Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Timtofly]

Most of the temple complex is made of WALLS!

I think their argument was that buildings don't have walls, only doors and windows. Obviously walls don't have doors or windows, until they actually do. Seems to me they cannot see the Forrest for the trees.

In this case they cannot see the stones for the one single building they are attempting to define. All these things still include all these stones. The western wall is the one in the back. It would be the least likely one needed to be removed, by the Romans. The eastern wall would have been breached by the time the temple was set on fire.

The fact is that the Romans did remove more of the foundation than necessary, in search of some melted gold. But not every stone at every foundation point needed to be removed at all by an army.

The argument is between why the Romans point of view is different than the Second Coming point of view. Like Amil, Preterist have no logical reason to deny the future Second Coming, nor a future Millennium. They are just attached to the notion such future events will never happen, so they give as many excuses possible, why they will never happen.

I agree that one day an earthquake will split that wall in half to allow for a river. They will have to bring that last stone back and reset it when they start over to rebuild an entire structure. That 70AD temple complex was totally scattered and later rebuilt upon, which was unfortunate, as now no one can prove it was ever all removed.

Yet there is still the reasonable doubt that parts remain to this day. So even if some here are right that it was all removed, even lacking proof, it all has to be done all over again, because in 70AD, they forgot to install the two rivers. There will obviously be another chance to remove every stone. At that point 70AD will not even matter, as the point will be settled once and for all. I am sure Jesus can allow those alive today some flash back ability to see 70AD if they are so OCD in being right about everything.

Interestingly enough no temple will be built prior to the Second Coming. So the Second Coming happens prior to the temple Satan will sit in. At the Second Coming all stones will be moved out of their places. Then a new temple and throne will be set up by Jesus the Prince. This throne will be set up way before the battle of Armageddon is ever even needed. Armageddon is not the Second Coming. Armageddon is only an event to reclaim this throne set up at the Second Coming. There is only one future temple destruction not two. There is only one Second Coming to set up this temple. There will also be two new rivers flowing out of Jerusalem at the same event.

 

[Timtofly]

With all due respect, the *plaza* was contained by retaining walls. The temple buildings were not.

It's a nice picture though. It appears that buildings were built over the retaining walls, as well. In that case, you might argue that the retaining walls form part of the foundation of those peripheral buildings.

However, this is not the usual meaning of "buildings" that were to be "thrown down." The obvious inference is that the buildings *above ground* were to be demolished, which clearly is what happened in Jesus' generation.

Obviously, those retaining walls were not part of the foundation of the temple itself! So Jesus is referring to the structures *above ground* that were to be "thrown down,* and not anything that was *under them.*

I am pretty sure those that day were admiring Herod's whole entire complex. Not just the work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

You are forgetting the whole point. They were pointing out the glory of one man's work, Herod. Jesus was making the point that man's works would all be destroyed, and only what God builds will stand as eternal reminders. But even the creations God brings into existence will not last longer than the Word of God.

 

[n2thelight]

Satan has been appearing as the man of sin for 2500 years. Who do you think taught the Greeks and Romans western science? The Greeks and Romans accepted this knowledge easier than Eve fell to Satan's deception. No one told the Greeks and Romans to beware of Satan. No one told them their science was wrong. Of course many humans have seen Satan. Thousands have lived and died during the last 2500 years. Do you think the Greeks and Romans would trust some one who did not appear to actually know what they were talking about?

So when he comes to this earth ,take it yo gonna know who he is . Don't really care what anyone told the Greeks and Romans , rather what Christ told me in His scripture

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am pretty sure those that day were admiring Herod's whole entire complex. Not just the work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

You are forgetting the whole point. They were pointing out the glory of one man's work, Herod. Jesus was making the point that man's works would all be destroyed, and only what God builds will stand as eternal reminders. But even the creations God brings into existence will not last longer than the Word of God.

I think the point was that the vast majority of Israel had chosen to follow the ways of independence from God, or sin. As such, they had broken their covenant with God, and God was about to cancel their religion given to them by Him.

