24:15-20. Therefore, literal mountains is a moot point. Literal mountains only make sense per that context if the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses. Some argue that the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses. I tend to disagree for various reasons, thus what I have been arguing throughout thus far.

For one thing, I don't see it making sense that the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple when Christ's death and resurrection made it no longer the holy place. But not some 40 years later, meaning that it was still the holy place until it was destroyed. That is a blatant contradiction that an unholy place can be a holy place at the same time. Clearly, it became an unholy place once Christ died and rose, the fact they continued sacrificing animals. That equals an unholy place, not a holy place.

And Jesus said the abomination of desolation is involving a holy place, not an unholy place. Which then would mean that the holy place then becomes an unholy place. But it has to first occur in the holy place. There was no holy place for it to occur in, in the first century. The 2nd temple was already an unholy place once Jesus died and rose, and that Jesus was applying the AOD to the future involving a holy place, not an unholy place. But let's just ignore all of that since some can't see Matthew 24:15-20 meaning anything but literal. Therefore, in their minds, the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses, case closed.

It's interesting that the temple was no longer the holy place where God dwells even in 70 AD. if you read Josephus on the temple after the resurrection there were signs that used to take place that no longer did, pointing out things had changed.

The year the scarlet thread stopped turning white - the importance of the historical and cultural context

The Scarlet thread of the scape goat turned from red to white on the day of atonement up until AD 30! This temple miracle signified God acce...

evbibletalk.blogspot.com

The 7 Signs Of Josephus Reveal End Times Destruction

Our only first-hand account of the Roman assault on the Temple comes from the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius who was a former leader of the Jewish

www.patheos.com

 

[Dave Watchman]

I'm not going to bother even reading the rest of your post because anyone who makes a claim like this can't be taken seriously.

That's OK, I also post it for other people who are interested. That's why I'm glad you question it.

You think, after Jesus telling them that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed, the disciples asked Him this....

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

And then hours later asked Him the same questions again?

Mark 13:4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Yes I do. That's what I think. You can see it too if you look hard at it. Because they are two different questions, about two different things. Look at the Matthew version.

What do you think, that they had already forgotten how He had already answered those questions?

I would estimate the two sets of questions were 12 hour apart, answered by Jesus in two different locations, with the answer to the second question having at least a 20 minute offset. The first set was in the morning, inside the temple. The second set was in the evening, on the Mount called Olivet. His second answer was after they had made the trip, and Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives.

Because every morning He was teaching in the temple, but at night He would lodge on the Mount called Olivet.

That is completely ludicrous and not something that anyone can take seriously.

I'm serious.

You only believe that because of extreme doctrinal bias.

Non biased for me. I'm not from a theology.

Just look at it hard and you will see.

When Luke 21 begins, Jesus is sitting down inside the temple. In a place called the women's court. The treasury consisted of various sized jars where people would toss different denominations of coins into. They were placed around the periphery of the women's court. They were looking at the temple walls, and floors from the inside. The inside walls, and floors were adorned with decorative stones and offerings. They did an excavation and found some of them that the Dome builders threw away down into the valley. Some were pieced back together. They really were beautiful, mosaic style designs. But they were on the inside of the temple.

Magnificent Flooring From Jerusalem’s Second Temple Unearthed - Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy

"Amazing new discoveries at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount are providing evidence of the Second Temple from the time of King Herod. "This represents the first time that we can see with our own eyes the splendor of the flooring that decorated the Second Temple and its annexes 2,000 years ago” said Dr...

www.patternsofevidence.com

Archaeologists restore Second Temple flooring from Waqf's trash

Experts recreate geometrically patterned marble floor tiles by piecing together ancient fragments of stone. The result recalls the Talmudic teaching that 'whoever has not seen Herod's building has not seen a beautiful building in his life.'

www.haaretz.com

When Matthew 24 begins Jesus is leaving the temple and walking away. They are on the outside of the temple, on their way down the Kidron valley and up to the Mount called Olivet. His disciples came to point out the buildings of the temple. They're not pointing to the decorative stones and offerings on the inside of the temple anymore, but to the entire temple complex. Looking at it from the outside, all the buildings.

