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

[Dave Watchman]

And once again, it makes zero sense that a temple that is to be destroyed, that some 40 years later right before it is destroyed, an AOD takes place within it. That would be like an AOD taking place in a rebuilt temple in the future. Who would care, though? It's not like this temple is holy or something. It's not like the 2nd temple was still holy or something some 40 years later. Once again. keeping in mind, this AOD involves a holy place, not instead a place that is no longer holy. Ummm...the 2nd temple was no longer a holy place 40 years before 70 AD. Ummm...that does not equal a holy place. Jesus said the AOD involves a holy place.

I pretty much agree with what you say and insinuate with the OP. Including Luke 17 is the way to do it. Luke takes the thing which is the Abomination from Matthew 24, and puts it in his Chapter 17. After the mention of the "days of Lot", we get those same instructions to head for the hills.

That second temple ceased to be a holy place when the curtain was rent. And there's not going to be another holy place built with human hands, where an abomination stands. Holy place is also: "where it ought not to be. A place where it ought not to be. Me and a couple other guys think we figured this out on another forum a while back. But we could still be wrong. But I doubt it. I think I already posted a picture of the holy place in this thread, it's not what the majority thinks.

I ran across a potential holy place around that second temple, even from when the curtain was rent, until 70AD when the Romans destroyed the place. And even though it's not the one Jesus was talking about in the Olivet, I hate to give the preterists any ammunition.

Because when God does a thing, the thing itself becomes holy. Not that the thing is inherently holy in and of itself.

This is a case where the ground, the earth itself, can become holy, a holy place, when God tells Moses to take off his sandals in the presence of God..

“Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”​

Again with Joshua and the Commander of the Lord's Army.

When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him,​

​

“What does my lord say to his servant?” And the commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.​

The place where you are standing is holy. My favorite. I hope they can replay this on video, that must have been an awesome sight.

Another example from 70AD Jerusalem where the earth, the land itself, could be considered a holy place.

"The pasturelands of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. - Numbers 35:4​

The Levites being the Priestly Tribe didn't get a land inheritance. They still needed a place for their gardening and animal grazing. So God gave them the land, the earth, from 1500 feet around the outside perimeter walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Would it be a stretch to call that land a holy place? It's the same ground the Romans would have had to stand on when they set up their various sieges. Standing where they ought not to be.

I read our end time Abomination and holy place similar to these examples. Where a "place" prepared by God, by default, becomes a holy place.

"But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.​

 

[CTK]

It is absurd that the AOD meant in the Discourse has anything to do with any of this. Once again, if Matthew 24:15-20 is involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, that means we are required to take everything as literal the fact those events were literal. If the AOD involved the cross somehow, not one person was doing what verse 16 indicates one is to do at the time, and that is, they are to flee to the mountains, not years later, but at that time, meaning when they see the AOD, standing where it ought not. Verses 17-18 proves this, the fact it says you are not to even take time to pack first.

But if we compare Matthew 24:17-18 with Luke 17:31-33, it is undeniably clear, except to maybe a Preterist, that what Luke 17:31-33 is pertaining to has zero to do with the first century leading up to 70 AD.

The way we are to understand Matthew 24:15-21 is simple. It would be like such, keeping in mind, in light of Luke 17:31-33. It's called Scripture interpreting Scripture.

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: )
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Remember Lot's wife.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Look at the following verses side by side.
----------------------
Matthew 24...

Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house

Luke 17...

he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away

Matthew 24...

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes

Luke 17...

and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back
------------------------

Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house
he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes
and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back
----------------------------------------

To argue that Luke 17:31 does not belong in Matthew 24:15-21 is absurd. And since it does belong there, and if Luke 21:20-23 is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, we can know that Matthew 24:15-21 isn't because Luke 17:31 isn't, which is also recorded in Matthew 24:15-21.

The way some try and get around this, they flat out deny that Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21. But if they were to admit that instead, it would be absurd for them to continue insisting Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the first century leading up to 70 AD. But not meaning Preterists, though. They likely already admit Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21, and still apply it 70 AD. But if anyone else were to admit that Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21, it would be absurd for them to continue insisting Matthew 24:15-21 applies to 70 AD.

Why not look at it this way? At least one would no longer need to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side they admit the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place some 40 years before it was destroyed. Then on the other side of their mouth they instist that the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple. Which logically means it remained the holy place until it was destroyed. Which then means this person is contradicting what they already admitted---the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place some 40 years before it was destroyed.