The temple was to come down to show that the outward beauty of worship and morality can disguise inward corruption and murder. AS such, God is not fooled, and intended to destroy this false image of religiosity.

It had actually been foretold in Dan 9, where an army would come against the "city and the sanctuary" by an "abomination of desolation." And so, Jesus saw what was happening in his day, recognized his own place as Messiah, and predicted the inevitable--Jerusalem would fall in "this generation."

The focus was not on the construction of the temple in all of its parts. Rather, the focus was on the end of the part of the structure that was being used falsely and corruptly. And that was the building above ground--it had nothing to do with foundations or retaining walls, in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wiki:



The fact that these buildings were not taken down further proves the prophecy was not fulfilled in 70 AD.

LOL. Where is your proof that any of that is what the disciples were marveling at? Because the context is that it was the temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at in particular that Jesus said would be destroyed. If you want to be hyper-literal and think that Jesus was saying that literally 100% of the entire area where the temple was would be destroyed then that's your choice. But, it's ridiculous to think that is what He meant.

Jesus was clearly referring to what eventually happened in 70 AD when He said the temple buildings would be destroyed. And then He was asked when it would happen. He answered that question in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 where He described what happened at that time, which turned out to be around 70 AD. The Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and then destroyed the city and made the temple desolate. You don't even acknowledge that He answered the question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed. You lose all credibility when you claim that He didn't even answer the question.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

With all due respect, the *plaza* was contained by retaining walls. The temple buildings were not.

It's a nice picture though. It appears that buildings were built over the retaining walls, as well. In that case, you might argue that the retaining walls form part of the foundation of those peripheral buildings.

However, this is not the usual meaning of "buildings" that were to be "thrown down." The obvious inference is that the buildings *above ground* were to be demolished, which clearly is what happened in Jesus' generation.

Obviously, those retaining walls were not part of the foundation of the temple itself! So Jesus is referring to the structures *above ground* that were to be "thrown down,* and not anything that was *under them.*

Exactly. Only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from understanding this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So you agree some of this complex is still standing today, never overturned. All these things meant all these things. You claim all is not all, but a single structure. The outer temple buildings were directly on top of this wall. The wall is still part of all, not a separate entity unknown. The buildings were not floating in the air. They were held up and remained in place by something. That something being part of the "all".

The disciples were marveling at certain temple buildings such as the one that they had just been inside of before that. I don't believe they were marveling at any outer walls. Jesus said those buildings that the disciples were marveling at would be completely destroyed and they were. Jesus said armies would surround Jerusalem and then make it desolate. Is that not what happened around 70 AD? Of course it is. So, what Jesus predicted about that happened just as He said it would. That should be something we celebrate (His accurate prophecy) rather than denying it ever happened.

Do you understand that by acknowledging that part of the prophecy as being fulfilled doesn't require you to think that the entire Olivet Discourse is fulfilled? I think that's the only reason futurists like you don't acknowledge that part of the prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. You're not able to recognize or acknowledge that Jesus spoke of two different events (one past event local to Jerusalem and one future global event).

 

[Timtofly]

The disciples were marveling at certain temple buildings such as the one that they had just been inside of before that. I don't believe they were marveling at any outer walls. Jesus said those buildings that the disciples were marveling at would be completely destroyed and they were. Jesus said armies would surround Jerusalem and then make it desolate. Is that not what happened around 70 AD? Of course it is. So, what Jesus predicted about that happened just as He said it would. That should be something we celebrate (His accurate prophecy) rather than denying it ever happened.

Do you understand that by acknowledging that part of the prophecy as being fulfilled doesn't require you to think that the entire Olivet Discourse is fulfilled? I think that's the only reason futurists like you don't acknowledge that part of the prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. You're not able to recognize or acknowledge that Jesus spoke of two different events (one past event local to Jerusalem and one future global event).

