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

Davidpt said:

When Christ died and rose?

Click to expand...

Yep.

Davidpt said:

Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Davidpt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Why do I need to correct you about this over and over again? At the time Jesus was speaking, it was the holy place, so that's why He could refer to it as "the holy place" at that time even if it would not still be considered "the holy place" when the prophecy was fulfilled.

I've given a similar analogy to explain this to you before, but I guess I need to do it again.

Let's say you attended a church right now that was called "The Holy Place". And, let's say it taught sound doctrine and had a lot of true Christians attending there. Let's say God told me that your church would be destroyed one day by God because of mass apostasy taking place there in the future. So, I give a prophecy saying "The Holy Place will be destroyed one day because of mass apostasy there.".

Let's also say that the name of the church was changed at some point to "The Unholy Place" because people there decided they no longer wanted to follow the sound doctrine they followed before and it became a place where many people fell away and decided to make it more of social hangout than a true Christian church. Some time after it is no longer "The Holy Place", the prophecy comes true and the church building that was once called "The Holy Place" and is now called "The Unholy Place" is destroyed by fire that comes down from heaven. Does this mean my prophecy saying that "The Holy Place" would one day be destroyed is false just because it was no longer called "The Holy Place" at the time it was actually destroyed?

If you really want to be taken seriously about this, then give us your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. Tell us exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said that those in Judea would need to flee into the mountains if He was not talking about literally fleeing the physical location of Judea. Tell us exactly why Jesus said it would be particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee during that time. Tell us exactly why it would be more difficult to flee in the winter or on the Sabbath during that time.

Davidpt said:

As to that, as a matter of fact I'm getting ready to do so here shortly. I'm not going to lie though, I had Chatgpt to try and help me flesh out some of my thoughts, in regards to that. And IMO, it did an excellent job. But I will do that later.

Click to expand...

I don't care what you use as long as you are clear about what you're saying. Do you have any thoughts on what I said in the rest of my post?

Davidpt said:

In the meantime. The Discourse involves 2 temples, not one temple.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. What spawned the Olivet Discourse in the first place is Jesus saying that the physical temple standing at that time would be destroyed, so that's the only temple specifically mentioned in the Discourse.

Davidpt said:

Yet, you would have us believe that it only involves one temple.

Click to expand...

As would many other people. Especially since Jesus was only asked about one temple.

Davidpt said:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Obviously, this in involving the 2nd coming, the dead in Christ rising first, and the rapture. All of which you have zero disagreement with. Therefore, it stands to reason that one can't even arrive at the time meant in these verses without 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves preceding it in the end of this age.

Click to expand...

Hold on a minute. Try being more clear in what you're saying to avoid unnecessary confusion. Of course I believe that the temple of God is related to the second coming per 2 Thessalonians 2:4, but what I'm saying is that it is not specifically mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. Only the temple standing at that time, which Jesus said would be destroyed, is mentioned specifically in the Olivet Discourse since the disciples asked a question specifically about that temple.

Davidpt said:

Your interpretation has Jesus being totally ignorant of the fact that He can't even return until 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, is fulfilled first.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Must you misrepresent what I believe all the time? I believe He does discuss what 2 Thess 2:1-12 (including verse 4) involves in Matthew 24:9-13. It involves many falling away from the faith and an increase in wickedness because of "the working of Satan" and such.

Davidpt said:

You are not denying that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be fulfilled first. That's not the issue here. You are denying that Jesus is including Thessalonians 2:4 in the Discourse.

Click to expand...

No, I am not. Stop acting like you can speak for me, for crying out loud. You're terrible at it. You misrepresent what I believe more often than you accurately represent what I believe. It's a joke.

Davidpt said:

You are denying that Jesus also saw, via the Discourse, Matthew 24:15 in this case, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 being relevant.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the man of sin sitting in the temple God showing himself to be God is directly related to the mass falling away that Paul referenced. Jesus also referenced many turning away from the faith in Matthew 24:10, so don't tell me that I deny that Jesus talked about similar thing as what Paul talked about in 2 Thess 2.

