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

[Dave Watchman]

If your point perhaps has to do with homosexuality, the fact you put 'men' in bold letters, I don't see that making sense of the text based on what this part says---the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. One of those is something good that you would hope to happen to you, the other isn't. IOW, there is no such thing as practicing homosexuals that are saved. All of this assuming homosexuality was your point. But if it wasn't, everything I submitted here is moot in that case.

Nope you're right. Moot is not the case. I was thinking the same thing too. Could it mean not all homosexuals will be taken to destruction.

I still agree with the concept, I borrowed it from another guy much smarter than me. He's an intellectual. He also quotes a Rabi with detail on the upper and lower millstone, being symbolic for the male and female. He's saying it all happens at night. The two women "grinding", the two "men" in bed, and the two "men" in the field. He says the disciples knew it meant the Sodomite situation. The earlier mention of the "days of Lot" is the slam dunk; from John D. Brey:

I can't speak for, or against, your theological foundations, but for the record, let me state mine. I believe the scripture is inerrant when interpreted correctly. I don't believe it ever makes scientific or logical errors when interpreted correctly.​

​

I preface my comments with that, since not only does Luke chapter 17 speak of men in the field, as does Matthew, but Jesus's students appear to have been following what Jesus is saying just fine. In other words, after Jesus speaks of two men in the same bed, and two women grinding together, both at night mind you, he then speaks of two men in the field.​

​

At the latter (men in the field), his students, scratching their heads, ask: "Where Lord?" (verse 37). ---- Where on earth do men work the fields in the middle of the night? Jesus's students are clearly following him. They know he's speaking of homosexuals (particularly since he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah where sodomizers are tight עמרה, so to say). They're under no illusion concerning the fact that Jesus is speaking of homosexuals which is why they ask about the men in the field ---at night? Jesus answers:​

​

Wheresoever the body is, thither will the vultures gather.​

​

Luke 17:37.​

​

Since, unlike Jesus's students, the interpreters and translators are daft, i.e., they don't know whats going on in the text, they translate "vultures" (Greek "aetoi") as "eagles," so that those reading the translation, like those doing it, don't have a clue what's going on. Jesus is confirming to his students that the sheep are going to be separated from the goats at the Judgment in the end-times so that the righteous are removed from the earth while the unsaved remain. And it matters not a wink if they're in their beds safe and sound or in their graves out in the field. At the resurrection they'll be treated the same.

Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical

It was a very black and white outlook. Maybe back then what other cultures wore, i.e., mixed materials, were wrong for Hebrew people, so if they wore all the same material, it set them apart. I don't know...it just sounds like a lot of work to me. It certainly does sound like a life of...

www.religiousforums.com

What about women "grinding" at the same time men are in the same bed?​

​

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman,​

Or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;​

10 Then let my wife grind unto another,​

And let others bow down upon her.​

​

Job 31:9-10.​

​

Fwiw, "grinding" was a metaphor for sex in the Tanakh. The grinding stone was often phallic in shape and was placed into the opening where the grain was waiting to be ground by the stone.​

​

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife [enjoy conjugal relations with her] which he hath taken. 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. 7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.​

​

Deuteronomy 24:5-6.​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:​

​

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Bracketed statement is R. Munk's).​

​

Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical

It was a very black and white outlook. Maybe back then what other cultures wore, i.e., mixed materials, were wrong for Hebrew people, so if they wore all the same material, it set them apart. I don't know...it just sounds like a lot of work to me. It certainly does sound like a life of...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Stumpmaster]

BTW, what I said in regards to Acts 6:13 below, that does not apply to you nor your view. I'm attempting to kill 2 birds with one stone, so to speak. That being, the holy place isn't meaning the city of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:15 nor is it meaning the 2nd temple.

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: )

This verse aside since it is the verse in question.

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

(BTW, those that insist the holy place was the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 also agree with the Jews here that the 2nd temple was still the holy place after Christ died and rose. Which then begs the question, why aren't these same interpreters also siding with the Jews when they said this--This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place? Probably because they disagree with the Jews about that part, thus are cherry picking what they disagree with the Jews here about. While some of the rest of us don't agree with the Jews here about any of these things. IOW, we don't need to cherry pick anything here. )

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

It stands to reason then, if none of those other verses are meaning the city of Jerusalem then neither is the holy place meaning the city in Matthew 24:15.

I stopped reading after a few lines. The argument provided is too convoluted and leads nowhere. Give it up and face reality, I suggest.

 

[Timtofly]

SO God, in His infinite compassion and mercy, knew that word travels fairly fast but people also need time to adjust to new truths...so the Lord gave them 38 more years (?) to make the transition in their own minds and then let the Romans tear down the temple and destroy it.

They could have had hundreds of more years with a twmple economy, had they not started to fight each other, and bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire. They already had peace under the Romans. They did not need to start fighting each other. They were not content with the status quo.

God could have stirred up this strife within the temple leadership as a test, or as punishment for declaring the blood of Jesus on their hands, and their offspring. They failed either way, instead of asking for God's forgiveness.

People want to compare this 40 years with the 40 years in the wilderness, for unbelief after leaving Egypt and receiving the Promised land. Obviously they did not receive the Promised land free of Roman influence. They lost everything. It was not an extension of time. It was the end of God's blessings, and the blindness in part that will last until the Second Coming.

They did not have to loose, nor struggle for 40 years. They could have remained under the Romans for another 400 years, and more.