I asked is what Jesus taught in the temple during the day the same body of teaching as the OD itself.

What Jesus declared in the temple happened in 70AD. What Jesus declared in the OD is the Second Coming.

Now can you point out the differences in the text itself of which is which? What part was given in the temple and what part on the mountain, or do you not care, just arguing for argument sake, without a point?

The issue is that part of what was said at the temple is still future. Preterist have no claim on the OD, but what was said at the temple during the day. Some futurist even point out that is still future as well.

It is easier to point out what was said on the mount in Matthew. Luke is not that easy. And you may have a harder time splitting up Luke than Matthew. Obviously many here want to say the armies in Luke is the same event as the abomination in Matthew.

Obviously from even the historical record this is not the case. Many fled in 66 AD fulfilling Luke, which was not the 70AD event at all. So nothing in the Gospels is linked directly with the OD and 70AD. With 66AD, sure. Now since the destruction was mentioned at the temple, it was not the OD itself. Nor was Jesus obligated to jump to such conclusions as many here seem to claim.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I asked is what Jesus taught in the temple during the day the same body of teaching as the OD itself.

What Jesus declared in the temple happened in 70AD. What Jesus declared in the OD is the Second Coming.

He declared both in the OD. That's what you're not getting. But, you're not the only one to not recognize that.

Now can you point out the differences in the text itself of which is which? What part was given in the temple and what part on the mountain, or do you not care, just arguing for argument sake, without a point?

The first 2 verses where the disciples marvel at the temple buildings and Jesus tells them that the temple buildings will be destroyed occurred just after they went out from the temple. The rest right after that was spoken on the mount of Olives. This is obvious.

The issue is that part of what was said at the temple is still future.

No, it is not. The temple buildings were destroyed just as Jesus said they would be, which is something to celebrate rather than deny as you are. To say otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

Preterist have no claim on the OD, but what was said at the temple during the day. Some futurist even point out that is still future as well.

No idea what you're trying to say here. I'm not a preterist, for one thing. I just happen to believe part of the OD was fulfilled in 70 AD and the rest either has an ongoing fulfillment (like the wars and earthquakes) or a future fulfillment.

It is easier to point out what was said on the mount in Matthew. Luke is not that easy. And you may have a harder time splitting up Luke than Matthew. Obviously many here want to say the armies in Luke is the same event as the abomination in Matthew.

Of course it is. It's not like Jesus twice said that people in Judea need to flee into the mountains during His Olivet Discourse.

Obviously from even the historical record this is not the case. Many fled in 66 AD fulfilling Luke, which was not the 70AD event at all. So nothing in the Gospels is linked directly with the OD and 70AD. With 66AD, sure.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about here. What about Luke 21:20-24? Does that not describe what happened around 70 AD? Did the Roman armies not surround Jerusalem before attacking and destroying the city and making it desolate?

Now since the destruction was mentioned at the temple, it was not the OD itself. Nor was Jesus obligated to jump to such conclusions as many here seem to claim.

But, the disciples asked Him when that destruction of the temple buildings would occur. That was the first question and the other question was about when His coming and the end of the age would occur.

 

[ewq1938]

You don't even acknowledge that He answered the question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed. You lose all credibility when you claim that He didn't even answer the question.

Except no one has provided Christ saying when it would happen. That's because he never answered it. You lose all credibility when you claim that He answered the question.

Once again, this has not happened:


Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 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.
Luk 19:43 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,
Luk 19:44 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.


More of the prophecy! Christ said the city would be even with the ground with no stone upon another. This is not limited to just the temple or some other close buildings but this applies to the entire city. That any walls still stand means this prophecy has not been fulfilled.


Wiki:

On Tisha B'Av, 4 August 70 CE[10][11] or 30 August 70 CE,[12] forces finally overwhelmed the defenders and set fire to the Second Temple.[13] Resistance continued for another month, but eventually the upper city was taken as well, and the city was burned to the ground. Titus spared only the three towers of the Herodian citadel as a testimony to the city's former might.

