Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Spiritual Israelite]

When Jesus died on Calvary the veil in the temple Holy of Holies was torn, the temple was "destroyed", "gone", not one stone upon another in the spiritual

The pharisees stood before Jesus in question of a temple in Jerusalem that took 46 years to build, you are doing the same

I disagree with your literal interpretation in a temple of stone, it was the temple in the Lord's body, and my belief isn't changing John 2:19-22

Are you afraid to directly address the passage I quoted (Mark 13:1-2)? Seems like you just believe what you want to believe instead of accepting what passages like Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2 and Luke 21:6-7 indicate. Can you paraphrase the following passage so I can see how you interpret it?

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

What temple did Jesus and the disciples go out of here? When the disciples said "what manner of stones and what buildings are here!", what stones and what buildings were they talking about? When Jesus asked "Seest thou these great buildings?" what buildings was He talking about?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Physical Judaeans actually physically fled to the physical mountains before 70 AD.

In physical response to Jesus' physical warning.

If they'd have listened to you, they'd have ended up physically dead.

Thank God that they didn't.

You got the wrong Judaeans. God did not talk about people in physical Judaea. But that is okay since people like you are in denial that the kingdom representation was taken from Israel the moment Christ went to the Cross and was given to the Church in three days, John 2:18-21. In God's eyes, Church has been spiritually Judaea ever since and His believers are Christians. Not Jews in Judea in 70AD with their temple that was no longer holy since the veil was rent.

 

[TribulationSigns]

What temple did Jesus and the disciples go out of here? When the disciples said "what manner of stones and what buildings are here!", what stones and what buildings were they talking about? When Jesus asked "Seest thou these great buildings?" what buildings was He talking about?

We can see remnants of this "even" after Pentecost as Peter was talking about requiring circumcision in the church, and his poor understanding of the lawfulness of eating unclean meats. We're talking about progressive Revelation here. The Disciples were still thinking in terms of Old Testament Temple, when Christ was revealing the mystery of new and Spiritual things that the temporal merely "represented." Christ is illuminating (to them, and by extention, us) the fall of the Old Testament Temple as a type of the Old Testament congregation, and the coming restoration/rebuilding of the Temple and Holy City in the New Testament type of the New Testament body of Christ--which is the church (Acts 15:14-17).

Now, note the language as Christ "went out of the Temple," and He "departed from it." Granted, it may seem coincidental language that this is when they pointed out the Temple buildings. But it has a Spiritual meaning. The Disciples are illustrating the great pride they (being Jews) had in this glorious building, and such reverence for the greatness of it as the pride of Israel. They put so much stock in their bloodline and Jewish traditions, when without Christ their Messiah, this was all meaningless. What it represented would be thrown down. Many of the Jews (and their cousins the Premillennialists and Dispensationalists today) had put all their trust in the natural/physical/temporal, and God was prophesying in the Spiritual--which isn't an anomaly since this is what Christ did throughout His ministry. Just like when the disciple's brethren, the Jews, asked Jesus for a sign. And He gave them one, even though they didn't even realize it or its significance. They missed it because they were thinking like many n the church today, in terms of a literal Temple being destroyed, and Christ was responding to their question by prophesying in spiritual terms. Not one stone left standing one upon another is very specific illustrating that it is completely vanished, totally GONE! It no longer represented the Holy One of Israel. The Disciples in that episode were glorying over a building, and Christ is saying what it represents will be taken away completely in God's economy. His words are not ever coincidental, they are deliberate. Again, as in His promise of the sign to the Jews (which they asked for) was fulfilled, and all they could think about was a literal build--just li the congregation today. But whether or not men ever understand what Temple Christ was speaking of, doesn't mean that he spoke of a physical, literal, brick Temple. Because the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost would eventually reveal the "real" deeper Spiritual truth of His words--to His people. e.g., when Christ threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple (G2411 - hieron)

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

That word Temple Christ used there is a different word (G3485 - naos), but it is obvious that the words are interchangeable as the Jews spoke of the physical building, declaring it took 46 years to build. And note Christ never told them that He spoke of the Temple of His body, it remained a mystery to them. But it is written by the Apostle John for us, who would come after and receive the deeper Spiritual truth of His words. True to His words, they did destroy the Temple, and Christ did raise it up in three days, and it was the sign that Jesus had the power/authority to do these things--as they had asked. A sign that many are blinded to from that day to this very day.