Luke 21 inside the temple:

And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” And they asked him,​

“Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”​

Matthew 24 Jesus leaving the temple and walking away:

“You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”​

Then 20 minutes latter after they made the trip up to the Mount of Olives:

"As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying,

“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”​

In Luke 21 the question is about the destruction of Jerusalem, in Matthew 24 it's about the impact of Jesus' coming at the end of the age.

Seriously.

 

[Scott Downey]

Except I'm not taking these things in the literal sense in Matthew 24:15-20. Therefore, literal mountains is a moot point. Literal mountains only make sense per that context if the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses. Some argue that the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses. I tend to disagree for various reasons, thus what I have been arguing throughout thus far.

For one thing, I don't see it making sense that the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple when Christ's death and resurrection made it no longer the holy place. But not some 40 years later, meaning that it was still the holy place until it was destroyed. That is a blatant contradiction that an unholy place can be a holy place at the same time. Clearly, it became an unholy place once Christ died and rose, the fact they continued sacrificing animals. That equals an unholy place, not a holy place.

And Jesus said the abomination of desolation is involving a holy place, not an unholy place. Which then would mean that the holy place then becomes an unholy place. But it has to first occur in the holy place. There was no holy place for it to occur in, in the first century. The 2nd temple was already an unholy place once Jesus died and rose, and that Jesus was applying the AOD to the future involving a holy place, not an unholy place. But let's just ignore all of that since some can't see Matthew 24:15-20 meaning anything but literal. Therefore, in their minds, the first century leading up to 70 AD is what is in view in those verses, case closed.

The other thing about the abomination that makes desolate and the 70 AD temple. That temple God had already rejected, and there was no more accepted by God, animal sacrifices for sin, it was not the Holy of Holies where God was. The church was going strong and God lives in them not a building made by men.

However, Jesus used the phrase 'abomination that makes desolate standing in the holy place'. This is not to mean it was still a genuine holy place to God, as that was impossible. He was referring to how the people would consider the temple a holy place.

The judgement of God was against the temple, to utterly destroy that temple as that was part of the OC which God did away with.

Consider then 2 Thess 2 and some future idea of a temple of God. Again, the same exact scenario, the people of that time consider it a holy place of God where He dwells, but it is not such a thing, God is not dwelling there. The devil then sits in it falsely claiming he is god. So, we have 2 lies playing out, the temple is a genuinely unholy place, even though some call it the temple of God, and the devil sits there proclaiming himself God, but he is not, which proves it is all a lie by the devil, part of the mystery of lawlessness.

Then Christ comes and destroys that temple and the devil. Just like God destroyed the 70Ad temple.

The only acceptable temple to God is God's very own people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes I do. That's what I think.

Well, it's unfortunate that you think something that makes no sense whatsoever. You think that the disciples asked Jesus the same exact questions twice, which means you think that the disciples weren't listening the first time that Jesus answered them. Please ask God for wisdom about this (James 1:5-7).

 

[Wick Stick]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

Why this matters is because of what Matthew 24:15, for one, records.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed. Don't some interpreters even grasp what a 'contradiction' is? That contradictions clearly lead to lies not the truth?

What does one do then, assuming they are at least humble enough to admit that they are contradicting that they agree Christ's death and resurrection made the 2nd temple no longer the holy place by insisting that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple? Do they do like Dispys do, make it be involving a rebuilt temple in the future? Like that is the only option. But if it was the only option, I for sure don't fault them for insisting the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple in that case. Because clearly, a literal rebuilt temple in the future being how one should interpret this, is one of the most far-fetched ideas anyone has ever come up with. And I'm thinking there may have been a time in the past when that was my position as well. And if so, that was then, this is now.

Is there another option? Of course there is. It's involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. Except 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple, not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters insisting the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is the 2nd temple are on the same page with me concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that it is not involving a literal temple.

Why can't these same interpreters plainly see, that by applying 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to Matthew 24:15 rather than the 2nd temple, now they are no longer speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Now they are no longer contradicting that they agree that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, as opposed to it continuing to be the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. But who cares, right? It's way better to contradict something rather than trying to understand something in such a manner where nothing is being contradicted. God forbid, that the latter makes the better sense.