The fact that these buildings were not taken down further proves the prophecy was not fulfilled in 70 AD.

 

[ewq1938]

The disciples were marveling at certain temple buildings such as the one that they had just been inside of before that. I don't believe they were marveling at any outer walls.

Besides the temple, the walls are pretty much all you can marvel at.

 

[covenantee]

Did any of Jesus' Olivet predictions come true during the generation leading up to 70AD?

No.

Was Jesus only joking?

PERSECUTION AGAINST THE DISCIPLES

Matthew: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.., And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (24:9-12).

Mark: "They shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony.., whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost... And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (13:9-13).

Luke: "They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony...I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist...and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (21:12-17).

The book of Acts gives a complete account of how the disciples were persecuted in the very ways Jesus had predicted. Let us take, for example, Acts 4: "And they laid hands on them [Peter and John], and put them in prison" (verse 3). They were brought before "rulers" (verses 5-7). And it turned into an opportunity to testify. Peter explained that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (verse 12). They were given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay, for the men of the council "marveled" (verse 13). They were then commanded "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (verse 18). As Jesus had said, they were hated for His name's sake.

The same things are seen in Acts 5. Certain authorities "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (verse 18). Later they were brought "before the council" (verse 27) and told to answer for continuing to teach in the name of Jesus (verse 28). Again they had opportunity to testify (verses 29-32). They were "beaten" (verse 40). As they departed from the "council", they rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer for his name"(verse 41).

Or take Acts 6. There arose certain ones of the "synagogue" that disputed with Stephen. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke" (verses 9,10). Persecution resulted and he was brought into the "council " and questioned (verse 12). Again there was the opportunity to testify, the words of that testimony being given in Acts 7. Stephen was killed for his stand (verses 54-60). Jesus had said that some of them would be killed.

Notice Acts 8. "There was a great persecution against the church." Christians were put in "prison", but the result was that the word was preached (verses 1-4).

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were beaten and cast into "prison." But it turned into an opportunity to testify and the Philippian jailor and his family were converted as a result (verses 22-34). In Acts 21, persecution resulted in Paul being beaten, brought before rulers, before whom he testified (Acts 22). In Acts 22:19 we read that Christians were "imprisoned and beat in every Synagogue."

In Acts 24, Paul was brought before Felix, the governor, and testified. He was given a mouth of wisdom which his adversaries could not gainsay—though they obtained an orator to speak against him. Paul's words even made Felix to "tremble." In Acts 25 and 26, Paul was brought before king Agrippa, the chief captains, and the principal men of the city. He was given a mouth of wisdom, for Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (verse 28).

Jesus said the disciples would be afflicted, beaten, imprisoned; they would be hated for his name's sake and some would be killed; they would be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, for a testimony; they would be given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay. Surely these things came to pass in those years—unmistakably fulfilled in every detail.

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many ...but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt. 24:11,13). Peter, who was present when Jesus gave this prophecy (Mk. 13:3), later wrote about "false prophets" that had risen and of "many" that followed their pernicious ways (2 Peter 2). John, who also heard Jesus give this prophecy, recorded the fulfillment: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (l John 4:1). "Many deceivers are entered into the world" (2 John 7).

Paul also spoke of "false apostles, deceitful workers" (2 Cor. 11:13). He mentioned Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught false doctrines and overthrew the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). By the time of his epistle to Titus, there were "many...deceivers ...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not" (Titus 1:10, 11).

The waters of truth were muddied by betrayals, false prophets, iniquity, and the love of many waxing cold.

Ralph Woodrow, Great Prophecies of the Bible

 

[Timtofly]

He declared both in the OD. That's what you're not getting. But, you're not the only one to not recognize that.

That is your word and opinion. What happened in 66AD is the only part of the OD you can use. Since you do not see a need to separate what was said at the temple and on the mount itself, then there is no point in further discussions. It is just one single explanation with no specific meaning or purpose. Having no distinctions in the OD is the same argument that Revelation is too figurative and not chronological.