And once again, it makes zero sense that a temple that is to be destroyed, that some 40 years later right before it is destroyed, an AOD takes place within it. That would be like an AOD taking place in a rebuilt temple in the future. Who would care, though? It's not like this temple is holy or something. It's not like the 2nd temple was still holy or something some 40 years later. Once again. keeping in mind, this AOD involves a holy place, not instead a place that is no longer holy. Ummm...the 2nd temple was no longer a holy place 40 years before 70 AD. Ummm...that does not equal a holy place. Jesus said the AOD involves a holy place.

Well, thanks for the response but to be candid, it was just too much to follow.

If you would like, take one issue with one of my comments and tell me how you interpret it. One at a time and we can discuss.

 

[CTK]

It is absurd that the AOD meant in the Discourse has anything to do with any of this. Once again, if Matthew 24:15-20 is involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, that means we are required to take everything as literal the fact those events were literal. If the AOD involved the cross somehow, not one person was doing what verse 16 indicates one is to do at the time, and that is, they are to flee to the mountains, not years later, but at that time, meaning when they see the AOD, standing where it ought not. Verses 17-18 proves this, the fact it says you are not to even take time to pack first.

But if we compare Matthew 24:17-18 with Luke 17:31-33, it is undeniably clear, except to maybe a Preterist, that what Luke 17:31-33 is pertaining to has zero to do with the first century leading up to 70 AD.

The way we are to understand Matthew 24:15-21 is simple. It would be like such, keeping in mind, in light of Luke 17:31-33. It's called Scripture interpreting Scripture.

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: )
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Remember Lot's wife.
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Look at the following verses side by side.
----------------------
Matthew 24...

Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house

Luke 17...

he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away

Matthew 24...

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes

Luke 17...

and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back
------------------------

Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house
he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away

Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes
and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back
----------------------------------------

To argue that Luke 17:31 does not belong in Matthew 24:15-21 is absurd. And since it does belong there, and if Luke 21:20-23 is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, we can know that Matthew 24:15-21 isn't because Luke 17:31 isn't, which is also recorded in Matthew 24:15-21.

The way some try and get around this, they flat out deny that Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21. But if they were to admit that instead, it would be absurd for them to continue insisting Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the first century leading up to 70 AD. But not meaning Preterists, though. They likely already admit Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21, and still apply it 70 AD. But if anyone else were to admit that Luke 17:31-33 fits during Matthew 24:15-21, it would be absurd for them to continue insisting Matthew 24:15-21 applies to 70 AD.

Why not look at it this way? At least one would no longer need to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side they admit the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place some 40 years before it was destroyed. Then on the other side of their mouth they instist that the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple. Which logically means it remained the holy place until it was destroyed. Which then means this person is contradicting what they already admitted---the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place some 40 years before it was destroyed.

And once again, it makes zero sense that a temple that is to be destroyed, that some 40 years later right before it is destroyed, an AOD takes place within it. That would be like an AOD taking place in a rebuilt temple in the future. Who would care, though? It's not like this temple is holy or something. It's not like the 2nd temple was still holy or something some 40 years later. Once again. keeping in mind, this AOD involves a holy place, not instead a place that is no longer holy. Ummm...the 2nd temple was no longer a holy place 40 years before 70 AD. Ummm...that does not equal a holy place. Jesus said the AOD involves a holy place.

If you do not mind, the most important interpretation within these verses that speak of the AOD is that it represents God’s spiritual desolation that would come upon His people for the next 2000 years (times of the Gentiles) as a direct result of their rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah.

We can discuss this separately if you like before we might need to discuss how the surrounding verses speak to this interpretation, or they don’t because they speak to a different time or event.

But this is indeed a lot to take in and I understand just how much these, and so many other interpretations, depart from “today’s accepted interpretations.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because the Bible shows that old covenant age was allowed to continue and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to allow different burdens for Gentiles than Jews after the cross. The old covenant being allowed to continue, even though it wasn’t valid any longer, allow time to transition to the new covenant (wine). Gentiles didn’t need to transition, they never drank the old wine.

You are being completely contradictory here. The old covenant could not continue and be invalid at the same time. That makes no sense whatsoever. If you truly believe that it was invalid after the cross, then you can't contradict that and say that it continued after that. Some people foolishly tried to continue it after that, but if it was invalid, which it was, then that meant nothing. The old covenant age ended at the cross, not in 70 AD. It ended when it was no longer valid. To say otherwise is 100% nonsense.