What one should be asking themselves since Jesus was a prophet and knew He was going to the cross, did He too think the 2nd temple remained the holy place until it would be destroyed in 70 AD? After all, keep in mind, Jesus is the one who called the temple in mind the holy place. Would He be so silly to contradict that His death and resurrection would make the 2nd temple no longer the holy place, by then meaning the 2nd temple rather than the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple?

When do some of you think the 3rd temple initially came into affect? In 70 AD when the 2nd temple was destroyed? Surely not. There you go then unless you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth. That the 3rd temple came into affect once Christ died and rose, therefore, causing the 2nd temple to cease being the holy place, yet the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple. What a confused interpreter this person is, spouting nothing other than one contradiction after another.

The Jewish temple had 4 parts:

* The Outer Court
* The Inner Court
* The Holy Place, and
* The Holy of Holies

The "Holy Place" in view in Matthew 24 is the third of these parts; not the whole temple. In the verse, it is referred to as "The Holy Place" because that is its proper name.

If the temple were non-functional, or desecrated, or had been taken over by illegitimate priests who had turned it into a grift to steal from the devout (yeah probably this one), then... this would still be the proper name for this part of the temple complex. We shouldn't imply that the temple was still functional or that God was still accepting animal sacrifices just because of a name. Particularly when we have strong evidence otherwise.

 

[Davidpt]

The Jewish temple had 4 parts:

* The Outer Court
* The Inner Court
* The Holy Place, and
* The Holy of Holies

The "Holy Place" in view in Matthew 24 is the third of these parts; not the whole temple. In the verse, it is referred to as "The Holy Place" because that is its proper name.

If the temple were non-functional, or desecrated, or had been taken over by illegitimate priests who had turned it into a grift to steal from the devout (yeah probably this one), then... this would still be the proper name for this part of the temple complex. We shouldn't imply that the temple was still functional or that God was still accepting animal sacrifices just because of a name. Particularly when we have strong evidence otherwise.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If we take this to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, this means we are required to take these things literally. Which would then mean that for almost 40 years, no one, not even any Christians, are seeing the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.

The reason why we can know that is because no one was doing what verse 16 records throughout these 40 years or little less than 40 years. We know from that that the AOD has zero to do with animal sacrificing still continuing. But then all of a sudden, some 40 years later or a little less, everyone starts seeing an AOD in the holy place, therefore, starts doing what verse 16 records.

Except no one that insists this is meaning the first century can tell us exactly what the AOD looked like that they saw, where it then caused them such alarm that they fled to the mountains, and didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

One interpreter will tell you the AOD was this. Another interpreter will tell you it was this instead. So on and so on. They insist this was fulffilled 2000 years ago yet all of them can't even agree with each other what the AOD was. The lamest theory is that it was animal sacrificing continuing. As if it makes sense, that if that is true, that it took them almost 40 years to finally notice that animal sacrificing continued, and that it alarmed them so much that they fled to the mountains the moment they finally noticed some 40 years later that animal sacrificing was still taking place. And they didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

If we take these things as literal, then factor in what you said about the temple and where the holy place is within in it, now we have to explain how anyone if they are on their rooftop at the time, or if they are out in the field somewhere working at the time, how they can possibly see an AOD taking place inside the holy place from where they are at the time. I don't understand why people see nonsense like this as being something that actually took place back then? Maybe they had x-ray vision like superman, and that explains how they saw an AOD taking place in the holy place when they were in the field somewhere working, and that it alarmed them so much that they didn't even bother to go back and get their clothes first.

One thing I'm thankful for, though I might not be the smartest person in here, that I at least possess some good common sense to make up for what I lack in the intelligence department. Just based on this last paragraph alone before this one, common sense alone tells us it is impossible that any of this is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD. Except some apparently put their doctrinal bias' above common sense.

IOW, we have to interpret these things spiritually and not in a literal sense instead. Verses like 17 and 18 in Matthew 24 cause no conflict with anything if we take these things spiritually. But those same verses for sure cause conflicts with reality if we take those things in the literal sense. As if someone out in the field at the time could then see from where they are, an AOD standing in the holy place. And what if the field they are working in at the time, that the temple is not even within their sight? What then? It makes it even more bizarre that they could see an AOD taking place in the holy place inside the temple from where they are at the time, when the temple is not even in their sight. LOL the nonsense we have to believe if interpreting this passage in the literal sense. Doesn't any intelligent person at least feel embarrassed by insisting these things are be taken literally when it defies common sense to take these things literally?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The other thing about the abomination that makes desolate and the 70 AD temple. That temple God had already rejected, and there was no more accepted by God, animal sacrifices for sin, it was not the Holy of Holies where God was. The church was going strong and God lives in them not a building made by men.