The truth is many Jews looked upon the Gentiles as Dogs and Swine and gloried in the fact that they were the chosen seed of Abraham that could never fall from that (in their minds). Even as many in the premillennial/Dispensational church today think the church can never fall. But the fact is, they did fall and the congregation today is no better than the congregation was then. Because their eyes were on the temporal rather than the Spiritual, even as the Disciples were admiring the great buildings of the Jewish nation. The Premillennial and Dispensational church today feels the very same way about the nation of Israel's position because their hermeneutic is almost identical in its looking at God's word only literally (John 3:4) and to some degree having great disdain for God authored Spiritual truths. It's simply the other side of that "exact same" coin of methodology. Stones represent the people--both those who fell and those who would be raised up/ built again, when we understand the builder and maker is God. i.e.:

Matthew 3:9-10

1. "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
2. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Yes, God was able of those stones to raise up children unto Abraham, And He Did! Not literal stones, but Spiritual ones!!

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nothing coincidental about the language of God raising up stones as the children of Abraham, though it may seem so to many who seem antithetical to the Spirit of truth. Nothing coincidental about stones being the building of the church, or the stones being made of wood hay and stubble, or of gold silver and precious gems "when we gracefully receive God authored Spiritual truths!" The word temple (G2411 - hieron) used by the Disciples doesn't preclude Christ from talking about a spiritual Temple any more than the word temple (G3485 - naos) that the Jews used in saying it took 46 years to build it precluded Christ from speaking of His body and not whatever building the Jews spoke of.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ahhh...there were "LOTS" of stones left standing, one upon another after 70 AD. And many still left standing one upon another 2000 years later.

LOL. No, there were not. Where are you getting that idea from? The temple buildings were completely destroyed. What evidence do you have to show otherwise?

Thus 70 AD CANNOT rationally be the fulfillment of that particular prophesy "IF" it was meant of the Physical buildings of the Temple being thrown down.

Yes, it most certainly can.

Mark 13:1-2

• "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
• And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

What temple did Jesus and His disciples go out of there? What "stones" and "buildings" were the disciples referring to there? When Jesus said "Seest these great buildings?" what buildings was He referring to?

And before you start rationalizing how those stones were not of the main Temple building like so many others, please pay careful attention that Christ spoke not only of the Temple, its buildings, but also of all the buildings of the ENTIRE Holy City Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Now, logically speaking, "IF" Christ was really addressing the physical stones of the Temple and the physical Holy City Jerusalem, then it is ridiculous to say 70 AD qualifies since we all know that many many stones are STILL left standing one upon another to this very day 2000+ years later.

It's quite possible that He was referring to the temple buildings there without specifying that until a bit later in Luke 21:6-7. It's also quite possible that He was using hyperbole there if He was referring to the entire city being left with no stone upon another.

And "hyperbole" is just a word used when someone doesn't like exactly what Christ said.

That's nonsense. Are you somehow unaware that Jesus occasionally used hyperbole? Here is an example of that:

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

So, Jesus here was saying if your right eye causes you to sin (by looking lustfully at a woman, for example), then you should pluck it out. And He said if your right hand causes you to sin (by using it to punch someone who disagreed with you, for example) then you should cut it off. Do you think He was being literal here? I would hope you have more discernment than that. Of course He was not. He was using hyperbole to illustrate how seriously He takes sin. He used hyperbole to illustrate that we should make great effort to keep from sinning and rebelling against God so that we don't end up in hell.