Davidpt said:

What I can't figure out about you, is this. Especially since you are an Amil. Why you would disagree that up unto 70 AD in the Discourse, meaning involving Luke 21:20, He was meaning things in the literal sense. And once that event was fulfilled, the remaining 2000 years or less have shifted gears and is now involving things in the spiritual sense pertaining to temples, such as in Matthew 24:15, for example.

Click to expand...

Because that isn't the case. To me, Matthew 24:15-21 is clearly parallel to Luke 21:20-24, so why would I interpret that passage any differently than I interpret Luke 21:20-24? I interpret the Olivet Discourse in such a way that agrees with all of scripture, as I see it. Do you understand that? Why would I interpret it in such a way that contradicts my understanding of Luke 21:20-24 and Daniel 9:24-27, which I fully believe Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24:15-21? Your question is very strange. What makes you think that everything being literal up until 70 AD means that everything afterwards has to be spiritual? What is the rationale behind that?

When the veil was ripped in half when He died.

Signifying the way to God, in the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary of the temple where God is, now open by the blood of Jesus, His flesh, open to all believers not just a few select priests, no longer hidden behind an earthly veil. We are the temple of the Living God now where God dwells, not a building made with hands, but made by God. The veil is his flesh and blood .
We still only can enter the holy of holies through the veil, but the veil is now Christ's own flesh and blood.

John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Jesus says He is the door to the Prescence of the Holy God behind the veil of His blood and flesh that was given so that you could have eternal life with God.

Hebrews 10
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness[f] to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,

21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.


Luke 23

Jesus Dies on the Cross​

44 Now it [a]was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 Then the sun was [b]darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in [c]two. 46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ ” Having said this, He breathed His last.

Jesus Dies on the Cross​

45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!” 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.

49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and [n]Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

The OC temple made with hands, the place of the Holy of Holies where is the Prescence of God is destroyed and will never be rebuilt.

That is why any 3rd temple built with hands will never be a holy place of God where God dwells.

People may call it a temple of God, but that is a lie. It can only ever be an evil place where people will make sacrifice to demons.

All these things Christ will destroy when comes in that DAY up till v12
Temples, people, Satan, cities, lands, oceans, this evil world will burn up, just as Peter also describes about what happens on the Day of the Lord.

None of it is going to be redeemed, being devoted to destruction by the Lord.

2 Thess 4

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of [b]sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

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.

****************************************************************************
What is not destroyed is everything that remains (of course), as in the things that cannot be shaken, as in us believers
We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken
****************************************************************************

13 But we are [f]bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through [g]sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [h]epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and [i]establish you in every good word and work.

***************************************
2 Peter 2

The Day of the Lord​

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

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

Hebrews 12

Hear the Heavenly Voice​

25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven,

26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I [k]shake not only the earth, but also heaven.”

27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we [l]may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

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

The concept of being "devoted to destruction" is a significant theme in the Old Testament, often associated with the Hebrew term "herem." This term refers to the irrevocable giving over of people or objects to the Lord, often through complete destruction. It is a divine command that signifies total consecration to God, usually in the context of warfare or judgment against sin.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of [b]sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
******************************************
The falling away above is all by the working of Satan, it is all of the devil being a lie.
We witness that falling away calling it apostasy.
John describes this very thing about those who are antichrists who left us in 1 John 2, they fall away from us as they are not of God. And if you are not of God, then you are of the devil.


People who refuse to repent and love the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness God destroys when Christ returns.

And the people who fall away from the faith, are false believers. They are not the sheep of Christ. They are the tares who the devil plants in God's field the world. And they grow up besides the wheat, the good seed planted by the Son of Man. They never were saved being the tares, being children of the devil.

God and the angels know those who are his. They can look at a person and know immediately as the people of God are sealed by the Holy Spirit for salvation, there is no doubt who is who to a celestial being. That includes demons who also can tell one apart from the other.

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares​

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

The Parable of the Tares Explained​

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

**********************************************
1 john 2

Do Not Love the World​

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.

17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

Deceptions of the Last Hour​

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[d] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you[e] know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Davidpt said:

This post here I can relate to. Sounds like we might be on the same page. Maybe.