However, Jesus used the phrase 'abomination that makes desolate standing in the holy place'. This is not to mean it was still a genuine holy place to God, as that was impossible. He was referring to how the people would consider the temple a holy place.

Not just that, but it was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, so Him referring to it as "the holy place" at the time He was speaking does not mean it still had to be considered "the holy place" when the prophecy was fulfilled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If we take this to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, this means we are required to take these things literally. Which would then mean that for almost 40 years, no one, not even any Christians, are seeing the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.

The reason why we can know that is because no one was doing what verse 16 records throughout these 40 years or little less than 40 years. We know from that that the AOD has zero to do with animal sacrificing still continuing. But then all of a sudden, some 40 years later or a little less, everyone starts seeing an AOD in the holy place, therefore, starts doing what verse 16 records.

Except no one that insists this is meaning the first century can tell us exactly what the AOD looked like that they saw, where it then caused them such alarm that they fled to the mountains, and didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

One interpreter will tell you the AOD was this. Another interpreter will tell you it was this instead. So on and so on. They insist this was fulffilled 2000 years ago yet all of them can't even agree with each other what the AOD was. The lamest theory is that it was animal sacrificing continuing. As if it makes sense, that if that is true, that it took them almost 40 years to finally notice that animal sacrificing continued, and that it alarmed them so much that they fled to the mountains the moment they finally noticed some 40 years later that animal sacrificing was still taking place. And they didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

If we take these things as literal, then factor in what you said about the temple and where the holy place is within in it, now we have to explain how anyone if they are on their rooftop at the time, or if they are out in the field somewhere working at the time, how they can possibly see an AOD taking place inside the holy place from where they are at the time. I don't understand why people see nonsense like this as being something that actually took place back then? Maybe they had x-ray vision like superman, and that explains how they saw an AOD taking place in the holy place when they were in the field somewhere working, and that it alarmed them so much that they didn't even bother to go back and get their clothes first.

You think anyone cares about you saying others believe nonsense when you believe the nonsense that Jesus repeated some of the same things in Matthew 24:15-21 that He had already said in Luke 21:20-24 shortly before (or vice versa...I don't know which you think He said first)?

According to Luke's account, they did not have to be able to see something happening at the temple to know that the abomination of desolation was at hand, they just needed to see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

So, based on this, Jesus was actually saying that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then the would know that the abomination that causes desolation was about to take place and that Jerusalem's desolation was imminent.

One thing I'm thankful for, though I might not be the smartest person in here, that I at least possess some good common sense to make up for what I lack in the intelligence department.

LOL. I beg to differ. There is no common sense being used at all by concluding that Matthew 24:15-21 is not a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24, because it results in you believing the nonsense that Jesus twice said "when you shall see" something related to Jerusalem's desolation, "then let those in Judea flee into the mountains". And you think He also twice said "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!" and twice said there would be great tribulation/distress at that time when people would need to flee.

Just based on this last paragraph alone before this one, common sense alone tells us it is impossible that any of this is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Wrong. You making claims like this proves nothing. It's just downright ridiculous to say that something is impossible when it clearly is not impossible.

Except some apparently put their doctrinal bias' above common sense.

This is your problem. You think scripture has to be interpreted using supposed "common sense", which is just human wisdom, which we all know is fallible. Where do you ever say that you rely on the help of the Holy Spirit to discern these things? Why do you contradict what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 by saying that common sense (human wisdom) is the key to understand these things instead of spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit, as Paul said?

IOW, we have to interpret these things spiritually and not in a literal sense instead.

Hello? Nonsense. We have to use spiritual discernment to determine whether to interpret it literally in a physical sense or in a spiritual sense.

Verses like 17 and 18 in Matthew 24 cause no conflict with anything if we take these things spiritually.