That could mean the OD is also too figurative and not chronological.

Are you willing to carry this theory to it's conclusion?

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is your word and opinion. What happened in 66AD is the only part of the OD you can use. Since you do not see a need to separate what was said at the temple and on the mount itself, then there is no point in further discussions. It is just one single explanation with no specific meaning or purpose. Having no distinctions in the OD is the same argument that Revelation is too figurative and not chronological.

That could mean the OD is also too figurative and not chronological.

Are you willing to carry this theory to it's conclusion?

What is so absurd about your argument here is that the Scriptures themselves make no issue over what should be called "the Olivet Discourse!" And here you are, basing your contentions on a supposed division between temple conversation and conversation on the mount! What is so ludicrous is your claim that these two different places make any difference at all when the same subject was being discussed in both places!

You cannot read everything written in chronological fashion. That makes no sense. That doesn't account for recapitulations, prolapses, digressions, etc. etc. Virtually nothing in literature is purely chronological--not even events listed in this post! The only thing chronological about a post or a discourse is the fact of the clock. While you're speaking time passes in chronological order!

The one place you can be sure you're dealing with chronological order is when you have a list of historical events lined up progressively in calendar order. The Revelation is not that, nor is the Olivet Discourse.

You just have to follow the story line. It's *always* about context. And the context for this conversation began at the temple, continued outside of the temple area, and resumed on the mountain. All one subject!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Except no one has provided Christ saying when it would happen.

He answered it in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20/Luke 21:20-24, as I've pointed out more than once before.

That's because he never answered it. You lose all credibility when you claim that He answered the question.

LOL. It's quite clear who is lacking in credibility here. Can you give even one valid reason why Jesus would not have answered that question? Good luck.

Once again, this has not happened:


Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 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.
Luk 19:43 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,
Luk 19:44 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.

Except that it did. You take this to mean every single building, wall, object, etc. in the city being destroyed, but that isn't what Jesus was saying. He was using hyperbole there just as He did when He said that someone should gouge out their eyes if their eyes cause them to sin or cut off their hands or feet if they cause them to sin. And as He did when He said it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It's the use of hyperbole/exaggeration to make a point. The amount of destruction that occurred at that time was very extensive and Jesus was using hyperbole to illustrate the extent of the destruction that would occur. It would be so much destruction that it would seem like every square inch of the city was destroyed. Your inability to differentiate between figurative, hyperbolic, apocalyptic and literal text is the reason that you misinterpret so much scripture. We need to use spiritual discernment to interpret scripture (1 Cor 2:9-14) rather than using the hyper-literal approach that you do.

More of the prophecy! Christ said the city would be even with the ground with no stone upon another. This is not limited to just the temple or some other close buildings but this applies to the entire city. That any walls still stand means this prophecy has not been fulfilled.

Go ahead and interpret hyperbolic text literally if you want. You refuse to take into account the writing style and type of text being used in any given verse or passage and always just assume it's all literal. That's not wise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is your word and opinion. What happened in 66AD is the only part of the OD you can use. Since you do not see a need to separate what was said at the temple and on the mount itself, then there is no point in further discussions.

LOL. The first thing the disciples asked when they came up to Jesus on the mount of Olives was "when will this happen?". What else could they have been asking about except for what Jesus had last said not long before that at the temple, which was that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed? The idea that the Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with Jesus saying that the temple buildings the disciples had been marveling at would be destroyed is ludicrous.

It is just one single explanation with no specific meaning or purpose. Having no distinctions in the OD is the same argument that Revelation is too figurative and not chronological.

That could mean the OD is also too figurative and not chronological.

Are you willing to carry this theory to it's conclusion?