He was very specific, not one stone left standing one upon another. The "ONLY" Holy City and Temple that could meet that criteria is the corporate congregation of the Old Testament congregation of Israel. Not the Physical building, but as they were the building of God to whom pertained the Covenants before the cross. But not after.

That should settle it, but of course it won't because a myriad of professing Christians choose to cling to these ideas supported by Josephus' writings and Church traditions as if they were gold. ..Well, his words aren't Gold, but God's word is. It always gets back to "authority" of God's word or man's.

Do you believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States? If so, you learned that from historical writings or from a school textbook based on historical writings, right? Does this mean those historical writings are on the same level as God's word? Of course not. You're being ridiculous here. It isn't as if nothing ever written is true except for what is written in the Bible. What reason would Josephus have lied about what occurred in 70 AD? I don't believe he had any reason to lie about it.

Revelation 3:18

• "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

That's not physical gold you can purchase in the church, neither physical clothing nor eyesalve. But you know that. How is it you can discern the face of the sky, but can not discern the signs of the times? Humm?

Congratulations on giving an example of a verse that is not to be taken literally. As if I said every verse should be taken literally or something, which I, of course, did not. But, in the case of Mark 13:1-2, it obviously should be taken literally. You are agreeing with Truth7t7 that it shouldn't be taken literally. Think about that. He's wrong about almost everything. If you're comfortable agreeing with him about this, so be it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We can see remnants of this "even" after Pentecost as Peter was talking about requiring circumcision in the church, and his poor understanding of the lawfulness of eating unclean meats. We're talking about progressive Revelation here. The Disciples were still thinking in terms of Old Testament Temple, when Christ was revealing the mystery of new and Spiritual things that the temporal merely "represented." Christ is illuminating (to them, and by extention, us) the fall of the Old Testament Temple as a type of the Old Testament congregation, and the coming restoration/rebuilding of the Temple and Holy City in the New Testament type of the New Testament body of Christ--which is the church (Acts 15:14-17).

Now, note the language as Christ "went out of the Temple," and He "departed from it." Granted, it may seem coincidental language that this is when they pointed out the Temple buildings. But it has a Spiritual meaning.

No, it does not. You are trying way too hard here to prove how spiritual you are or something. It has caused you to come up with some ridiculous interpretations. The temple they went out of was the physical temple standing at the time. After going out of it the disciples were looking at it from the outside and marveling at it. Jesus was not impressed and let them know that those buildings would one day be destroyed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Got my pocorn out. enjoying the theater

 

[covenantee]

You got the wrong Judaeans. God did not talk about people in physical Judaea. But that is okay since people like you are in denial that the kingdom representation was taken from Israel the moment Christ went to the Cross and was given to the Church in three days, John 2:18-21. In God's eyes, Church has been spiritually Judaea ever since and His believers are Christians. Not Jews in Judea in 70AD with their temple that was no longer holy since the veil was rent.

Why are you talking about Jews in Judea? I'm not.

It was the Judaean Christians who heeded Jesus' warning and fled.

The ones you say God did not talk about.

He certainly did, and they listened, and acted, and survived.

They were smarter than futurists.

Thank God that there wasn't one futurist in the bunch.

They'd have been dead.

Not spiritually dead.

Physically dead.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. No, there were not. Where are you getting that idea from? The temple buildings were completely destroyed. What evidence do you have to show otherwise?

Not only Temple buildings but the buildings of the WHOLE city per Luke 19. But it is understandable that you are insisting on the "Temple building only" to guard your false preterism doctrine. Regardless, the Lord is talking about His Old Testament congregation, the c children as stones falling, not literal stones of the buildings. Somethjing you are in a denial.

Yes, it most certainly can.

The Lord Judges and I am comfortable with that! :-)

What temple did Jesus and His disciples go out of there? What "stones" and "buildings" were the disciples referring to there? When Jesus said "Seest these great buildings?" what buildings was He referring to?

Christ's disciples were not enlightened with the Holy Spirit to understand what Christ talked about.