They cause no conflict with anything if taken literally, either.

But those same verses for sure cause conflicts with reality if we take those things in the literal sense. As if someone out in the field out the time could then see from where they are, an AOD standing in the holy place.

They can see if Jerusalem is surrounded by armies or not.

Please answer these questions.

Which do you believe Jesus said first, what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 or what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24?

Whichever one you think He said fist, how much later do you think He said what is recorded in the other passage?

Please explain to me how the disciples would have known that He was not talking about the same event in Luke 21:20-24 that He had supposedly just talked about in Matthew 24:15-22 (or vice versa, depending on which you think He said first)?

 

[Wick Stick]

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If we take this to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, this means we are required to take these things literally. Which would then mean that for almost 40 years, no one, not even any Christians, are seeing the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.

The reason why we can know that is because no one was doing what verse 16 records throughout these 40 years or little less than 40 years. We know from that that the AOD has zero to do with animal sacrificing still continuing. But then all of a sudden, some 40 years later or a little less, everyone starts seeing an AOD in the holy place, therefore, starts doing what verse 16 records.

Except no one that insists this is meaning the first century can tell us exactly what the AOD looked like that they saw, where it then caused them such alarm that they fled to the mountains, and didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

One interpreter will tell you the AOD was this. Another interpreter will tell you it was this instead. So on and so on. They insist this was fulffilled 2000 years ago yet all of them can't even agree with each other what the AOD was. The lamest theory is that it was animal sacrificing continuing. As if it makes sense, that if that is true, that it took them almost 40 years to finally notice that animal sacrificing continued, and that it alarmed them so much that they fled to the mountains the moment they finally noticed some 40 years later that animal sacrificing was still taking place. And they didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

If we take these things as literal, then factor in what you said about the temple and where the holy place is within in it, now we have to explain how anyone if they are on their rooftop at the time, or if they are out in the field somewhere working at the time, how they can possibly see an AOD taking place inside the holy place from where they are at the time. I don't understand why people see nonsense like this as being something that actually took place back then? Maybe they had x-ray vision like superman, and that explains how they saw an AOD taking place in the holy place when they were in the field somewhere working, and that it alarmed them so much that they didn't even bother to go back and get their clothes first.

One thing I'm thankful for, though I might not be the smartest person in here, that I at least possess some good common sense to make up for what I lack in the intelligence department. Just based on this last paragraph alone before this one, common sense alone tells us it is impossible that any of this is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD. Except some apparently put their doctrinal bias' above common sense.

IOW, we have to interpret these things spiritually and not in a literal sense instead. Verses like 17 and 18 in Matthew 24 cause no conflict with anything if we take these things spiritually. But those same verses for sure cause conflicts with reality if we take those things in the literal sense. As if someone out in the field at the time could then see from where they are, an AOD standing in the holy place. And what if the field they are working in at the time, that the temple is not even within their sight? What then? It makes it even more bizarre that they could see an AOD taking place in the holy place inside the temple from where they are at the time, when the temple is not even in their sight. LOL the nonsense we have to believe if interpreting this passage in the literal sense. Doesn't any intelligent person at least feel embarrassed by insisting these things are be taken literally when it defies common sense to take these things literally?

I don't see a problem with a literal interpretation, but there are multiple fulfillments, and that always seems to confuse modern Christians.

In 167AD, the Seleucid king conquered Jerusalem and sacrificed a pig on the altar there, specifically to desecrate it in the most offensive way possible. This is covered in the book of I Macabbees, part of the Catholic/Orthodox canon, but not canonical within Judaism or Protestant Bibles. This is a literal fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, although perhaps not the literal fulfillment.

In Matthew 24, Jesus tells them to look for another fulfillment of the same prophecy, and that does seem to be tied to the Romans burning the temple in 70AD. I don't know precisely what the abomination was in those days, but the people back then seem to have recognized it... whatever it was. We know from history that the Christians did flee Jerusalem into the hill country when the Roman army came in 70AD.

There is yet another fulfillment of the prophecy in 135AD, and this one isn't hard to understand. The Jewish leader Simon bar Kokhba was declared to be the Jewish messiah and led the Jews in ANOTHER war with Rome. The Christians at the time again recognized the same prophecy, and again fled to the hills, which caused them to escape being annihilated.