 

[CTK]

You are being completely contradictory here. The old covenant could not continue and be invalid at the same time. That makes no sense whatsoever. If you truly believe that it was invalid after the cross, then you can't contradict that and say that it continued after that. Some people foolishly tried to continue it after that, but if it was invalid, which it was, then that meant nothing. The old covenant age ended at the cross, not in 70 AD. It ended when it was no longer valid. To say otherwise is 100% nonsense.

Not to be arguementative at all, but perhaps i am not understanding what you might mean regarding the old covenant.

If I were to use the definition of trhe Old Covenant as meaning the 10 commandments only, then I would have to say that it is quite still valid. If not, then which of the 10 have gone away? The first 4 speak to our relationship with God - I don't believe they have been taken away or are no longer to be honored.... Certainly, His sacrifice did not remove our command to worship the God in the first commandment.

To me, the most important change as a result of the cross is that the same 10 commandments given to Moses are no longer external and impossible to keep. Now, through the faith in Jesus, He will place these same 10 within our hearts as opposed to on a "stone." Secondly, He will send His Holy Spirit within us as well to give us the power to keep them. Without Him, we would have no ability to keep them any better than the Israelites before the cross. And further, we just can't have just one of these two: we can believe that Jesus was the Messiah but we must be willing to bring His Holy Spirit within us to follow Him and succeed in worshipping Him and His law.

Again, not sure what you mean but I thought I might throw in my two cents...

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If I were to use the definition of trhe Old Covenant as meaning the 10 commandments only, then I would have to say that it is quite still valid.

Why would you define the old covenant that way when scripture never does? Scripture never defines the old covenant as only the 10 commandments, but rather it includes all 613 commandments in the law of Moses. So, that is what I'm talking about.

The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. Are you not aware of this?

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus established the new covenant by shedding His blood as a sacrifice and offering "once for all" which made the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete. So, the point I'm making is that, if there is such thing as an "old covenant age", then it ended at the cross when the new covenant was established and put into effect.

 

[CTK]

Why would you define the old covenant that way when scripture never does? Scripture never defines the old covenant as only the 10 commandments, but rather it includes all 613 commandments in the law of Moses. So, that is what I'm talking about.

The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. Are you not aware of this?

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus established the new covenant by shedding His blood as a sacrifice and offering "once for all" which made the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete. So, the point I'm making is that, if there is such thing as an "old covenant age", then it ended at the cross when the new covenant was established and put into effect.

I think I see what you are saying. But the old covenant was comprised of three sections. We have the 10 commandments - which is the moral law of God. We have the religious laws which I believe might be the 603 laws of the 613, and finally, we have the ceremonial laws such as the animal sacrifices,, the 7 feastivals, etc.

So, the only ones we are indeed bound to keep are God 10 commandments. The Passover, unleaven bread, etc. have all been fulfilled by Jesus. We are not requried to keep the Jewish eating laws (Kosher), etc.

The 10 commandments are the only laws, practices, ceremonies, etc., that were relevant before the cross that must remain and keep. These are God's laws, the others were established / set up as a shadow of the coming Messiah to fulfill. Jesus certainly kept all of His Father's laws but He never would think to do away with them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think I see what you are saying. But the old covenant was comprised of three sections. We have the 10 commandments - which is the moral law of God. We have the religious laws which I believe might be the 603 laws of the 613, and finally, we have the ceremonial laws such as the animal sacrifices,, the 7 feastivals, etc.

So, the only ones we are indeed bound to keep are God 10 commandments. The Passover, unleaven bread, etc. have all been fulfilled by Jesus. We are not requried to keep the Jewish eating laws (Kosher), etc.

The 10 commandments are the only laws, practices, ceremonies, etc., that were relevant before the cross that must remain and keep. These are God's laws, the others were established / set up as a shadow of the coming Messiah to fulfill. Jesus certainly kept all of His Father's laws but He never would think to do away with them.

I prefer to just go by what scripture teaches about the old covenant, which is that it was replaced by the better new covenant. I'm not sure you even understand what that means. Read Hebrews 8-10.

Jesus simplified everything and narrowed it down to 2 commandments for us.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Zao is life]

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?

Jesus was talking to his apostles and disciples, and He was fully aware that His apostles and disciples would know long before 70 AD that the temple was NOT the holy place in AD70.

* Stephen was later to say to the Jews, "The most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48).

* Paul later said the same thing to Gentiles (Acts 17:24).

* Peter and Paul both taught that the Temple of God is the church.