LOL. What in the world are you even talking about here? You make no sense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is so absurd about your argument here is that the Scriptures themselves make no issue over what should be called "the Olivet Discourse!" And here you are, basing your contentions on a supposed division between temple conversation and conversation on the mount! What is so ludicrous is your claim that these two different places make any difference at all when the same subject was being discussed in both places!

Exactly. And that is very obvious. Yet, he's still missing it.

What possible reason can someone miss something so obvious except for doctrinal bias? Some will go to any length to keep their doctrine afloat. Even to the point of denying that the Olivet Discourse has anything at all to do with the last thing that Jesus had just said shortly before the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. They asked Him "when will this happen"? When will what happen? Obviously, they were asking when the temple buildings would be destroyed. What else could they have been asking about with that question? It's the last thing Jesus said to them before that and I'm sure it boggled their minds and they were very curious to find out more about His claim. I can't believe anyone could miss something this obvious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think their argument was that buildings don't have walls, only doors and windows. Obviously walls don't have doors or windows, until they actually do. Seems to me they cannot see the Forrest for the trees.

Are you for real? No one is saying that buildings don't have walls and you know it. It was being discussed as to whether or not retaining walls which were not part of buildings with doors and windows are included among the temple buildings that Jesus said would be destroyed. Stop being so ignorant and pay attention to what is actually being discussed.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He answered it in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20/Luke 21:20-24, as I've pointed out more than once before.

LOL. It's quite clear who is lacking in credibility here. Can you give even one valid reason why Jesus would not have answered that question? Good luck.

Except that it did. You take this to mean every single building, wall, object, etc. in the city being destroyed, but that isn't what Jesus was saying. He was using hyperbole there just as He did when He said that someone should gouge out their eyes if their eyes cause them to sin or cut off their hands or feet if they cause them to sin. And as He did when He said it's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. It's the use of hyperbole/exaggeration to make a point. The amount of destruction that occurred at that time was very extensive and Jesus was using hyperbole to illustrate the extent of the destruction that would occur. It would be so much destruction that it would seem like every square inch of the city was destroyed. Your inability to differentiate between figurative, hyperbolic, apocalyptic and literal text is the reason that you misinterpret so much scripture. We need to use spiritual discernment to interpret scripture (1 Cor 2:9-14) rather than using the hyper-literal approach that you do.

Go ahead and interpret hyperbolic text literally if you want. You refuse to take into account the writing style and type of text being used in any given verse or passage and always just assume it's all literal. That's not wise.

I do consider your approach to this possible, that Jesus was using hyperbole. Many instances in the bible hyperbole is used.

However, I tend to think Jesus literally meant that every stone of the temple buildings would come down, because they did. When he said the city would suffer that fate, he was referring, I believe, to the fate of the temple--every stone would come down.

What happened to the religious buildings in the city was in effect a leveling of the city. This is not hyperbole as much as generalization. When you say the farm was "leveled," that is literally true if the farm buildings come down.

Not every implement in the field, and not every row of plantings, had to be literally "leveled." The farm is literally "leveled" when the main structures or the emphasized structures are literally leveled.

That's how I see it. At any rate, the fact the Romans literally leveled the temple buildings indicates to me that this was what Jesus was talking about--not an Antichrist who isn't even part of the conversation!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Quite good. A hearty Amen to everything you've been saying!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Exactly. And that is very obvious. Yet, he's still missing it.

What possible reason can someone miss something so obvious except for doctrinal bias? Some will go to any length to keep their doctrine afloat. Even to the point of denying that the Olivet Discourse has anything at all to do with the last thing that Jesus had just said shortly before the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. They asked Him "when will this happen"? When will what happen? Obviously, they were asking when the temple buildings would be destroyed. What else could they have been asking about with that question? It's the last thing Jesus said to them before that and I'm sure it boggled their minds and they were very curious to find out more about His claim. I can't believe anyone could miss something this obvious.

Maybe I'm just stupid. I keep hoping that I can come to some "meeting of the minds" with some of these brothers. "He ain't heavy, he's my brother," is my song. Maybe I'm just not that good of a singer?