Finally, remember that Daniel himself was carried away captive from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The temple was defiled by the invaders taking the contents of the Holy Place at that time. Daniel himself may have been pointing out a pattern by re-iterating a prophecy that pre-dated his book.

It remains incumbent on Jews and believers to continue recognizing this pattern... when a bad man stands up in the holy place and declares himself God... it's time to get out of Dodge.

 

[Davidpt]

I don't see a problem with a literal interpretation, but there are multiple fulfillments, and that always seems to confuse modern Christians.

I certainly see it as problem, though.

Here is what the text plainly says.

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes, when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. Then let them which be in Judea flea to the mountains.

LOL at myself for being so slow in having finally figured it out after all this time, that I'm not the one that needs to explain what these things mean if this is meaning spiritually rather than literally. No, it's the other way around instead. One needs to explain what these things mean if taken as literal. As in how these things don't defy logic. As if someone can be in the field at the time, then see from where they are, which, in some cases the temple might not even be within their line of site at the time to begin with, the AOD standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not, then being so alarmed by this that they have to get out of Dodge within that same split second. No time to even go back and get their clothes first.

 

[Davidpt]

Here's a discussion I had with chatgpt. The reason for me having discussions with chatgpt like this is because chatgpt can actually reason through these things with you. Take Google, for instance. Google is not going to reason through any of these things with you if you query it. It's just going to provide you links that might satisfy your queries. And some of those links, that unless they might be a presently active blog or forum, you can't even discuss further with them how they arrived at this or that, etc.

In my mind, chatgpt, at all times, is being objective about things and has no doctrinal bias' of any kind. I wish I could say the same about all of us including me. Keeping in mind that the keywords are 'at all times' as opposed to some of the time, just not all of the time.

I'm not going to paste everything we discussed since it would be too much to post. I will start with the following then.

----------------------
Me:

What abomination could it possibly be involving if meaning the 2nd temple? Especially some decades later after Christ died and rose

----------
Chatgpt then responded with:

Great question! The term "abomination of desolation" as mentioned in Matthew 24:15 (and also in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11) has been a subject of much debate, especially considering the timing of the events in relation to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

1. What is an "Abomination of Desolation"?
The phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to an event where something desecrates or defiles a holy place, often in the context of a temple. The term "abomination" in biblical usage typically refers to something profoundly offensive to God, often involving idolatry or sacrilege. "Desolation" implies that the place becomes abandoned or desolate due to the defilement.
2. The Context of the Second Temple:
The Second Temple was built in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile and stood as the center of Jewish worship until its destruction by the Romans in 70 A.D. During its existence, there were multiple events that could be considered desecrations of the Temple, but the most significant, according to many scholars and early Christians, was the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

7. Alternative Interpretations:
The Antichrist and the End Times: Some Christians interpret this passage as a prophecy not just of the Roman destruction but as a future event that will happen before the return of Christ, often connected to the figure of the Antichrist. This would be seen as a future fulfillment, where the abomination would be a physical act of desecration in a third temple that could be built in Jerusalem before the end of the world.
Preterist view: The preterist view holds that all of these prophecies were fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 A.D., with no future fulfillment.
Conclusion:
The "abomination of desolation" involving the Second Temple is commonly understood to refer to the Roman desecration of the Temple in 70 A.D., especially the actions of the Roman soldiers, including the placement of pagan standards and the eventual destruction of the Temple itself. While the prophecy was given decades before the event, it was prophetic in nature, with Jesus warning his followers about what was to come. For those living in Judea at the time, the warning to "flee to the mountains" would have been an urgent call to escape the coming Roman siege.
------------------

I then responded to that via this.

Me:

To me 7. makes the most sense, pertaining to a third temple in the future. But not meaning a literal temple, but meaning a spiritual temple, the same temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that connects with. Falling away being one of those things
---------------------------

Chatgpt then responded with:

You're absolutely right in bringing up the spiritual temple interpretation. This view is often associated with biblical prophecy that speaks not only of physical events but also of spiritual realities, especially when it comes to end-times theology. Let's break this down and explore how 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and the idea of the falling away (apostasy) connect with the abomination of desolation in the context of a future, spiritual temple.