It's quite possible that He was referring to the temple buildings there without specifying that until a bit later in Luke 21:6-7. It's also quite possible that He was using hyperbole there if He was referring to the entire city being left with no stone upon another.

LOL!!! You don't get it. He sees the city as his children. Stones as children! The whole old testament congregation no longer representing God's Kingdom. That was what the Lord wept over! Not some literal stone building of the temple! Geez. |

That's nonsense. Are you somehow unaware that Jesus occasionally used hyperbole? Here is an example of that:

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

So, Jesus here was saying if your right eye causes you to sin (by looking lustfully at a woman, for example), then you should pluck it out. And He said if your right hand causes you to sin (by using it to punch someone who disagreed with you, for example) then you should cut it off. Do you think He was being literal here? I would hope you have more discernment than that. Of course He was not. He was using hyperbole to illustrate how seriously He takes sin. He used hyperbole to illustrate that we should make great effort to keep from sinning and rebelling against God so that we don't end up in hell.

Like I did not know. What made you think the Lord asked us to cut off our hand or eyes to avoid hell? Sigh...

Do you believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States? If so, you learned that from historical writings or from a school textbook based on historical writings, right? Does this mean those historical writings are on the same level as God's word? Of course not. You're being ridiculous here.

What does the president of the United States has to go with Scripture? You are being ridiculous here by distracting the subject.

It isn't as if nothing ever written is true except for what is written in the Bible. What reason would Josephus have lied about what occurred in 70 AD? I don't believe he had any reason to lie about it.

First, Josephus is not the regenerated child of God. His writing means nothing. What matters most is if you have spiritual discernment on what the Lord actually talked about rather than historical lessons.

Congratulations on giving an example of a verse that is not to be taken literally. As if I said every verse should be taken literally or something, which I, of course, did not. But, in the case of Mark 13:1-2, it obviously should be taken literally. You are agreeing with Truth7t7 that it shouldn't be taken literally. Think about that. He's wrong about almost everything. If you're comfortable agreeing with him about this, so be it.

I do not care if you have a beef with Truth7t7. I only care that I testify to the Word of God.

We don't have to speculate, we search the scriptures to find out when the holy city was destroyed. When, is not subject to our own personal opinions or private interpretations. So the question is, when does the Bible illustrate that the Holy City was destroyed, and more importantly HOW was it destroyed?

Matthew 23:37-38

• "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Was this Holy City, this Jerusalem, Christ was talking about, left desolate in AD 70? Of course NOT! It was left spiritually desolate because it is the Old Testament congregation that Christ was speaking about whether you like it or not! Christ is not talking about a physical city being destroyed, or physical temple stones falling in ruin, but of a corporate people of God. A PEOPLE who had rejected God's servants and prophets despite God's care and care of them. A physical stones of the temple did not kill the prophets or Christ, did it? No, it is a PEOPLE that represents God's Kingdom, who were supposed to be the holy city but who loved abominations rather than righteousness and as a result would be left desolate, and no longer be the city of peace. He was not talking about a city being destroyed by Romans some 37 years later, but a spiritual city brought to blindness and ruin by their wickedness.

The fact is, interpretations don't belong to Josephus, they belong to God (Genesis 40:8 ). God doesn't leave it up to human bias, your favorite historians or man to judge so-called Biblical facts. If that were the case, we would all come to totally different conclusions reading the same Bible. Which (by the way) is the very reason that we have so many diverse interpretations in the churches. Because so many professing Christians do not hold to the sound hermeneutic of allowing the Bible to interpret itself. People use the methodology of thinking they can "of themselves" discern truth through speculation and secular history like Josephus. No way that is a sound system. Truth about prophecy is found upon the pages of the Bible, Not on the page of historian you admired. The Spirit of God that is within every believer does not reveal whether historical facts/events line up with prophecies, it reveals when scripture lines up with scripture, when it is in harmony with itself, thus revealing the truth of how God Himself interpret imagery, symbols and prophecies.