* The disciples all knew about the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies in the temple in Jerusalem being torn in two when Jesus died on the cross.

etc etc

Being fully aware that His apostles and disciples would know long before 70 AD that the temple was NOT the holy place in AD70, Jesus would not have called it "the holy place" if He were indeed referring to that temple, - He would have called it something else ("the house of the Jews", or something else) - and even more especially because He had just referred to His own body as the temple, and the disciples knew that too.

On the Mount of Olives Jesus answered His disciples' question regarding when the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed by telling them about the persecution and tribulation THEY would endure, the birth pain signs of the end of the age, and about signs in the heavens at the time of His return. The only thing other thing He spoke about on the Mount of Olives was the destruction of Jerusalem - but He did not even mention the temple again.

The New Testament is full of examples of Jesus answering His disciples' questions by giving them the correct answer that nonetheless had nothing to do with the question, correcting their question in the process.

So it's not surprising that He answered their question by telling them about the persecution and tribulation THEY would endure, etc - but said nothing about the temple in Jerusalem again. He did not have to. Both inside the temple and just outside the temple He had already said the temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. There was nothing more to be said about it. The only sign He gave regarding that period was armies gathering against Jerusalem.

Those saints who are still fixated with the temple in Jerusalem trying to insert it into what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives, have remained fixated with that temple nearly 2,000 years after the apostles and disciples of Jesus were no longer fixated with it.

Jesus did not call it the holy place because He knew that long before AD70 His apostles and disciples would be teaching Jews and Gentiles throughout the whole world that it was no longer the holy place.

I agree with what you say about "some interpreters seeming 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."

Even if they say that the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place, and claim that Jesus nevertheless called it the holy place when speaking to people who were going to be going around Judea and the entire Roman Empire telling people it was no longer the holy place, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

How they can still claim that their assertion is logical and makes sense only they will be able to explain - to themselves (since they can't explain it to those saints who are NOT fixated on the temple after the veil in the holy place was torn in two).

hieron | naos

T he importance of adhering to the meaning of words in the Bible in respect of to whom or to what the scripture is applying those words...

god-of-the-living.blogspot.com

 

[Dave Watchman]

Observing the Sabbath? Are we Christians Jews?

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

See the way it is stated makes sense only for Jerusalem and Judea where the Sabbath is observed, not the whole world. In the times we live the Sabbath or any other day of the week is not shutting down anything, and in that godless future time before Christ returns there will be no day where society simply stops working to rest like a sabbath day was. On a sabbath it was against the Jewish law to move more than a little bit., No journey's allowed.

This has been bugging me since last week. And the no flesh saved alive points me to a salvific component. "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years".

I consider the "flight" to be of a nature not of flesh and blood. But how do I wrestle with it not being in winter, or on the Sabbath?

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day​

For then there will be great tribulation. These Olivet writings were 2 days before Passover. Not long after they had got together and recounted another tribulation of the Jews, Purim. I'm amazed they are still celebrating Purim to this very day.

I'm wondering could Jesus have been thinking of the specifications of when Purim is celebrated? Sometimes it's in the Winter, sometimes in Spring. And on rare occasions it falls on the Sabbath. And it's different for a walled city like Jerusalem. When it falls on a Sabbath, it's drawn out over a 3 day period.

I'm not thinking that the "flight" itself should wait until Purim, rather is He saying that flight shouldn't wait for a time too late when Purim would fall in Winter, or on the Sabbath?

Purim 2018 Date
Purim in 2018 was observed from sundown on Wednesday February 28 to sundown on Thursday March 1.

Purim 2019 Date
Purim in 2019 was observed from Wednesday, March 20, to Thursday, March 21, 2019.

Purim 2020 Date
Purim in 2020 started on Monday, March 9th, and ended on Tuesday, March 10th. In Jerusalem, it was observed on March 11th.

Purim 2021 Date
Purim in 2021 started on Friday, the 26th of February (26/2/2021) and continued for 2 days until Saturday, the 27th of February.

Purim 2022 Date
Purim in 2022 began on the evening of Wednesday March 16, 2022, and concluded at sundown on Thursday March 17, 2022.

Purim 2023 Date
Purim 2023 was observed from Monday, March 6 to Tuesday, March 7, 2023.

Purim 2024 Date
Purim 2024 was celebrated from sunset on Saturday, March 23, 2024, to sunset on Sunday, March 24, 2024.

Purim 2025 Date
Purim in 2025 began at sundown on Thursday, March 13, and ended on Friday, March 14.

Purim 2025 Date Jerusalem
Purim in Jerusalem in 2025 is celebrated as Shushan Purim from March 14 to March 15, one day later than the rest of Israel.
However, due to a rare calendric occurrence known as Purim Meshulash, the holiday is extended to span three days in Jerusalem, from March 13 to March 15.

