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

[covenantee]

So, who are "ye" or "you" in this passage...

Matthew 24:42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Yes, "you" were the disciples, and ongoing watchfulness is a necessity for all believers.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus does not tell us why He thought that they would or could be troubled.

But He did think that they would or could be troubled.

One possible reason could have been the abrupt increase in the frequency of wars and commotions (Luke 21:9) within the Roman Empire, as documented in the the historical records.

They were increasingly local.

"Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields."

They would have troubled me.

You?

Sure, but I don't see where Jesus said the wars and rumors of wars would all be between Israel and other nations. He just said it would be nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom.

Since you think the context of Matthew 24:14 is literally the whole world, why are you trying to limit the areas in which the wars and rumors of wars that Jesus was talking about would take place? I don't see where He said anything about being troubled if there were wars or rumors of wars in far away places like China.

It seems that you're trying to limit the area in which He was talking about by making it regional instead of global, even though you don't try to do that in relation to Matthew 24:14, which you claim is in relation to the gospel being preached in the entire world.

How can it be that you claim that the context of Matthew 24:14 is in relation to literally the entire world, but then try to limit the area that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:6 to just the surrounding areas that were not far from Jerusalem? Do you also do the same thing in relation to the famines, pestilences and earthquakes that Jesus talked about by saying He was saying that those things would only occur in relatively close proximity to Jerusalem?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, "you" were the disciples, and ongoing watchfulness is a necessity for all believers.

I agree. So, "you" in that passage refers to all believers at that time and ever since then to be ready for Jesus's return, right? I see Matthew 24:6 similarly.

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

The necessity to understand that wars and rumors of wars, along with the other things Jesus mentioned like famines and earthquakes, would not indicate that the end was at hand yet, is something for all believers, and not just the disciples, to understand. That would not be the case if those things were the beginning signs of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but it would be the case if that is in relation to the future coming of Christ, as I believe.

 

[covenantee]

why are you trying to limit the areas in which the wars and rumors of wars that Jesus was talking about would take place?

Example?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Example?

I'm talking about what you said in post 799. You only referenced wars or mass genocide events that were in relatively close proximity to Jerusalem. Do you think Jesus was only talking about wars and rumors of wars that would be relatively close to Jerusalem or about wars and rumors of wars throughout the world?

 

[covenantee]

I'm talking about what you said in post 799. You only referenced wars or mass genocide events that were in relatively close proximity to Jerusalem. Do you think Jesus was only talking about wars and rumors of wars that would be relatively close to Jerusalem or about wars and rumors of wars throughout the world?

I referenced them because it was wars and rumors within the Roman Empire which would be most troubling without Jesus' reassurance.

 

[covenantee]

I agree. So, "you" in that passage refers to all believers at that time and ever since then to be ready for Jesus's return, right? I see Matthew 24:6 similarly.

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

The necessity to understand that wars and rumors of wars, along with the other things Jesus mentioned like famines and earthquakes, would not indicate that the end was at hand yet, is something for all believers, and not just the disciples, to understand. That would not be the case if those things were the beginning signs of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but it would be the case if that is in relation to the future coming of Christ, as I believe.

Is there any instance of " end " within Matthew 24 that refers to the end occurring in 70 AD?

Or do all instances of " end " in Matthew 24 refer exclusively to the Second Coming?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I referenced them because it was wars and rumors within the Roman Empire which would be most troubling without Jesus' reassurance.

Yes, and I agree that such wars would have concerned them, but I'm just saying that I don't think that He was only talking about wars in close proximity to Jerusalem or only wars that involved Israel or involved Jews being killed.

It's quite apparent that neither of us are going to change our views on this, so I think it's about time to agree to disagree. I don't know that it matters all that much which of us is correct about this. My main concern is when I see someone trying to claim that Matthew 24:29-31 occurred in 70 AD rather than being a reference to the future second coming of Christ. So, how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is there any instance of " end " within Matthew 24 that refers to the end occurring in 70 AD?

Or do all instances of " end " in Matthew 24 refer exclusively to the Second Coming?

In my view they all refer to the second coming of Christ, assuming that you're talking about Matthew 24 verses 6, 13 and 14. We agree that "the end of the age" referenced in verse 3 refers to His second coming. Are there any other reference to "the end" that I have overlooked? I don't think so offhand.

 

[Timtofly]

View attachment 62383

So, Satan is just up the sky hanging out in the same place at all times? That doesn't seem to match the description of Satan in the Bible. Was it a star in the sky who was tempting Jesus in the desert for 40 days and nights?

Satan lost his position. So, no, he is not just hanging out up there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Satan lost his position. So, no, he is not just hanging out up there.

Oh, so it's just the good angels who are up there floating in space?