(continue)

 

[TribulationSigns]

(contiune from previous post)

By contrast, you seem to be saying that history, as found in secular history books, is an accurate way to interpret God's word. If that is what you believe, I would say that is an unsound system of interpretation. Assumption is the mother of errors. Secular History may be true, but it also may not be. For "History is written by the victors," and we should never assume that what is written is the truth just because it finds its way into renowned books. Nevertheless, even if it were "mostly" true, we can never use secular history to interpret or understand God's word. God didn't inspire His holy word to be interpreted by books written by uninspired men. The Bible is meant to be interpreted by the Bible, not by comparing it to what other men may have written. That's the most basic and fundamental of all sound interpretation. itself. The only infallible means of interpretation is an infallible word. Scripture interprets scripture because interpretations belong to God (Genesis 40:8 ), and God today speaks to us through His word. Anything else is a private interpretation.

2nd Peter 1:20

• "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Prophesy has never been subject to any man's historical observations, personal opinions, individual explanations or learned, scholarly suppositions. Interpretation is by God through God's word alone.

Matthew 24:1-2

• "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
• And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Of course the natural man like you and preterists would look at this and think that God was speaking about a physical temple building, but the spiritual man knows God speaks of the congregation as a temple and those within it as the stones of that Temple. That's not something I made up, that's a Biblical fact. And as far as the prophecy, and despite suppositions to the contrary, our Lord was very specific saying not only that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another of it, but further amplified it by saying they (the stones one upon another) would all (BAR NONE) be thrown down! Even by using the vaunted secular history books we know of a certainty that more than one stone was left standing one upon another after AD 70. In point of fact, to this very day there are foundation stones left standing "one upon another" of the physical Temple. Moreover, there were (and let's not forget this) many stones of the physical city Jerusalem left standing one upon another. Again, the qualifying prophecy was that "not one stone would be left standing one upon another. Too many people want to "ignore" this qualification because it doesn't fit or conform to their personal/private interpretations of this prophecy taking place in AD 70.

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Many Christians refuse to hear the part where Christ unambiguously says the city shall be laid even with the ground and her children within her. It's very willfully convenient to leave that part out. Tell me who TRULY were the enemies of Jerusalem and how were they compassed round about her? Who truly brought the city to desolation? Was it the Romans, or was it those who would smite the Shepherd? Only by comparing scripture with scripture will we ever know the "TRUE" answer to that. No, it's not the Romans! Christ said that the city Jerusalem itself and all its children within would be laid even with the ground so that Not one stone would be left standing one upon another. Again, Christ's specific qualification for fulfillment, not mine. Of course, the physical city remained with many stones left standing one upon another, which means that the physical city in AD 70 was NOT what Christ was speaking about in the prophecy. Only their spiritual city, the Old Testament congregation qualifies for having been completely laid even with the ground and brought to desolation. We have to understand, Christ didn't weep for literal stones or for a physical city Jerusalem, he wept for the congregation Jerusalem, the people who were the stones and the city proper. It is "THEY" who would be brought to desolation or total ruin by their abominations, and it is they who were laid even with the ground. That is why the Apostle Paul also Wept for his kinsmen according to the flesh. Because He understood that at that moment, they were no longer the people of God. That is the ruin that came upon Jerusalem because of her abominations.

(continue)

 

[TribulationSigns]

Romans 9:8

• "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Something has already taken place where the Old Testament congregation has been brought to ruin. They have been thrown dowen and would never be the representation of the holy city of God ever again! This is what the veil of the Holy Temple being torn in two signified.