When Shushan Purim Is on Shabbat
The Three-Day Purim (Purim Meshulash)
When the fifteenth of Adar falls on Shabbat, Purim is celebrated over a three-day period in the "walled" cities [Jerusalem and Shushan]. Other cities fulfill all of the obligations of Purim on Friday, the fourteenth. Those who are obligated to celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, however, divide the obligations over the period between the fourteenth and sixteenth.

Purim Rules on Walled City
When Purim falls on a Sabbath, the rules for observing it in a walled city like Jerusalem are specific. The Megilla reading and the distribution of charity (Matanot La-Evyonim) take place on the Friday before, known as Purim dePrazos. The Al ha-Nissim prayer is recited on the Sabbath itself, which is the main Purim day. The weekly Torah portion is read as usual, while the maftir reading is the same as for Purim, and the haftarah is the same as read the previous Shabbat, Parshat Zachor. On the Sunday following, called Purim Meshullash, misach manot are sent and the festive Purim meal is held.

This three-day observance is known as Purim Meshulash or the three-fold Purim, and it applies to Jerusalem and other ancient walled cities.

Purim meshulash
Purim Meshulash, or the three-fold Purim, is a rare calendric occurrence that affects how Purim is observed in Jerusalem and other cities that were walled in ancient times. It happens when Shushan Purim (Adar 15) falls on the Sabbath, causing the holiday to be celebrated over a period of three days.

The Brave Browser I use first gives an AI synopsis when I search for something. When I search to confirm the Olivet was 2 days before Passover:

Olivet Discourse 2 Days Before Passover
The Olivet Discourse took place two days before Passover, just after Jesus and his disciples had left the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus and his disciples were on the Mount of Olives when the disciples asked Jesus about the destruction of the Temple and the end times. Jesus responded with the Olivet Discourse, providing detailed predictions about future events including wars, tribulations, the abomination of desolation, and the return of Christ.

(even the AI knows that the Olivet was not inside the temple)

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Davidpt]

Jesus was talking to his apostles and disciples, and He was fully aware that His apostles and disciples would know long before 70 AD that the temple was NOT the holy place in AD70.

* Stephen was later to say to the Jews, "The most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48).

* Paul later said the same thing to Gentiles (Acts 17:24).

* Peter and Paul both taught that the Temple of God is the church.

* The disciples all knew about the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies in the temple in Jerusalem being torn in two when Jesus died on the cross.

etc etc

Being fully aware that His apostles and disciples would know long before 70 AD that the temple was NOT the holy place in AD70, Jesus would not have called it "the holy place" if He were indeed referring to that temple, - He would have called it something else ("the house of the Jews", or something else) - and even more especially because He had just referred to His own body as the temple, and the disciples knew that too.

On the Mount of Olives Jesus answered His disciples' question regarding when the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed by telling them about the persecution and tribulation THEY would endure, the birth pain signs of the end of the age, and about signs in the heavens at the time of His return. The only thing other thing He spoke about on the Mount of Olives was the destruction of Jerusalem - but He did not even mention the temple again.

The New Testament is full of examples of Jesus answering His disciples' questions by giving them the correct answer that nonetheless had nothing to do with the question, correcting their question in the process.

So it's not surprising that He answered their question by telling them about the persecution and tribulation THEY would endure, etc - but said nothing about the temple in Jerusalem again. He did not have to. Both inside the temple and just outside the temple He had already said the temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. There was nothing more to be said about it. The only sign He gave regarding that period was armies gathering against Jerusalem.

Those saints who are still fixated with the temple in Jerusalem trying to insert it into what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives, have remained fixated with that temple nearly 2,000 years after the apostles and disciples of Jesus were no longer fixated with it.

Jesus did not call it the holy place because He knew that long before AD70 His apostles and disciples would be teaching Jews and Gentiles throughout the whole world that it was no longer the holy place.

I agree with what you say about "some interpreters seeming 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."

Even if they say that the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place, and claim that Jesus nevertheless called it the holy place when speaking to people who were going to be going around Judea and the entire Roman Empire telling people it was no longer the holy place, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

How they can still claim that their assertion is logical and makes sense only they will be able to explain - to themselves (since they can't explain it to those saints who are NOT fixated on the temple after the veil in the holy place was torn in two).

hieron | naos

T he importance of adhering to the meaning of words in the Bible in respect of to whom or to what the scripture is applying those words...

god-of-the-living.blogspot.com

Dude, I have missed you. Where have you been at? I was just thinking about you, throughout this thread, and here you are again.

