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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Right, as far as salvation goes there is no difference, everyone has to be saved through the blood of the Lamb. However it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that there was a different burden put on the Gentiles than the Jews.

That burden wasn’t in regard to salvation but was rather in regard to obedience to the covenants. The Jews were free to stop observing the old covenant burdens yet it seemed good to allow those burdens to continue.
???

Even in the OC, The just shall live by his faith.

Why do you continue to say there is a difference between Jews and gentiles?

For all people all over there is only one name, in Jesus name is preached the forgivenesss of sin.

As Peter so preached to the Jews. Why would the apostles preach Christ to the Jews is they could be saved some other way.

Addressing the Sanhedrin​

5 And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, 6 as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Habakuk 2
2 Then the Lord answered me and said:

“Write the vision
And make it plain on tablets,
That he may run who reads it.
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time;
But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie.
Though it tarries, wait for it;
Because it will surely come,
It will not tarry.
4 “Behold the proud,
His soul is not upright in him;
But the just shall live by his faith.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Right, as far as salvation goes there is no difference, everyone has to be saved through the blood of the Lamb. However it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that there was a different burden put on the Gentiles than the Jews.

That burden wasn’t in regard to salvation but was rather in regard to obedience to the covenants. The Jews were free to stop observing the old covenant burdens yet it seemed good to allow those burdens to continue.
ah the Judaizers... The apostles fought with them much.
They would say it was necessary for all to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.

Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe.

Galatians 2

Defending the Gospel​

2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up [a]by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
For either Jew or Gentile this
Galatians 5

1 Stand[a] fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is [b]a debtor to keep the whole law.

4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Galatians 6

11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! 12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by [b]whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.

The sect of the pharisees were fake news.

Acts 15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,377
235
63
48
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The why do you say the old covenant age ended in 70 AD instead of at the cross?
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.

Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightaway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

What are you thinking, that the next Saturday after the cross the apostles went fishing and ate BLT sandwiches for lunch?
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,377
235
63
48
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why do you continue to say there is a difference between Jews and gentiles?
Because that’s what Acts 15:28-29 says. Do you have some reason to think the same burden was put on both Jew and Gentile at that time?

For all people all over there is only one name, in Jesus name is preached the forgivenesss of sin.
Right, I never said anything different. All people are saved through Christ.
 

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,377
235
63
48
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ah the Judaizers... The apostles fought with them much.
They would say it was necessary for all to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.
Would the Holy Spirit be considered a Judaizer? Am I missing something here?

I’m taking Acts 15:28-29 to mean the Jews had a different burden than the Gentiles. That seems pretty straightforward to me. If you think that’s incorrect then please give the specifics of how you are interpreting Acts 15:28-29.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Would the Holy Spirit be considered a Judaizer? Am I missing something here?

I’m taking Acts 15:28-29 to mean the Jews had a different burden than the Gentiles. That seems pretty straightforward to me. If you think that’s incorrect then please give the specifics of how you are interpreting Acts 15:28-29.
Come on really? You are reading into the text what does not exist.

Get more specific, what do you see is different between a jew and a gentile?

Judaizers were soundly rebuked by Paul, it was not ok for them to teach what they did to Jew or gentile.

 
Last edited:

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,377
235
63
48
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Come on really? You are reading into the text what does not exist.

Get more specific, what do you see is different between a jew and a gentile?

Judaizers were soundly rebuked by Paul, it was not ok for them to teach what they did to Jew or gentile.

Yes, really! Take a look at Acts 21, which you quoted in an earlier post concerning Paul.

Acts 21:24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Clearly there were different burdens put on the Gentiles than the Jews. In Acts 21:18 it say James and all the elders were present. There is no specific list of what the burden was for the Jews after the cross but we know it was different than the burden for the Gentiles.
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
7,294
1,453
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luke 23:29For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. 30Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

So when was Luke 23:29-30 fulfilled? I would say it was fulfilled in 70AD but I know many of you vehemently disagree with anything related to that date, so help me out and give a reasonable explanation for when they said women who have no children are blessed, for the mountains to fall on us, and the hills to cover us. When did that get fulfilled?