Yet it is not entirely clear to me what your position is concerning the holy place Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:15. One thing that is clear to me, you don't take it to be involving a rebuilt temple in the future. I at least know that much about your position after having read all your posts here. That leaves 2 options. The holy place meant is the 2nd temple before it was destroyed in 70 AD. The holy place meant is the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple. And that what one is to be fleeing is apostasy. But, since Jesus used language, such as fleeing to the mountains, most interpreters take that as literal because they can't see it meaning anything but literal.

Yet, most of these same interpreters don't have any issues with the fleeing recorded in Revelation 18, for example, having to be literal.

Click to expand...

Revelation 18 says nothing about people in Judea fleeing to the mountains, so don't act like Revelation 18 is no different. It's obvious that Revelation 18 is symbolic and not literal, but that is not the case for Matthew 24:15-21. If the reference to Judea is symbolic, then what does it symbolize? What do the mountains symbolize? Why is it more difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee? Why is it more difficult to flee in the winter or on the Sabbath. We don't have such questions about Revelation 18 that need to be answered.

Davidpt said:

This post here I can relate to. Sounds like we might be on the same page. Maybe.

Yet it is not entirely clear to me what your position is concerning the holy place Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:15. One thing that is clear to me, you don't take it to be involving a rebuilt temple in the future. I at least know that much about your position after having read all your posts here. That leaves 2 options. The holy place meant is the 2nd temple before it was destroyed in 70 AD. The holy place meant is the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple. And that what one is to be fleeing is apostasy. But, since Jesus used language, such as fleeing to the mountains, most interpreters take that as literal because they can't see it meaning anything but literal.

Yet, most of these same interpreters don't have any issues with the fleeing recorded in Revelation 18, for example, having to be literal. They don't take that fleeing as literal.

What you mentioned in this post has zero to do with the 2nd temple in in the first century. Why then did you bring these things up? Not that I'm complaining or anything, because, I'm certainly not. Could it be because, you too, like me, disagree that the 2nd temple is being meant by the holy place in Matthew 24:15? Therefore, none of those things are meaning in a literal sense. IOW, these things are involving the spiritual not the literal.

If Premils, such as me can figure that out, but that most Amils can't, there is something wrong with that picture, IMO. You would think it would be the other way around at least.

But anyway, spell it out for us, your position pertaining to the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15. Currently your position is not entirely clear to me other than I know you don't take it to be meaning a rebuilt temple in the future.

Click to expand...

It is not something I have dwelled much thought on actually. And I am not amil as commonly thought, I am millennialist as that has been happening in heaven no for 2,000 years with believers ruling with Christ in heaven at this moment. There is no indication to me that a millennial reign of Christ is or will be on this earth. I think Catholics are taught it is on this earth right now.

One thing is why not split Matt 24 up as to the times and season of the future to come
As in it had an AD 70 fulfillment and also a future fulfillment when Christ returns.
How did the disciples ask the question? In three parts? Maybe also is the answer in in 2 or 3 parts.
The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was a major even to come for Israel, as is the end of the world.
Compounded question, and a compounded answer
Meaning it is complicated.

The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age​

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying,

a. “Tell us, when will these things be?

b. And what will be the sign of Your coming,

c . and of the end of the age?”

*************************************************************
4-14 the time before the end and also before the Jerusalem destruction, a common experience to all.

15 -22 the destruction of Jerusalem. See the mention about babies, milk, women fleeing seems to me more relevant to the siege by Rome with people fleeing the area.

This here cannot possibly have to do with the sudden destruction at the return of Christ as they are told to flee to the mountains! On housetops? People had homes back then with flat roofs, I suppose they were to jump off and flee for their lives!
If you read the stories from Josephus, this was a terrible time for them in the city when Rome came.

15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

23 - 51 the end to come after 70AD, down to this present day.

Davidpt said:

I never said Revelation 18 had anything to do with those in Judea fleeing to the mountains. I only used Revelation 18 to prove that fleeing to somewhere is not meaning in the literal sense every single time. Which can then mean that maybe it's not meaning in the literal sense in Matthew 24:15-20 either.