Matthew 27:50-51

• "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
• And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"

This true destruction of Jerusalem, the holy city, didn't occur in AD 70, but when Christ was crucified on the cross. When the Temple veil was torn in two and the rocks rent that symbolized there was instituted a new way, a New Temple (a rebuilding or as Biblically put, "Build again"). And in order for the building again, there would have to he been the ruin before. Get it?! Selah! For how do you rebuild up something that has not been previously brought down to ruin. Not one stone was left one upon another in that city because by their abominations, it was laid waste--the Kingdom was taken from them and given to another. Where all stones already were thrown down, Christ came to start the rebuilding, being the beginning, the cornerstone of that rebuilding. Not rebuilding a physical Temple as so many Preterism Christians suppose, but as God had always intended.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The Holy city representation of the congregation of God, the kingdom of God on earth, was taken from them and was instituted in the New Testament Church. Christ is the beginning, the cornerstone of that rebuilding of what was brought to ruin. The people of the congregation built upon Him are the stones of that rebuilding of cit and Temple. Thrown down, rebuilt, it's not rocket science, it's simply understanding Scripture spiritually, the way our Lord fully intended. Christians are spiritual beings, we don't understand things in the way the world does, but in the Spirit of truth. Comparing scripture with scripture in the only sound hermeneutic whereby we may understand righteously God's view of things.

1st Corinthians 2:13

• "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Not by comparing the carnal, natural and physical with the carnal, but by spiritual with spiritual. These are things that man's natural wisdom will miss as he looks to worldly or carnal interpretations through history books, nations and political rulers.

It is only in searching the word of God where we will find how Jerusalem was brought to desolation and ruin, and when.

Matthew 12:25-27

• "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
• And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
• And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges."

Jerusalem was brought to ruin because it was a city that was divided against itself, no longer holy and couldn't stand. That's not talking about an inanimate object such as a physical city or physical stones, but people. Thus they were destroyed, every last stone laid level with the ground. And a rebuilding commenced in Christ as the first stone. This is the "TRUE" restoration of Israel, which secular history cannot dream of comprehending.

Acts 15:16-17

• "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
• That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."

The tabernacle was fallen, and it had to be rebuilt, and the ruins restored, and this is all talking about Christ and the New Testament congregation. Look deeper into the prophecy and know that it is true. What many people don't understand is the spiritual nature of the Bible. A literal Temple or rebuilding is not in view. These people were the stones that were laid level in ruin, and Christ was the beginning of a new building, with new stones. God is not interested in physical bricks falling except in seeing they may not see.

Matthew 21:41-43

• "They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
• Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The Old Jerusalem was laid ruin at the cross by their rejection of Christ, the New Testament Jerusalem is built on their ruins, and we are the stones of that "building again" of the ruins. One laid one upon another. These are spiritual truths, not truths anyone will find in a secular history book, but ONLY in the word of God diligently searched out! And in searching it out we find that the Temple was destroyed at His death. But the responsibility for that destruction rests upon the head of those who rejected Christ. They (according to scripture) destroyed the sanctuary, they are those who Jesus said (according to scripture) "destroy this temple," and in three days the Lord raised it up. Sure, we can wax poetic about how no one really destroyed the Temple until AD 70, but according to prophesy, they not only did destroy the holy temple by their abominations, but that it was left desolate (totally in ruins) by its abominations, not by Romans.

Look....anyone can study history. There is no Biblical law against the study of History. The problem comes in when Christians attempt to use secular history to prove fulfilled scripture. History doesn't prove scripture, scripture proves History. The scriptures are not in error, your understanding of them is in error. That can be very easily proven, IF we take Christ at his word when He says that not one stone will be left standing one upon another. For example there were many stones left standing one upon another after the Romans attack of the city, and anyone can prove that for themselves by flying to Jerusalem today and seeing the ruins and walls and stones OF THE CITY still left standing one upon another. Unless Jesus made a mistake in claiming they wouldn't be left that way, then obviously your understanding of what He truly was saying is flawed.

Selah!

 

[covenantee]

Was this Holy City, this Jerusalem, Christ was talking about, left desolate in AD 70? Of course NOT!

Who was physically inhabiting it after the Romans destroyed it?

Other than some of the local fauna?