 

[Zao is life]

Dude, I have missed you. Where have you been at? I was just thinking about you, throughout this thread, and here you are again.

I just decided to stay away a while. Today for the first time in a very long while I decided to browse, saw your thread, read your OP and after seeing some of the replies .. well .. it happened

 

[Zao is life]

This has been bugging me since last week. And the no flesh saved alive points me to a salvific component. "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years".

I consider the "flight" to be of a nature not of flesh and blood. But how do I wrestle with it not being in winter, or on the Sabbath?

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day​

For then there will be great tribulation. These Olivet writings were 2 days before Passover. Not long after they had got together and recounted another tribulation of the Jews, Purim. I'm amazed they are still celebrating Purim to this very day.

I'm wondering could Jesus have been thinking of the specifications of when Purim is celebrated? Sometimes it's in the Winter, sometimes in Spring. And on rare occasions it falls on the Sabbath. And it's different for a walled city like Jerusalem. When it falls on a Sabbath, it's drawn out over a 3 day period.

I'm not thinking that the "flight" itself should wait until Purim, rather is He saying that flight shouldn't wait for a time too late when Purim would fall in Winter, or on the Sabbath?

Purim 2018 Date
Purim in 2018 was observed from sundown on Wednesday February 28 to sundown on Thursday March 1.

Purim 2019 Date
Purim in 2019 was observed from Wednesday, March 20, to Thursday, March 21, 2019.

Purim 2020 Date
Purim in 2020 started on Monday, March 9th, and ended on Tuesday, March 10th. In Jerusalem, it was observed on March 11th.

Purim 2021 Date
Purim in 2021 started on Friday, the 26th of February (26/2/2021) and continued for 2 days until Saturday, the 27th of February.

Purim 2022 Date
Purim in 2022 began on the evening of Wednesday March 16, 2022, and concluded at sundown on Thursday March 17, 2022.

Purim 2023 Date
Purim 2023 was observed from Monday, March 6 to Tuesday, March 7, 2023.

Purim 2024 Date
Purim 2024 was celebrated from sunset on Saturday, March 23, 2024, to sunset on Sunday, March 24, 2024.

Purim 2025 Date
Purim in 2025 began at sundown on Thursday, March 13, and ended on Friday, March 14.

Purim 2025 Date Jerusalem
Purim in Jerusalem in 2025 is celebrated as Shushan Purim from March 14 to March 15, one day later than the rest of Israel.
However, due to a rare calendric occurrence known as Purim Meshulash, the holiday is extended to span three days in Jerusalem, from March 13 to March 15.

When Shushan Purim Is on Shabbat
The Three-Day Purim (Purim Meshulash)
When the fifteenth of Adar falls on Shabbat, Purim is celebrated over a three-day period in the "walled" cities [Jerusalem and Shushan]. Other cities fulfill all of the obligations of Purim on Friday, the fourteenth. Those who are obligated to celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, however, divide the obligations over the period between the fourteenth and sixteenth.

Purim Rules on Walled City
When Purim falls on a Sabbath, the rules for observing it in a walled city like Jerusalem are specific. The Megilla reading and the distribution of charity (Matanot La-Evyonim) take place on the Friday before, known as Purim dePrazos. The Al ha-Nissim prayer is recited on the Sabbath itself, which is the main Purim day. The weekly Torah portion is read as usual, while the maftir reading is the same as for Purim, and the haftarah is the same as read the previous Shabbat, Parshat Zachor. On the Sunday following, called Purim Meshullash, misach manot are sent and the festive Purim meal is held.

This three-day observance is known as Purim Meshulash or the three-fold Purim, and it applies to Jerusalem and other ancient walled cities.

Purim meshulash
Purim Meshulash, or the three-fold Purim, is a rare calendric occurrence that affects how Purim is observed in Jerusalem and other cities that were walled in ancient times. It happens when Shushan Purim (Adar 15) falls on the Sabbath, causing the holiday to be celebrated over a period of three days.

The Brave Browser I use first gives an AI synopsis when I search for something. When I search to confirm the Olivet was 2 days before Passover:

Olivet Discourse 2 Days Before Passover
The Olivet Discourse took place two days before Passover, just after Jesus and his disciples had left the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus and his disciples were on the Mount of Olives when the disciples asked Jesus about the destruction of the Temple and the end times. Jesus responded with the Olivet Discourse, providing detailed predictions about future events including wars, tribulations, the abomination of desolation, and the return of Christ.