 

[covenantee]

In my view they all refer to the second coming of Christ, assuming that you're talking about Matthew 24 verses 6, 13 and 14. We agree that "the end of the age" referenced in verse 3 refers to His second coming. Are there any other reference to "the end" that I have overlooked? I don't think so offhand.

So in the Matthew 24:6 ongoing application to all believers, " end " is the Second Coming.

And in the Matthew 24:6 historical application to the disciples, " end " is the Second Coming.

The first is true, the second is untenable.

It is simply inconceivable that with all of the discourse which relates to the 70 AD era, there is no reference to its end.

That is untenable.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, and I agree that such wars would have concerned them, but I'm just saying that I don't think that He was only talking about wars in close proximity to Jerusalem or only wars that involved Israel or involved Jews being killed.

It's quite apparent that neither of us are going to change our views on this, so I think it's about time to agree to disagree. I don't know that it matters all that much which of us is correct about this. My main concern is when I see someone trying to claim that Matthew 24:29-31 occurred in 70 AD rather than being a reference to the future second coming of Christ. So, how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31?

Verse 29 is an example of what also appears in Acts 2:20 i.e. an apocalyptic idiom describing events of great significance, true of both the birth of the NT Church, and the death of the OT economy.

Verses 30-31 are Second Coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So in the Matthew 24:6 ongoing application to all believers, " end " is the Second Coming.

And in the Matthew 24:6 historical application to the disciples, " end " is the Second Coming.

The first is true, the second is untenable.

It is simply inconceivable that with all of the discourse which relates to the 70 AD era, there is no reference to its end.

That is untenable.

I don't understand your point here. The disciples were not asked about the "end" of Jerusalem, they were asked about the "end" of the age, which we agree occurs when Jesus returns in the future and not in 70 AD.

What do you mean "with all of the discourse which relates to the 70 AD era"? It's your assumption that Matthew 24:4-14 relates to the 70 AD era, but I disagree with that. I believe it instead relates to the second coming and the end of the age. The only verses that have their fulfillment in the 70 AD era are Matthew 24:15-22.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Verse 29 is an example of what also appears in Acts 2:20 i.e. an apocalyptic idiom describing events of great significance, true of both the birth of the NT Church, and the death of the OT economy.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate? What exactly do you think comprises "the tribulation" referenced in that verse? And, what exactly do you think is the time period of "those days"? However you understand exactly when and what "the tribulation of those days" refers to, the second coming would have to occur right after it, correct? Or are you thinking that verse 29 is figuratively describing the entire time period between 70 AD and the second coming?

Verses 30-31 are Second Coming.

Agree, but when do you have that occurring in relation to what is described in verse 29?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Hehehe. See? You so-called amillennialists, mixed with theories from 70 AD, can't even agree on the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse regarding which passages apply to 70 AD or the end times. And you don't even agree on what constitutes "wars and rumors of wars," as if those wars must be physical conflicts within the first-century Roman Empire or between the nations of the world near the Second Coming. Guys, you've got everything wrong!

 

[covenantee]

What exactly do you think comprises "the tribulation" referenced in that verse?

Are you asking what happened during the tribulation? Josephus is the primary source for that.

And, what exactly do you think is the time period of "those days"?

We're not told. Could begin circa 66 AD with the Roman advance on Jerusalem, ending circa 70 AD with Jerusalem's destruction.

However you understand exactly when and what "the tribulation of those days" refers to, the second coming would have to occur right after it, correct?

No. "Then" can mean either "at that time" or "at a future time".

"c. of things future; then (at length) when the thing under discussion takes place (or shall have taken place):"

 

[covenantee]

Hehehe. See? You so-called amillennialists, mixed with theories from 70 AD, can't even agree on the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse regarding which passages apply to 70 AD or the end times. And you don't even agree on what constitutes "wars and rumors of wars," as if those wars must be physical conflicts within the first-century Roman Empire or between the nations of the world near the Second Coming. Guys, you've got everything wrong!

We agree with the Judaean Christians who told us that it wasn't a futurized fantasy.

 

[covenantee]

Agree, but when do you have that occurring in relation to what is described in verse 29?

Future to it.

"c. of things future; then (at length) when the thing under discussion takes place (or shall have taken place):"

 

[covenantee]

I don't understand your point here. The disciples were not asked about the "end" of Jerusalem, they were asked about the "end" of the age, which we agree occurs when Jesus returns in the future and not in 70 AD.

I don't understand your point. The disciples were not asked. They did the asking.

What do you mean "with all of the discourse which relates to the 70 AD era"? It's your assumption that Matthew 24:4-14 relates to the 70 AD era, but I disagree with that. I believe it instead relates to the second coming and the end of the age. The only verses that have their fulfillment in the 70 AD era are Matthew 24:15-22.

OK let me revise that.

It is simply inconceivable that with the discourse which relates to the 70 AD era, there is no reference to its end.