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, it does not. You are trying way too hard here to prove how spiritual you are or something. It has caused you to come up with some ridiculous interpretations. The temple they went out of was the physical temple standing at the time. After going out of it the disciples were looking at it from the outside and marveling at it. Jesus was not impressed and let them know that those buildings would one day be destroyed.

Yeah, like when Christ said they would come and destroy the temple and in three days Christ rebuilt it. And like you, they thought Christ was talking about the physical temple that took 46 years to build. Likewise, the disciples thought Christ was talking about the physical destruction of the temple building when in fact Christ was talking about something else that requires spiritual discernment. Okay, YOu can go ahead and play with your 70AD sandbox if you insist with a carnal mind. Nothing I can do for you. I only can testify. And the Lord can reveal it to you with the Spirit of Wisdom.

Selah.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Who was physically inhabiting it after the Romans destroyed it?

Other than some of the local fauna?

If you are a fan of secular history, go look it up and find out how the city was repopulated and rebuilt. Think this is really what the Lord talked about or are you looking at the wrong place (as usual).

 

[covenantee]

Look....anyone can study history. There is no Biblical law against the study of History. The problem comes in when Christians attempt to use secular history to prove fulfilled scripture.

So you would believe that there was no historical physical birth of Christ, because that would be secular history proving fulfilled Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

If you are a fan of secular history, go look it up and find out how the city was repopulated and rebuilt. Think this is really what the Lord talked about or are you looking at the wrong place (as usual).

Was the city completely repopulated and rebuilt the day after the Romans destroyed it?

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, and your point is?

I'm unfamiliar with your view relating to eschatology, thanks for the response

 

[Truth7t7]

Are you afraid to directly address the passage I quoted (Mark 13:1-2)? Seems like you just believe what you want to believe instead of accepting what passages like Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2 and Luke 21:6-7 indicate. Can you paraphrase the following passage so I can see how you interpret it?

Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

What temple did Jesus and the disciples go out of here? When the disciples said "what manner of stones and what buildings are here!", what stones and what buildings were they talking about? When Jesus asked "Seest thou these great buildings?" what buildings was He talking about?

As stated in John 2:19-22 Jesus stood before the temple in Jerusalem with the pharisees,, and stated "Destroy This Temple" and the pharisees like you were believing in a literal temple made of stone, the interpretation was the Lord's Body, simple, clear, easy to understand if your not clinging to preterist 70AD fulfillment

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not only Temple buildings but the buildings of the WHOLE city per Luke 19. But it is understandable that you are insisting on the "Temple building only" to guard your false preterism doctrine.

Just because I agree with preterists on this particular thing doesn't make me a preterist any more than a preterist agreeing with a futurist about one thing makes them a futurist. So, stop wasting time with this nonsense. If you can't comprehend the idea of hyperbole then I can't help you. Whether you accept it or not, Jesus did sometimes use hyperbole. Even in the case of the temple buildings, while I do believe they were thoroughly destroyed, it's certainly possible that not every single stone of them was thrown down. That wasn't the point Jesus was making. He was using hyperbole to indicate that the destruction would be to such an extent that the temple would no longer be able to be used and the city could not be lived in until it was rebuilt.

It's ludicrous to deny that the temple buildings referenced in Matthew 24:1-2 (Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:6-7) were anything but the physical temple buildings standing at that time. The temple buildings of the temple they had just been in were clearly what the disciples and Jesus were referring to. It couldn't be more clear.

Regardless, the Lord is talking about His Old Testament congregation, the c children as stones falling, not literal stones of the buildings. Somethjing you are in a denial.

There is no indication of such whatsoever in Matthew 24:1-2 (Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:6-7). Not even close.

The Lord Judges and I am comfortable with that!

Well, that's good. We'd all be in trouble if you were the judge.

Christ's disciples were not enlightened with the Holy Spirit to understand what Christ talked about.

LOL. They referred to the buildings of the temple and He said "see these great buildings"? He was obviously referring to the very same buildings they were. He wouldn't refer to the church as "these great buildings". That's silly and ridiculous. Yes, there is scripture that refers to the church as "the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:21-22), but that's "the building" singular, not "these great buildings" plural.