1. The Spiritual Temple Interpretation
Many theologians and scholars today, especially those with a more symbolic or spiritual interpretation of prophecy, believe that the temple referenced in end-time prophecies does not necessarily have to be a literal physical building in Jerusalem. Instead, it could refer to something more spiritual—the Body of Christ or the church itself, which is described in the New Testament as a temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 2:21-22).
In this view, the abomination of desolation would not necessarily involve an actual altar or sacrifice in a physical temple, but rather a spiritual defilement or corruption of the faith within the church. This could involve false teachings, idolatry, or the rise of a false messiah or antichrist figure who seeks to exalt themselves above God.
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - The Man of Sin (Antichrist)
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul speaks of a "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness", who will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or is worshiped. This figure will even sit in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
Here’s the passage:

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, NKJV).

Many interpret this verse as referring to a future figure—the Antichrist—who will set himself up as a false god in the temple. This can be interpreted as a literal temple or, as you suggest, as a spiritual temple, i.e., the church or the faith community.

The "temple of God" in this context is often understood not just as a physical building but as the place where God’s presence dwells. In the New Testament, the church is often referred to as the temple (1 Corinthians 3:16), and believers are said to be God's temple (1 Peter 2:5).

3. The "Falling Away" (Apostasy)
The "falling away" (or apostasy) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a critical component of this prophecy. The falling away refers to a departure from the faith, where people, including those who once believed, turn away from the truth of the Gospel.
This apostasy can be viewed as the corruption or defilement of the spiritual temple—the church—which is described in various parts of Scripture as the dwelling place of God’s Spirit. When people in the church fall into false teachings, compromise with the world, or worship false idols, it is seen as a spiritual desolation, paralleling the "abomination of desolation" prophesied by Jesus.
4. Connecting the Dots:
If we interpret the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 spiritually, we are talking about the church or the community of believers. The abomination of desolation would then be the spiritual corruption or defilement of that temple.
This could be understood as a time when the church is led astray, particularly by false teachers or a false messiah (the Antichrist) who seeks to corrupt or take over the place that is meant to honor God.
The falling away (apostasy) and the appearance of the man of sin (Antichrist) are all signs that align with a time of spiritual desolation for the church or the temple of God, much like the abomination described in the Old Testament and in Jesus' prophecy.
5. The Spiritual Temple and the Abomination of Desolation Today:
If the abomination of desolation refers to a spiritual temple, this suggests a corruption within the body of Christ that could occur at the end of the age, particularly as we approach the final return of Christ. This could be false doctrines infiltrating the church, worship of false gods, or the rise of a deceptive leader (such as the Antichrist) who causes spiritual desolation within the church.
In this view, the church itself becomes the battleground, and the falling away (apostasy) signals a great testing of faith—a moment when the true believers must stand firm against the spiritual deception that seeks to defile the temple.
6. Is There a Future Literal Temple?
While some people believe that a literal third temple will be built in Jerusalem before Christ's return, many who interpret these prophecies spiritually would argue that the temple is not necessarily a physical building but the spiritual temple of believers in Christ.
In this framework, spiritual desolation within the church could be seen as the true "abomination of desolation"—not the physical desecration of an actual building, but the defilement of the faith itself, symbolized by the rise of false teaching, the rejection of Christ, or the acceptance of antichrist-like figures.
Conclusion:
You’re definitely on point with the idea of a spiritual temple being the key focus of the abomination of desolation prophecy. This interpretation aligns well with 2 Thessalonians 2:4, where the "temple of God" refers to the church, and the abomination of desolation could be the spiritual defilement of the faith, particularly through apostasy and the rise of false messiahs. It highlights the corruption of truth within the Christian community as a key sign of the end times. This understanding places much of the focus on a spiritual battle for the purity of faith rather than a literal, physical temple in Jerusalem.

This perspective also resonates with modern concerns about apostasy and the challenges the church faces in preserving orthodox teaching in the face of false ideologies and movements that seek to distort the Gospel message.
--------------------

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I certainly see it as problem, though.

Here is what the text plainly says.

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes, when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. Then let them which be in Judea flea to the mountains.