(even the AI knows that the Olivet was not inside the temple)

Peaceful Sabbath.

Dave do you believe that it's possible that Jesus was mentioning the following as TYPES of the end of the Age and the time of His return in glory?:

"As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" (Luke 17:26-32 & Matthew 24:37-39) are obviously not the days of Noah or of Lot, but the comparison Jesus made pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers, surely?

"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." and "Remember Lot's wife" pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind, as well as to the urgent necessity of fleeing. Again. Lot's wife is a TYPE.

"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).

In the context of what Jesus was saying about the persecution and tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament tabernacle of God would experience, could the abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place of the 2nd temple by Antiochus IV in 167 B.C not even possibly (itself) be another reference to a TYPE of what is to come at the end of the age?

 

[Scott Downey]

Dave do you believe that it's possible that Jesus was mentioning the following as TYPES of the end of the Age and the time of His return in glory?:

"As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" (Luke 17:26-32 & Matthew 24:37-39) are obviously not the days of Noah or of Lot, but the comparison Jesus made pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers, surely?

"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." and "Remember Lot's wife" pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind, as well as to the urgent necessity of fleeing. Again. Lot's wife is a TYPE.

"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).

In the context of what Jesus was saying about the persecution and tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament tabernacle of God would experience, could the abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place of the 2nd temple by Antiochus IV in 167 B.C not even possibly (itself) be another reference to a TYPE of what is to come at the end of the age?

I don't see where any of the apostles teach, we are to flee to the mountains when we see His return Day approaching?

How would we know what the DAY is in order to flee away? This is what many cults have done. Makes no sense, as no one of us knows what that Day or Hour is. And why flee? The destruction is not coming for us, Christ's return He raptures us to Himself. One will be taken another left, etc... as in a sudden destruction to come.

Luke 21

The Coming of the Son of Man​

25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

The idea is we are to be watching for and waiting on the Master's return. So when we see signs, we are to expect His return is closer. Look up to heaven for that is from where our salvation comes from that terrible time.

Nothing for us to flee from. We wait with earnest expectation.

Hebrews 9
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for (our) salvation.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Dave do you believe that it's possible that Jesus was mentioning the following as TYPES of the end of the Age and the time of His return in glory?:

"As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" (Luke 17:26-32 & Matthew 24:37-39) are obviously not the days of Noah or of Lot, but the comparison Jesus made pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers, surely?

Agreed. Even some of the believers may be taken by surprise. Like the red heifer ones waiting for the rebuilt temple.

"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." and "Remember Lot's wife" pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind, as well as to the urgent necessity of fleeing. Again. Lot's wife is a TYPE.

Agreed. I have a varied idea of what the flight, and mountains may mean. But for sure, the Abomination is a line of demarcation. When we see it, there's no looking back. It's a marker in time.

"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).

In my view the Matthew 24 Olivet speaks only to a specific group of pregnant women, and those with child. The second group of unfortunate women at the end of time. I imagine the women with children witnessing the first resurrection when Christ appears. The ones not actively participating in it. The ones that missed out on it. When all the tribes of the earth will mourn. Tribulum like never before, nor ever will be.

In the context of what Jesus was saying about the persecution and tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament tabernacle of God would experience, could the abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place of the 2nd temple by Antiochus IV in 167 B.C not even possibly (itself) be another reference to a TYPE of what is to come at the end of the age?

I'm not sure on this one. I doubt A4E has too much to do with it. I think Daniel 11:31 was the 70AD DofJ.

In my view the end time Abomination has no historical comparison to anything to do with a temple. (Let The Reader Understand) It's the "days of Lot" from Luke 17, mentioned right before the command to flee to the mountains. Luke swapped Matthew's "Abomination", for the "days of Lot". I think the Abomination can be measured an exact 1290 days to a darkened sun that falls inside of a specific heptad of time. That's what I think.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Davidpt]

I don't see where any of the apostles teach, we are to flee to the mountains when we see His return Day approaching?

How would we know what the DAY is in order to flee away? This is what many cults have done. Makes no sense, as no one of us knows what that Day or Hour is. And why flee? The destruction is not coming for us, Christ's return He raptures us to Himself. One will be taken another left, etc... as in a sudden destruction to come.

Luke 21

The Coming of the Son of Man​

25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

The idea is we are to be watching for and waiting on the Master's return. So when we see signs, we are to expect His return is closer. Look up to heaven for that is from where our salvation comes from that terrible time.

Nothing for us to flee from. We wait with earnest expectation.