LOL!!! You don't get it.

LOL!!!! No, you don't get it.

He sees the city as his children. Stones as children! The whole old testament congregation no longer representing God's Kingdom. That was what the Lord wept over! Not some literal stone building of the temple! Geez. |

LOL! When did I say He wept over the temple? LOL!!!! I never said that. Why don't you look at what I actually say instead of imagining me saying ridiculous things like that? Of course He was weeping over the people of the city, not the temple. That's why He also said this:

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Like I did not know. What made you think the Lord asked us to cut off our hand or eyes to avoid hell? Sigh...

Since you can't recognize Luke 19:41-44 as hyperbole, I couldn't be sure whether or not you could recognize hyperbole at all. So, I felt it necessary to prove that Jesus did indeed sometimes use hyperbole when He spoke.

What does the president of the United States has to go with Scripture? You are being ridiculous here by distracting the subject.

No, I'm not. I was making a point. You were disregarding historical writings that talk about what happened in 70 AD. Why? It's not as if no historical writings besides the Bible are true, so what reason do you have to doubt that Josephus' writings about what happened in 70 AD are true?

First, Josephus is not the regenerated child of God. His writing means nothing. What matters most is if you have spiritual discernment on what the Lord actually talked about rather than historical lessons.

Does someone have to be a regenerated child of God in order to accurately record things that happen?

Do you not think that the destruction that happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD, which included the killing of many Jews and destruction of their beloved temple buildings (if you believe it even happened) had no significance and is not something that would be prophesied at all in scripture? If so, why would you think that? Did that event not remove any doubt that Jesus was not kidding when He railed against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 and other places? That event proved that God was serious about the Jews accepting His Son Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. He took away their temple and left their city in ruins to show them beyond the shadow of a doubt that He would only tolerate their rebellion for so long before punishing them.

We don't have to speculate, we search the scriptures to find out when the holy city was destroyed. When, is not subject to our own personal opinions or private interpretations. So the question is, when does the Bible illustrate that the Holy City was destroyed, and more importantly HOW was it destroyed?

Matthew 23:37-38

• "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Was this Holy City, this Jerusalem, Christ was talking about, left desolate in AD 70? Of course NOT!

Physically, it was. Why you can't allow that He talked about both the spiritual and physical desolation of Jerusalem is beyond me.

It was left spiritually desolate because it is the Old Testament congregation that Christ was speaking about whether you like it or not!

LOL! When did I say He never talked about it being made spiritually desolate? I didn't. Stop misrepresenting my view! Do you think that helps your case to misrepresent my view like this? It makes you look like you need to lie in order to make me look bad and make yourself look better. I'm saying He talked about both spiritual AND physical desolation. You have decided for some inexplicable reason that He only could have talked about one or the other. And, with that, I'm done reading your nonsense.

 

[covenantee]

As stated in John 2:19-22 Jesus stood before the temple in Jerusalem with the pharisees,, and stated "Destroy This Temple" and the pharisees like you were believing in a literal temple made of stone, the interpretation was the Lord's Body, simple, clear, easy to understand if your not clinging to preterist 70AD fulfillment

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 2:19-22 is not the Olivet discourse.

There were no Pharisees at the Olivet discourse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As stated in John 2:19-22 Jesus stood before the temple in Jerusalem with the pharisees,, and stated "Destroy This Temple" and the pharisees like you were believing in a literal temple made of stone, the interpretation was the Lord's Body, simple, clear, easy to understand if your not clinging to preterist 70AD fulfillment

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

So, the answer to my question is yes, you are afraid to directly address what is written in Mark 13:1-2 (Matthew 24:1-2, Luke 21:6-7). John 2:19-22 is not a parallel passage to Mark 13:1-2. It's dishonest for you to act as if it is. The Olivet Discourse is not recorded in the book of John.