No matter how I look at it, not how you look at it, but how how I look at it, I just can't see Matthew 24:21 pertaining to what happened in the first century leading up to 70 AD. No wonder I have to try and find another way to try and interpret some of these things. And since a rebuilt temple in the future is not an option for me, well there is 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as an option for me. It might be different if 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be understood as involving a literal temple. Except it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Check out my post answer. it surely can apply parts of it.
And Luke 21 mentions the armies surrounding Jerusalem. Same story a little differently written, may help to understand

Compare Matthew 24 with Luke 21 and you can clearly see that part is about the 70Ad destruction
Luke 21

The Destruction of Jerusalem​

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Matthew 24

15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

Luke 21 is talking about the same events as Matthew 24, and is also split in the 70AD destruction, and the final coming of Christ in a still future time. No mention of abomination desolation

The Destruction of Jerusalem​

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

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 Parable of the Fig Tree​

29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The Importance of Watching​

34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with [h]carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may [i]be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

37 And in the daytime He was teaching in the temple, but at night He went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet. 38 Then early in the morning all the people came to Him in the temple to hear Him.

Reasonable idea here, Abomination of desolation happens 3 times in history


I still think Israel will build a 3rd 'temple of God', while people will call it like that in truth is NOT the temple of God, it is a lie that people will think that it is. Satan is a liar and deceiver, Jesus said everything he speaks is a lie. Satan sitting in such a temple is of course an abomination as an Idol-like creature that demands worship as God.

In Rev , the beast commands an image of the beast be made and worshipped, and that could sit in their Jewish 3rd temple.

The image of the beast
11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. 12 And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.

14 And he deceives [f]those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.

15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has [g]the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Satan is a pretender to the throne of God
Satan wants to be God, to be worshipped.
Satan mimics God, fools people into thinking he is God.
Satan has his own unholy trinity
I can easily imagine Satan using the Jews desire to rebuild their temple and then setup himself as their messiah God by deceit.
A false Christ, who when the real Christ comes is destroyed.

John 5:43
I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

The people won't receive the true Christ, but I think the false Christ will give them everything they want and will wordship him as their messiah.

Davidpt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Another option for when the 2nd temple ceased being the holy place could be when the first sacrifice was made after the veil was torn. Meaning that first sacrifice was an abomination which stood in the holy place and defiled it.

Davidpt said:

I never said Revelation 18 had anything to do with those in Judea fleeing to the mountains.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that you said it has anything to do with that, I'm saying there isn't anything there in Revelation 18 that's even similar to that.

Davidpt said:

I only used Revelation 18 to prove that fleeing to somewhere is not meaning in the literal sense every single time.

Click to expand...

Yes, but in the case of Revelation 18 it's obvious that Babylon is a symbolic entity. What evidence is there that Judea is a symbolic entity in Matthew 24:15? If it is, then what does it represent? You're not going to be taken seriously about this until you offer an explanation of what Judea symbolically represents.

Davidpt said:

Which can then mean that maybe it's not meaning in the literal sense in Matthew 24:15-20 either.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I see no indication that Jesus was speaking figuratively there whereas it's quite obvious that Revelation 18 is figurative. Up to that point (up to verse 14) was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively? Literally, right? but, then He just inexplicably started speaking figuratively instead in verses 15-20? And then went right back to speaking literally again from verse 21 on?

Davidpt said:

No matter how I look at it, not how you look at it, but how I look at it, I just can't see Matthew 24:21 pertaining to what happened in the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's think a bit more deeply about this. How is that the case when you have no trouble at all seeing Luke 21:20-24 as "pertaining to what happened in the first century leading up to 70 AD"? Both Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 have Jesus saying "when you see" something related to the impending desolation of Jerusalem "then let those in Judea flee into the mountains". Both passages record Jesus as saying "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!". Both passages refer to "great tribulation" (Matt 24:21) or "great distress" (Luke 21:23) occurring at that time. So, explain how you can see one of those passages pertaining to what happened in 70 AD, but not the other.

Davidpt said:

No wonder I have to try and find another way to try and interpret some of these things.