Hebrews 9
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for (our) salvation.

What we need to take note of is where Jesus placed in Matthew 24 what He said in Luke 17. Pertaining to Luke 17:31-33, He placed that during great tribulation. Pertaining to what He said in Luke 17 involving 'and the flood came, and destroyed them all', Jesus placed that involving His 2nd coming. IOW, only pertaining to great tribulation does it involve anyone fleeing. The point is, what's recorded in Luke 17 has to be interpreted in light of where Jesus placed these events in Matthew 24. In Matthew 24 He did not place verses 17-18, also meaning verses 31-33 in Luke 17, during that of verse 39 in Mathew 24. Preterists and maybe even pretribbers, might argue otherwise. Except most of us posting in this thread are neither of those.

 

[Dave Watchman]

I don't see where any of the apostles teach, we are to flee to the mountains when we see His return Day approaching?

Not when you see His return day approaching. It's was a few years before that. When you see the Abomination standing, where it ought not to be.

How would we know what the DAY is in order to flee away?

It was a Friday. When the Abomination was seen.

Makes no sense, as no one of us knows what that Day or Hour is. And why flee?

You are there already. Those who are in Jesus, God's People, flee to the mountains. Like the high places where they set up their Asherah poles. Like running up the Mount of Transfiguration. Like mount Moriah. Mount Zion. God's Holy Hill. The seven mountains of Revelation 13. Each of them have a blasphemous name written on them now. Each of them have something to do with religion. It just means when you see the Days of Lot in a specific place, don't worry about your house, your car, or what you will wear. Run to your religion, seek things of a spiritual nature. The wheat is growling with the tares. Because time is short. The harvest is near.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Davidpt]

Well, thanks for the response but to be candid, it was just too much to follow.

If you would like, take one issue with one of my comments and tell me how you interpret it. One at a time and we can discuss.

AS to that post, only the first paragraph was applicable to that article you submitted. The remainder of that post I was focusing on other things. I tend to do that sometimes, just the way my mind works. I have pretty much been like that my entire life. I can't explain why I'm like that, all I know is I have been like that forever.

 

[Zao is life]

Agreed. Even some of the believers may be taken by surprise. Like the red heifer ones waiting for the rebuilt temple.

Agreed. I have a varied idea of what the flight, and mountains may mean. But for sure, the Abomination is a line of demarcation. When we see it, there's no looking back. It's a marker in time.

In my view the Matthew 24 Olivet speaks only to a specific group of pregnant women, and those with child. The second group of unfortunate women at the end of time. I imagine the women with children witnessing the first resurrection when Christ appears. The ones not actively participating in it. The ones that missed out on it. When all the tribes of the earth will mourn. Tribulum like never before, nor ever will be.

I'm not sure on this one. I doubt A4E has too much to do with it. I think Daniel 11:31 was the 70AD DofJ.

In my view the end time Abomination has no historical comparison to anything to do with a temple. (Let The Reader Understand) It's the "days of Lot" from Luke 17, mentioned right before the command to flee to the mountains. Luke swapped Matthew's "Abomination", for the "days of Lot". I think the Abomination can be measured an exact 1290 days to a darkened sun that falls inside of a specific heptad of time. That's what I think.

Peaceful Sabbath.

I fully understand what you are saying. Though I don't know of course, I wonder sometimes if the real timing for Luke 21:20-24 isn't the same as the time of Zechariah 14. God knows all things before all time, so possibly Jesus meant that to be a sign for two separate periods. (Notice I used the words "wonder" and "maybe" because I don't know).

What I don't believe is that the AoD of Matthew 24:15 had anything to do with the temple in Jerusalem in AD70. The disciples had been going around Judea and the entire Roman Empire for decades telling people that God does not dwell in temples made with hands, and calling the church the temple of God.

Jesus was speaking to His disciples, so why would He have called the temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed in AD70 the holy place, after calling His body the Temple, and calling the Jerusalem temple "your house" when telling the Jewish leaders in that temple that it was going to be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:38)? (Before this Jesus had called it "God's house", saying that they had turned it into a den of thieves. So why the change to "your house" unless He knew it was no longer "God's house"?)

 

[CTK]

AS to that post, only the first paragraph was applicable to that article you submitted. The remainder of that post I was focusing on other things. I tend to do that sometimes, just the way my mind works. I have pretty much been like that my entire life. I can't explain why I'm like that, all I know is I have been like that forever.

Would you like to remind me what is the comment / interpretation I mentioned that you see differently? We can briefly discuss it.... Thanks.