Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You think a "wall" is a "building?" It can be part of a building, but the wall itself is not a "building!" In the case of the Western Wall, it was *not* part of any building. It was built to be a retaining wall--not a building.
In fact, most all of the Early Church Fathers viewed the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 70 AD event. They believed that when Jesus said the temple would be completely demolished that it was fulfilled when the Romans arrived in 70 AD and oversaw its complete demolition. The Church Fathers were much closer to this event then you are!
The point was not that all buildings in the world would be leveled, nor even all buildings in the proximity of the temple would be leveled. Rather, it was specifically that all of the *temple* buildings would be leveled! That did, in fact, happen.The discussion was about building plural, and he said everuy6thijhg would be leveled to the ground. That has not happened.
In fact, most all of the Early Church Fathers viewed the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 70 AD event. They believed that when Jesus said the temple would be completely demolished that it was fulfilled when the Romans arrived in 70 AD and oversaw its complete demolition. The Church Fathers were much closer to this event then you are!
You're missing the point. The temple "complex," as you like to phrase it, did not include just any building in the vicinity of the temple, but the actual buildings that constituted "the temple." In other words, though the temple consisted of several buildings it was considered a single building complex. This excluded things like retaining walls that were not any part of the foundation for these buildings.It is part of the temple complex, multiple buildings. I never said it was part of the "temple building".