Click to expand...

You don't have to. You can do what I do, as explained above, and see the obvious similarities between Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 and conclude that they are talking about the same things instead of thinking that Jesus said "When you see" something related to the impending desolation of Jerusalem "then let those in Judea flee into the mountains" two different times.

The reason that the wording of Luke 21:20-24 has some differences with Matthew 24:15-21 is simply because Luke's audience was primarily Gentiles while Matthews was Jews. So, Gentiles would not be familiar with the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel which means it would not make sense for Luke to include the part where Jesus said to refer to Daniel's prophecy while saying "let the reader understand".

Davidpt said:

And since a rebuilt temple in the future is not an option for me, well there is 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as an option for me. It might be different if 2 Thessalonians 2:4 has to be understood as involving a literal temple. Except it doesn't.

Click to expand...

It's fine to see that as an option IF you can find a reasonable way to interpret Matthew 24:15-21 figuratively rather than literally. But, I'm not seeing that you've done that since you are so far not able to explain what Jesus could have meant figuratively in relation to the kind of details He gave. You should also be able to explain why He suddenly starting speaking figuratively after speaking literally up to that point.

Davidpt said:

And besides, from what I can tell in the NT, tribulation is mainly involving persecution of believers. Except your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 has it involving the persecution of unbelievers, unbelieving Jews in this case.

Click to expand...

Not persecution, but God's wrath. As the parallel passage from Luke 21:20-24 indicates.

Luke 21:23 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.

Davidpt said:

Then it being great tribulation on top of that.

Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to quote that verse again.

Luke 21:23 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.

Davidpt said:

As if the greatest tribulation that there ever was or ever will be, is not tribulation involving belican you acknowledge evers, it's tribulation involving unbelievers.

Click to expand...

I have tried to tell you that you are interpreting that out of context several times and you never address that. Why not? Can you please do so now? Even if you don't address anything else I say in this post, please address what I'm about to say.

Let's look at the verse carefully. AndI mean carefully. I can tell that you've never done so before because of what you say about it. So, look closely at what it actually says.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

First, let's think about what this does not say that you have tried to say that it says in the past.

It does not say then shall be great tribulation of a greater scope than ever happened before or ever will happen again. Do you agree? Can you acknowledge that? If Jesus was saying that, then how could it be true? How could there be great tribulation in that sense that is greater than what happened with the flood in Noah's day? Will this great tribulation you believe in result in less than 8 people in the world being saved? Of course not, right? So, Jesus could not have meant what He said in that sense. Are you following me so far?

So, what does it actually say then? What He said is that the great tribulation that He was talking about would be unlike anything that happened before. He made NO reference to the scope of the great tribulation there (local, regional or global), but only said it would be unlike anything that happened before or anything that would ever happen afterwards. Agree? Are you still with me?

So, with the understsanding that Jesus was not talking about a gobal event involving great tribulation greater than anything that happened before or would happen after, but instead was talking about an event unlike any that happened before or would ever happen after, that allows for something to happen locally or regionally instead of globablly that was unlike anything else to happen before or after. And, if you read about what happened in 70 AD, it definitely was unlike anything that happened anywhere before or since.

Do you understand what I'm saying, regardless of whether you agree with my interpretation or not? I'm putting a lot of effort here into explaining how I see this, so I'm really hoping you at least understand my perspective on this whether you agree with my interpretation or not.

Davidpt said:

Keeping in mind that Jesus plainly said in Matthew 24:15---no, nor ever shall be.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. My view of what He said does not contradict Him saying that.

Davidpt said:

Where this interpretation of yours alone already contradicts Revelation 7:9, for one.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You say things like this without even fully understanding my interpretation.

Davidpt said:

. No way were more Jews killed in 70 AD because of alleged great tribulation than the number meant in Revelation 7:9 who are killed because of great tribulation.

Click to expand...

I don't claim that. You're making yet another straw man argument. Nowhere does Matthew 24:21 say anything about a great tribulation where more people are killed than in any other event in history. You are forcing that idea on to the text. You are not reading the text for what it actually says, as I explained above.