He likely is speaking of the trib, so not yet fulfilled. He said something similar in the OD, and that was part of a time when one generation would see all things he spoke of, which included the second coming and gathering of the saints by angels...neither has happened so none of the OD events have happened.
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
7,294
1,453
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Right, but what is new, at least to me, is that you have command to pray about the AOD fleeing only pertaining to the women.

I did not promote that. All were to flee, but praying the fleeing was not on the Sabbath or in winter was to women who had children. For men, fleeing in winter or on a Sabbath was not as much of an issue.
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
7,294
1,453
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Since Paul was going to make a temple offering, he did not consider doing that a sin.


Paul was forced to participate in some of that by a violent crowd so he went along to save his life but was saved by Romans before making any offering.
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
7,294
1,453
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The old covenant was dead, it was decaying and ready to vanish but had not yet vanished when Hebrews was written. The old covenant didn’t vanish at the cross, that is a misconception. There were many thousands of Jews who both believed and were zealous for the law prior to it vanishing in 70AD.

People today still believe the old law exists. Taht's not evidence. Paul said the law's dead rotting carcass wasn't all the way gone. That is NOT saying any of it was still valid.
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
7,294
1,453
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let’s take a closer look at your view on this.

In Matthew 16:24 Jesus is speaking directly to His disciples, then in vs 28 He say some shall not taste death. That implies some will die and some won’t die. Non of the disciples died before the Acts 1:9 ascension.

That isn't true though.



Looks like it had to be fulfilled after the ascension.


Nope.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Yes, really! Take a look at Acts 21, which you quoted in an earlier post concerning Paul.

Acts 21:24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Clearly there were different burdens put on the Gentiles than the Jews. In Acts 21:18 it say James and all the elders were present. There is no specific list of what the burden was for the Jews after the cross but we know it was different than the burden for the Gentiles.
Paul vs James, exactly the Judaizer controversy of the early church saying you must be circumcised and keep the law of moses.
None of that was from the Holy Spirit for the New Covenant, it was their own customs and culture. Paul rebuked them in the church letters, and also rebuked Peter strongly.

Maybe this will help you understand for the Jews about the gospel. It is not required by God for Jews to be circumcised, keep the law of moses, and keep the customs to be pleasing to God and be saved. Paul had not met James until this time, and had not yet figured out what was going on with His bad doctrine.

Romans 10, here Paul describes the truth of the gospel of Christ for the Jews.

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

Israel Needs the Gospel​

10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for [a]Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” 6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

*****************************************
Galatians 2:14 see here Paul calls these Jews HYPOCRITES, the Jews could not keep the law and customs, no one could so telling gentiles to keep what they could not keep showed their hypocrisy as they were not teaching the truth about the gospel. All of that was a yoke on their necks neither they nor their father were able to keep.

As far as the quote it seems good to us and the Spirit' well they were partially mistaken. They were correct saying what they did for the gentiles, but they themselves had not yet fully realized their own hypocrisy. Jewish customs were not required of the Jews by God. Scripture records their own words, not God's words there.
*********************************************

No Return to the Law​

11 Now when [d]Peter had come to Antioch, I [e]withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing [f]those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Relevant chapter

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 [d]What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided [e]that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from [f]sexual immorality.”
 
Last edited:

grafted branch

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2023
1,377
235
63
48
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul vs James, exactly the Judaizer controversy of the early church saying you must be circumcised and keep the law of moses.
None of that was from the Holy Spirit for the New Covenant, it was their own customs and culture. Paul rebuked them in the church letters, and also rebuked Peter strongly.
I completely agree that the Jews did not have to keep the law, they did not have to circumcise, they did not have to follow their customs. Those things were allowed to continue and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to allow that. The Lord was longsuffering towards them, not willing that any should perish.

The Gentiles were never under the law and it was wrong for anyone to say they needed to follow the same customs as the Jews. That point is clearly spelled out and agreed upon by both Paul and James.

In Galatians 2:9 James, Peter, and John made an agreement with Paul and Barnabas that they should go to the circumcision and Paul and Barnabas to the heathen. That agreement was never rescinded, which is why James questioned Paul about teaching the Jews who were among the Gentiles that they ought not to circumcise their children or have their children walk after their customs.