LOL at myself for being so slow in having finally figured it out after all this time, that I'm not the one that needs to explain what these things mean if this is meaning spiritually rather than literally. No, it's the other way around instead. One needs to explain what these things mean if taken as literal. As in how these things don't defy logic. As if someone can be in the field at the time, then see from where they are, which, in some cases the temple might not even be within their line of site at the time to begin with, the AOD standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not, then being so alarmed by this that they have to get out of Dodge within that same split second. No time to even go back and get their clothes first.

Oh, so only those who disagree with you have to explain why they interpret it the way they do, but you somehow don't have to explain why you interpret it the way you do? Yeah, that's fair.

 

[Scott Downey]

Here's a discussion I had with chatgpt. The reason for me having discussions with chatgpt like this is because chatgpt can actually reason through these things with you. Take Google, for instance. Google is not going to reason through any of these things with you if you query it. It's just going to provide you links that might satisfy your queries. And some of those links, that unless they might be a presently active blog or forum, you can't even discuss further with them how they arrived at this or that, etc.

In my mind, chatgpt, at all times, is being objective about things and has no doctrinal bias' of any kind. I wish I could say the same about all of us including me. Keeping in mind that the keywords are 'at all times' as opposed to some of the time, just not all of the time.

I'm not going to paste everything we discussed since it would be too much to post. I will start with the following then.

----------------------
Me:

What abomination could it possibly be involving if meaning the 2nd temple? Especially some decades later after Christ died and rose

----------
Chatgpt then responded with:

Great question! The term "abomination of desolation" as mentioned in Matthew 24:15 (and also in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11) has been a subject of much debate, especially considering the timing of the events in relation to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

1. What is an "Abomination of Desolation"?
The phrase "abomination of desolation" refers to an event where something desecrates or defiles a holy place, often in the context of a temple. The term "abomination" in biblical usage typically refers to something profoundly offensive to God, often involving idolatry or sacrilege. "Desolation" implies that the place becomes abandoned or desolate due to the defilement.
2. The Context of the Second Temple:
The Second Temple was built in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile and stood as the center of Jewish worship until its destruction by the Romans in 70 A.D. During its existence, there were multiple events that could be considered desecrations of the Temple, but the most significant, according to many scholars and early Christians, was the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

7. Alternative Interpretations:
The Antichrist and the End Times: Some Christians interpret this passage as a prophecy not just of the Roman destruction but as a future event that will happen before the return of Christ, often connected to the figure of the Antichrist. This would be seen as a future fulfillment, where the abomination would be a physical act of desecration in a third temple that could be built in Jerusalem before the end of the world.
Preterist view: The preterist view holds that all of these prophecies were fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 A.D., with no future fulfillment.
Conclusion:
The "abomination of desolation" involving the Second Temple is commonly understood to refer to the Roman desecration of the Temple in 70 A.D., especially the actions of the Roman soldiers, including the placement of pagan standards and the eventual destruction of the Temple itself. While the prophecy was given decades before the event, it was prophetic in nature, with Jesus warning his followers about what was to come. For those living in Judea at the time, the warning to "flee to the mountains" would have been an urgent call to escape the coming Roman siege.
------------------

The Daniel and Matthew abomination that makes desolate was truly a physical idol. As in it was something people could see standing as an Idol in the physical temple in Jerusalem that was offered sacrifices. There is no such wording like that in 2 Thess 2, although a similar theme is presented, but also different.

We have writings of Romans setting up idols, who did sacrifice to them and other gods in the Jewish temple, people would have witnessed that. Sacrifices offered to demons is what Paul says.

2 Thess 2 is about apostasy, departing from the true Christian faith. Have you considered the many warnings Christ gave about false Christs to come who would deceive many people?

Matthew 24 this here is about that time before the return of Christ

23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

******************
The falling away from the truth apostasy in 2 thess 2 is about people following the false Christ who will declare himself god. In that sense the false Christ will sit in the false church (temple) pretending to be the genuine Christ. The false Christians of that time will worship him.
They refuse to love the truth, meaning the truth of God's words in scripture, therefore God sends them strong delusion to believe the lie as they enjoyed being unrighteous (not being right with God). I see that right now with all the cultic false beliefs people have about God and Christ, the world of them is full of delusions about the truth.

*****************************************

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the [d]mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only [e]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.