Now, if you agree that it was a temporary allowance (days were shortened) for the Jews to continue in the old covenant ways then we can see that Paul was right, the Jews shouldn’t have been teaching their children to follow what was a temporary accommodation to transition to the new covenant. James was right in that there was an agreement that Paul was to go to the Gentiles, the Jews were the responsibility of James, Peter, and John.

If I were to hold on to the idea that there was no difference concerning the covenants between Jew and Gentile during that transition period, then it’s difficult to harmonize what Paul taught and what James, Peter, and John taught.
 

Scott Downey

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2021
8,226
5,126
113
65
St. Thomas
Faith
Christian
Country
Virgin Islands, U.S.
I completely agree that the Jews did not have to keep the law, they did not have to circumcise, they did not have to follow their customs. Those things were allowed to continue and it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to allow that. The Lord was longsuffering towards them, not willing that any should perish.

The Gentiles were never under the law and it was wrong for anyone to say they needed to follow the same customs as the Jews. That point is clearly spelled out and agreed upon by both Paul and James.

In Galatians 2:9 James, Peter, and John made an agreement with Paul and Barnabas that they should go to the circumcision and Paul and Barnabas to the heathen. That agreement was never rescinded, which is why James questioned Paul about teaching the Jews who were among the Gentiles that they ought not to circumcise their children or have their children walk after their customs.

Now, if you agree that it was a temporary allowance (days were shortened) for the Jews to continue in the old covenant ways then we can see that Paul was right, the Jews shouldn’t have been teaching their children to follow what was a temporary accommodation to transition to the new covenant. James was right in that there was an agreement that Paul was to go to the Gentiles, the Jews were the responsibility of James, Peter, and John.

If I were to hold on to the idea that there was no difference concerning the covenants between Jew and Gentile during that transition period, then it’s difficult to harmonize what Paul taught and what James, Peter, and John taught.
You can see why Paul's apostleship God called him too was later after the others, ( as one untimely born Paul said about himself, but actually in perfect timing for the development of the Christian church).
God gives us some longsuffering latitude to walk away from what is best for us, but He will rebuke and discipline us to bring us back to Himself when we wander away from Christ or we are not His children (sheep). Paul's ministry with them was to fix what they had wrongly thought about the gospel. The apostles were men not God, and had to learn from the Holy Spirit just like us today.

There is no conflict I see with understanding the Old Covenant ways were no longer in effect. Just that James had it partially wrong and Peter at first was in fear of James's disciples and submitted to their hypocrisies. James early on had a very high reputation among the Jewish church and taught them to continue with the law of moses and their customs. James was killed early on by Herod, so he is gone from this group sooner than the others. Paul's teaching and doctrine become the standard around which the Jewish and gentile churches united. And Peter spoke highly of Paul afterwards. Look at how the Lord used Paul to write so much doctrine for the churches, and God made sure these writings we have today.

Galatians 2 explains a lot, and I always thought it sad that you have these false brethren come in from JAMES to divide up the church of Christ between jew and gentile, as jews did not have dealing with gentiles according to their customs as you may well know. So then they refused fellowship with the believers of the gentiles, including Peter who out of fear, was agreeing with them. With this, God was angry, and Paul inspired by God stood up to them and showed them their blatant hypocrisy about the gospel. The false brethren were known as the Judaizers.

Defending the Gospel​

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up [a]by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.


6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God [b]shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, [c]Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

No Return to the Law​

11 Now when [d]Peter had come to Antioch, I [e]withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James (those FALSE brethren), he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing [f]those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, [g]why do you compel Gentiles to live as [h]Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. ( going backwards into Judaism)

19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.


21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died [j]in vain.”

********************
Scriptures here applied to both Jew and Gentile.
 
Last edited:

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
1,448
451
83
67
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
2. Where He "Ought Not" – The Ultimate Rejection​

The cross itself was the place where Jesus "ought not" to be.​
The Roman execution site was not a place for the Holy One of Israel—yet that is exactly where He was placed.​
The abomination of desolation in Mark is the moment when humanity placed the Servant of God where He did not belong—on the cross, bearing the sins of the world.​

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.
 
Last edited: