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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
1,575
499
83
67
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Scripture says it. I agree with Scripture. Including "Immediately".

You said:
"But, the sun being darkened and moon not giving its light and such are said to be things that occur "AFTER the tribulation of those days" is over, not DURING the tribulation of those days, as you are trying to say."

Why did you omit "Immediately"?

Link to the post where I believed that.

Scripture doesn't tell us. Nor does it tell us in the Scriptures I cited from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

What amount of time exactly do you think it represents in the futurized scenario?

Yes. The definition of "then" in verse 30 applicable to the future does not mandate any specific duration.

But a long gap to us may not be a long gap to God.

Speaking for myself, there is no gap after the tribulation of those days and the beginning of what verse 29 is involving. Yet there is gap between what verse 29 is involving and what verse 30 is involving. And what I personally think fits in that gap is the day of Lord and the fulfilling of the seven plagues of the seven angels.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.


According to this verse these seven plagues of the seven angels are the seven last plagues. Which implies other plagues preceded them. These other plagues, IMO, meaning these for one----Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

What follows is then this.

Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

---------------------------
IMO, Revelation 11:7 meaning this---

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ(Revelation 12:17)
Revelation 11:2
Revelation 13:5-16
a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

--to name a few.
-----------------------
It is not until this little season is fulfilled first before the last 7 plagues are poured out, though. This little season per my view meaning Matthew 24:15-26, and verse 29 meaning the day of the Lord involving the 7 last plagues.

And since I don't see it being reasonable that Matthew 24:21 is meaning 2000 years ago and that Daniel 12:1 is meaning the final days of this age, I am left to conclude that Matthew 24:21 is involving the final days of this age since that is the era of time Daniel 12:1 is involving. Which then lines up perfectly with my interpretation of Matthew 24:29, that this verse is involving the day of the Lord in the end of this age and is involving the 7 last plagues. And that verse 30 and 31 are involving His coming and the resurrection of the dead and the rapture of the church.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again vs 4-8 do not say - “the end is not near”. Vs 4-8 say the end is “not yet”, and that they are the beginning of birth pains

Birth pains:

“The term "birth-pangs" is used metaphorically in the Bible to describe intense suffering or distress that precedes a significant event or transformation. It is often associated with the end times, the coming of the Messiah, or the establishment of God's kingdom. The imagery of birth-pangs conveys both the inevitability and the intensity of the process leading to a new beginning.” (Topical Bible: Birth-pangs)
Something indicating the inevitably of an event does not mean that event is near. And, again, global events are not signs of a coming local event.

You listed these events that would signal the coming of the kingdom was near based on Luke: wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, Jerusalem's desolation, Jews being taken captive to all nations, the times of the Gentiles, the distress of nations and the coming of Christ on the clouds.
No, I was listing all the things that would be included in "all these things" in Luke 21:36 if Jesus was talking about literally all the things that He had previously mentioned. I do not believe that is the case, personally. I was just showing all the things that you are trying to say He was including in "all these things", but I disagree with that.

Just to reiterate I believe the son of Man coming on the clouds is one of judgment, like how the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds to judge enemies, nations, and kingdoms in the OT
Show me any OT references which talk about every eye seeing Him when He comes. You're not comparing like things here.

Additionally Luke 21:36 has variance between manuscripts - in the TR it’s “worthy”, in the Mgnt it’s “strength”

Pray that you have the “strength” to escape all these things. Pray that you have the strength to escape wars, famines, pestilence, persecution, and Jerusalems desolation = wrath, times of gentiles, son of man coming the clouds. not sure how that’s unreasonable.
I don't think you're understanding my point. So, you think Jesus was saying to pray for strength to escape His coming and the gathering of the elect? I'm sure you would not try to claim that. But, those are "things" that He had previously mentioned before Luke 21:36. The gathering of the elect is not specifically recorded in Luke 21, but we know from the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts that the gathering of the elect occurs when Christ returns. You run into problems when you insist that "all these things" refer to literally everything previously mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Speaking for myself, there is no gap after the tribulation of those days and the beginning of what verse 29 is involving. Yet there is gap between what verse 29 is involving and what verse 30 is involving. And what I personally think fits in that gap is the day of Lord and the fulfilling of the seven plagues of the seven angels.

Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.


According to this verse these seven plagues of the seven angels are the seven last plagues. Which implies other plagues preceded them. These other plagues, IMO, meaning these for one----Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

What follows is then this.

Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

---------------------------
IMO, Revelation 11:7 meaning this---

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ(Revelation 12:17)
Revelation 11:2
Revelation 13:5-16
a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

--to name a few.
-----------------------
It is not until this little season is fulfilled first before the last 7 plagues are poured out, though. This little season per my view meaning Matthew 24:15-26, and verse 29 meaning the day of the Lord involving the 7 last plagues.

And since I don't see it being reasonable that Matthew 24:21 is meaning 2000 years ago and that Daniel 12:1 is meaning the final days of this age, I am left to conclude that Matthew 24:21 is involving the final days of this age since that is the era of time Daniel 12:1 is involving. Which then lines up perfectly with my interpretation of Matthew 24:29, that this verse is involving the day of the Lord in the end of this age and is involving the 7 last plagues. And that verse 30 and 31 are involving His coming and the resurrection of the dead and the rapture of the church.
How long do you think the 7 last plagues last? Consider that Paul explicitly indicated that the day of the Lord will bring "sudden destruction" when it comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night and the destruction will be so complete that all of those in spiritual darkness "shall not escape".

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Here is what the word "sudden" means:

sudden (adjective): occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.

Unless you think that the 7 plagues happen suddenly, you would be contradicting what Paul taught about the duration of the destruction that will occur on the day of the Lord.

Also, the seventh trumpet brings the destruction of those who destroy the earth (Revelation 11:18), so how can all of the 7 vials follow that unless they're all poured out in very rapid succession?
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
4,012
1,466
113
Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what you're saying. To me, it's clear that the disciples were talking about the temple buildings standing at that time and how impressed they were with them and Jesus pointed to the buildings and said that they would be destroyed. Then the disciples asked him 2 questions (some think 3...whatever) and the first question was related to when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Naturally, they would ask about that. It had to be shocking for them to hear Jesus say the temple buildings that were the center of the Jews' religion would be destroyed. How could they follow their religion anymore in that case? The disciples had to be completely confused and had to wonder when that would happen. So, they asked Him. And I see no reason to think He didn't answer that question.
I'd really appreciate it if you would carefully consider the following three facts (the first of which you already have pointed out - but it's important to compare it with the two facts that follow it):-

Fact #1:
The reason why Jesus' disciples, after having brought up the magnificence of the temple in Jerusalem, still remained obsessed with the things of the old covenant, again questioned Jesus about the temple that represented it once He was seated on the Mount of Olives, is (as you pointed out) easily understandable:

They still did not understand at that point; and the reason why they did not understand (yet) is equally easily understandable:

* The last Passover meal where Jesus had taken the cup and told them it represents His blood of the New Covenant was still only to take place a day later, and though Jesus had ALREADY told them that He would be delivered over to the Gentiles and be killed, and would rise again on the third day, they had barely believed Him, because:

* Their conception of the Messiah - a conception which had always been the expectation of the Jews - was one of a conquering king who would destroy Israel's enemies, and usher in the Messianic kingdom where Israel and the temple in Jerusalem would be exalted above all nations, and the temple would become "a house of prayer for all nations".

So Jesus' disciples had not understood - yet - about how the Temple of God of the new covenant IS CHRIST, nor, at that point, did they understand (yet) HOW He was going to replace the old covenant and the temple in Jerusalem which represented it.

Fact # 2:
But Jesus Himself understood all these things, and Jesus Himself had ALREADY pronounced THE END of the old covenant system and the temple that represented it BEFORE turning His back on the temple and making His way to the Mount of Olives:

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Matthew 23:38).
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).

Jesus' final statement about the old covenant temple had ALREADY been made on the Temple Mount:

"Not one stone will be left upon another".

The old covenant was very soon to be abolished in His flesh (Ephesians 2:15). The veil in the temple that represented the old would be torn in two the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:50-51).

("Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." - John 2:19).

"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28).

Fact # 3: Therefore, and IMO, because of the new covenant - the new things that lay ahead - and ESPECIALLY because of what Jesus was soon to face in order to bring it about, He was not interested in looking back to the old after pronouncing THE END of the old, let alone talking about it. He was soon to sweat blood pleading with His Father to, if at all possible, let that cup pass from Him.

He was only interested in looking at what lay ahead - the new covenant and the anguish and suffering He was to endure in order to establish it in His own blood.


So those are the two facts I want you to consider

Then also, in my HONEST opinion, though the reason why the apostles and disciples at that point failed to understand can be easily understood,

yet all categories of those Christians of today who have had the gospel, the new covenant scriptures and the teaching of the apostles for over 1,900 years, who for various and for different reasons are STILL EVEN NOW obsessed to various degrees with the old, all fall under the same umbrella category:

Half-believers: One foot in the old, and one foot in the new.


The above umbrella category contains a number of sub-categories:-

1. Those who interpret Jesus' entire Olivet Discourse and later Revelation to His churches entirely in terms of the old covenant, and being fulfilled ONLY in the events surrounding the destruction of the old covenant temple in 70 AD (Preterists and Partial-Preterists); and

2. Dispensationalists, who claim that all members of the old covenant chosen nation who reject Christ and the new covenant in His blood, are still God's chosen people (though the old has GONE FOREVER and the new has come); and

3.Those among the Messianic Jews and the "Hebrew roots movement" Gentile Christians who insist that God requires that Mosaic law be obeyed.

4. All those who claim that Christ, who is Israel, the seed of Abraham, is a "Replacement Theologist" because He turned His back on the old, suffered and died, and rose again from the dead, the old having been completely abolished in his flesh, and the veil of the temple that represented the old having been torn in two the moment He died.

The truth is that it is written that those who bless Christ - who is a light to the Gentiles and through whom all families of the earth have been blessed - will be blessed, and those who curse Him will be cursed.

Notice that I have not included ALL non-Preterist Amillennialists and Premillennialists in the above list of sub-categories, even though some of them (such as yourself) interpret PART OF the Olivet Discourse in terms of Jesus talking about the old covenant things,

and the reason why I have not included you in the above list of sub-categories is because the ONLY reason you interpret the Olivet Discourse this way is because you figure that Jesus MUST HAVE answered their question "just because" they asked it.

But IMHO Jesus was not interested in looking back to the OLD after having ALREADY turned His back on the old covenant the moment He turned His back on the temple that represent it and began making His way to the Mount of Olives - the very mount upon which two days later He was going to be arrested after having been betrayed by one of His own and the events which involved the greatest mental anguish coupled with physical torture ever faced by a human being were soon to unfold.

The temple in Jerusalem was already as good as destroyed when Jesus pronounced the end of it and the old covenant system it represented, not 40 years later. God no longer acknowledged its existence as the Temple of God after Christ died and rose again. Jesus was not going to look back to what was destroyed by talking about it just because His disciples asked Him to.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'd really appreciate it if you would carefully consider the following three facts (the first of which you already have pointed out - but it's important to compare it with the two facts that follow it):-

Fact #1:
The reason why Jesus' disciples, after having brought up the magnificence of the temple in Jerusalem, still remained obsessed with the things of the old covenant, again questioned Jesus about the temple that represented it once He was seated on the Mount of Olives, is (as you pointed out) easily understandable:

They still did not understand at that point; and the reason why they did not understand (yet) is equally easily understandable:

* The last Passover meal where Jesus had taken the cup and told them it represents His blood of the New Covenant was still only to take place a day later, and though Jesus had ALREADY told them that He would be delivered over to the Gentiles and be killed, and would rise again on the third day, they had barely believed Him, because:

* Their conception of the Messiah - a conception which had always been the expectation of the Jews - was one of a conquering king who would destroy Israel's enemies, and usher in the Messianic kingdom where Israel and the temple in Jerusalem would be exalted above all nations, and the temple would become "a house of prayer for all nations".

So Jesus' disciples had not understood - yet - about how the Temple of God of the new covenant IS CHRIST, nor, at that point, did they understand (yet) HOW He was going to replace the old covenant and the temple in Jerusalem which represented it.

Fact # 2:
But Jesus Himself understood all these things, and Jesus Himself had ALREADY pronounced THE END of the old covenant system and the temple that represented it BEFORE turning His back on the temple and making His way to the Mount of Olives:

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Matthew 23:38).
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).

The old covenant was very soon to be abolished in His flesh (Ephesians 2:15). The veil in the temple that represented the old would be torn in two the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:50-51).

("Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." - John 2:19).

"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28).

Fact # 3: Therefore, and IMO, because of the new covenant - the new things that lay ahead - and ESPECIALLY because of what Jesus was soon to face in order to bring it about, He was not interested in looking back to the old after pronouncing THE END of the old, let alone talking about it. He was soon to sweat blood pleading with His Father to, if at all possible, let that cup pass from Him.

He was only interested in looking at what lay ahead - the new covenant and the anguish and suffering He was to endure in order to establish it in His own blood.


So those are the two facts I want you to consider​
Those are not both facts (#2 and #3). The first one is a fact and the second one is your opinion. You said "He was not interested in looking back to the old after pronouncing THE END of the old, let alone talking about it.". That is absolutely not a fact and is 100% your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion can't be true, but it is not reasonable at all to call that a fact since He never said that.

He had previously talked about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in Luke 19:41-44, so it makes sense that He was literally talking about the destruction of the temple buildings in Jerusalem in Luke 21:7-8 (Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2).

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.

Are you trying to argue that when Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings" that He was talking about His body? If so, I can't agree with that. I do not believe He would have described His body as "these great buildings". He did describe His body figuratively as a temple, but that's quite different than describing His body as "these great buildings".

What happened in 70 AD was punishment for the Jews rejecting Christ. It was God's wrath against them. God made an example out of them as a warning to the world of what will happen in the future to all unbelievers throughout the world who don't repent and who reject Christ.

There is no question that the disciples asked Jesus when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed because that is what He told them would happen. And there is no question in my mind that He answered that question. He answered the question about His coming and the end of the age separately.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,596
2,787
113
74
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Speaking for myself, there is no gap after the tribulation of those days and the beginning of what verse 29 is involving.
True. However, verse 29 is not "involving" anything, as it is simply a non-literal figurative hyperbolic apocalyptic expression of the significance, both spiritual and temporal, of the events of AD 70, highly similar to the expressions in Isaiah and Ezekiel that I cited.
Yet there is gap between what verse 29 is involving and what verse 30 is involving.
True. Again, verse 29 is not "involving" anything.
And since I don't see it being reasonable that Matthew 24:21 is meaning 2000 years ago and that Daniel 12:1 is meaning the final days of this age, I am left to conclude that Matthew 24:21 is involving the final days of this age since that is the era of time Daniel 12:1 is involving. Which then lines up perfectly with my interpretation of Matthew 24:29, that this verse is involving the day of the Lord in the end of this age and is involving the 7 last plagues.
Matthew 24:21 is verified, confirmed, and fulfilled as seen in the historical record of AD 70. Daniel 12:1 and beyond contain references to both AD 70 and the Second Coming. Matthew 24:29 is not "involving" the day of the Lord in the end of this age, or the 7 last plagues, or anything else.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then also, in my HONEST opinion, though the reason why the apostles and disciples at that point failed to understand can be easily understood,

yet all categories of those Christians of today who have had the gospel, the new covenant scriptures and the teaching of the apostles for over 1,900 years, who for various and for different reasons are STILL EVEN NOW obsessed to various degrees with the old, all fall under the same umbrella category:

Half-believers: One foot in the old, and one foot in the new.


The above umbrella category contains a number of sub-categories:-

1. Those who interpret Jesus' entire Olivet Discourse and later Revelation to His churches entirely in terms of the old covenant, and being fulfilled ONLY in the events surrounding the destruction of the old covenant temple in 70 AD (Preterists and Partial-Preterists); and

2. Dispensationalists, who claim that all members of the old covenant chosen nation who reject Christ and the new covenant in His blood, are still God's chosen people (though the old has GONE FOREVER and the new has come); and

3.Those among the Messianic Jews and the "Hebrew roots movement" Gentile Christians who insist that God requires that Mosaic law be obeyed.

4. All those who claim that Christ, who is Israel, the seed of Abraham, is a "Replacement Theologist" because He turned His back on the old, suffered and died, and rose again from the dead, the old having been completely abolished in his flesh, and the veil of the temple that represented the old having been torn in two the moment He died.

The truth is that it is written that those who bless Christ - who is a light to the Gentiles and through whom all families of the earth have been blessed - will be blessed, and those who curse Him will be cursed.

Notice that I have not included ALL non-Preterist Amillennialists and Premillennialists in the above list of sub-categories, even though some of them (such as yourself) interpret PART OF the Olivet Discourse in terms of Jesus talking about the old covenant things,

and the reason why I have not included you in the above list of sub-categories is because the ONLY reason you interpret the Olivet Discourse this way is because you figure that Jesus MUST HAVE answered their question "just because" they asked it.​
No, He did not answer their question "just because" they asked it. I am sure that He knew that they would ask that question after telling them that the temple buildings would be destroyed, so why would He have even told them that if He had no intention of answering that question? Sorry, I don't find that to be reasonable. It makes a lot of sense to me that He would want them to know how to recognize when that was about to happen so that they would know that they should leave the city so that they were not caught up in all of the destruction that was going to take place there.

You do believe that Jerusalem and its temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD even though you don't think Jesus talked about it in detail, right? Don't you think He would have wanted them to know when it was about to happen so that they would know when to leave Judea to avoid the carnage?

But IMHO Jesus was not interested in looking back to the OLD after having ALREADY turned His back on the old covenant the moment He turned His back on the temple that represent it and began making His way to the Mount of Olives - the very mount upon which two days later He was going to be arrested after having been betrayed by one of His own and the events which involved the greatest mental anguish coupled with physical torture ever faced by a human being were soon to unfold.

The temple in Jerusalem was already as good as destroyed when Jesus pronounced the end of it and the old covenant system it represented, not 40 years later. God no longer acknowledged its existence as the Temple of God after Christ died and rose again. Jesus was not going to look back to what was destroyed by talking about it just because His disciples asked Him to.
Yes, the temple was already rendered to be spiritually desolate well before 70 AD, but that doesn't mean Jesus would have had no interest in discussing the punishment that the unbelieving Jews had coming to them because of rejecting Him. That has nothing to do with looking back on the old covenant, but rather has to do with people being punished for rejecting the new covenant of His blood.
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
4,012
1,466
113
Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Those are not both facts (#2 and #3). The first one is a fact and the second one is your opinion. You said "He was not interested in looking back to the old after pronouncing THE END of the old, let alone talking about it.". That is absolutely not a fact and is 100% your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion can't be true, but it is not reasonable at all to call that a fact since He never said that.

He had previously talked about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in Luke 19:41-44, so it makes sense that He was literally talking about the destruction of the temple buildings in Jerusalem in Luke 21:7-8 (Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2).

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.

Are you trying to argue that when Jesus said "Seest thou these great buildings" that He was talking about His body? If so, I can't agree with that. I do not believe He would have described His body as "these great buildings". He did describe His body figuratively as a temple, but that's quite different than describing His body as "these great buildings".

What happened in 70 AD was punishment for the Jews rejecting Christ. It was God's wrath against them. God made an example out of them as a warning to the world of what will happen in the future to all unbelievers throughout the world who don't repent and who reject Christ.

There is no question that the disciples asked Jesus when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed because that is what He told them would happen. And there is no question in my mind that He answered that question. He answered the question about His coming and the end of the age separately.
Jesus' final statement about the old covenant temple had ALREADY been made on the Temple Mount:

"Not one stone will be left upon another".

That He spoke about it again on the Mount of Olives is 100% your opinion.
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
4,012
1,466
113
Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
No, He did not answer their question "just because" they asked it. I am sure that He knew that they would ask that question after telling them that the temple buildings would be destroyed, so why would He have even told them that if He had no intention of answering that question? Sorry, I don't find that to be reasonable. It makes a lot of sense to me that He would want them to know how to recognize when that was about to happen so that they would know that they should leave the city so that they were not caught up in all of the destruction that was going to take place there.

Jesus' final statement about the old covenant temple had ALREADY been made on the Temple Mount:

"Not one stone will be left upon another".

That He spoke about it again on the Mount of Olives just because His disciples were still preoccupied with the old though He was not, is 100% your opinion - and that's why you clumsily extract an integral part of Matthew 24:9-31 out of its future context and push it into a year that's in a different millennium to the rest.

You do believe that Jerusalem and its temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD even though you don't think Jesus talked about it in detail, right?

The temple in Jerusalem was already as good as destroyed when Jesus pronounced the end of it and the old covenant system it represented, not 40 years later. God no longer acknowledged its existence as the Temple of God after Christ died and rose again. Jesus was not going to look back to what was destroyed by talking about it just because His disciples asked Him to.

Don't you think He would have wanted them to know when it was about to happen so that they would know when to leave Judea to avoid the carnage?

Your logical fallacy. Where is specifically the temple mentioned in what Jesus said about the attack on Jerusalem? Why was it not specifically mentioned by Jesus in Luke 21:20-24 though the disciples had specifically asked about the old covenant temple?

Yes, the temple was already rendered to be spiritually desolate well before 70 AD, but that doesn't mean Jesus would have had no interest in discussing the punishment that the unbelieving Jews had coming to them because of rejecting Him. That has nothing to do with looking back on the old covenant, but rather has to do with people being punished for rejecting the new covenant of His blood.

Your statement implies that God was being vengeful when Jerusalem was destroyed, though on His "death-bed" Jesus had asked the Father to forgive them saying, "for they do not understand what they do"; and your statement forgets the fact that the only concern Jesus had in telling His disciples about the coming destruction of Jerusalem, was for their own safety.

There was no other reason save the safety of His disciples why He mentioned the coming destruction of Jerusalem, warning them to flee when they see armies gathered around the city.

Possibly it ultimately refers to something that is still coming

- but you want to interpret part of the Olivet Discourse in terms of your obsession with an old covenant thing that Jesus had already pronounced the end of and God the Father no longer acknowledged as having anything to do with Him 40 years before the thing was literally destroyed.

You're obsessed with the old covenant and with an old covenant thing that Jesus had announced the end of and turned his back on the moment he turned his back on that temple after saying, "Not one stone will be left upon another" and began making His way to the Mount of Olives.

@Spiritual Israelite The fact that the disciples were still preoccupied with that old covenant thing (the day that they asked about it), is understandable because Jesus had not even announced the new covenant in His blood to them yet, and had not died and risen yet - but you have the scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again vs 4-8 do not say - “the end is not near”. Vs 4-8 say the end is “not yet”, and that they are the beginning of birth pains

Birth pains:

“The term "birth-pangs" is used metaphorically in the Bible to describe intense suffering or distress that precedes a significant event or transformation. It is often associated with the end times, the coming of the Messiah, or the establishment of God's kingdom. The imagery of birth-pangs conveys both the inevitability and the intensity of the process leading to a new beginning.” (Topical Bible: Birth-pangs)
I had to come back to this. I think you are completely misunderstanding what Jesus was saying there in verses 4-8. The BEGINNING of birth pains cannot refer to things that indicate that "the end" when Jesus comes and ushers in the fullness of the kingdom of God is near. Those things (wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes in various places) cannot be included among "all these things" that would indicate that His coming is near.

Think about when a woman is giving birth. I mean, technically, when she's around 9 months pregnant and then she starts feeling birth pains you could say that she's near giving birth, but looking at it that way does not fit the context of what Jesus was saying. He was not saying that, just like when a woman is about a day or so away from giving birth when she first starts feeling birth pains, the wars, famines, pestilence and earthquakes that He mentioned would indicate that His coming is near. Obviously, He was not saying that once the wars and so on started happening then His coming would be about a day or so away, so we can't take His comparison of those physical disasters to the beginning of birth pains too literally.

There is a sense in which you can say that when a woman starts having birth pains it doesn't mean that the birth of the baby is near. The birth of the baby is generally around 12 to 24 hours away after a woman starts having birth pains. At least for her first baby. It tends to be a bit less time than that when they have their second baby and so on, but let's just go by what the average amount of time is and say that the beginning of birth pains for a pregnant woman means that the birth of her baby is around 12 hours away or so.

In the context of the pain and stress that the woman has to go through during that time (especially without the aid of the far more effective modern pain medications that didn't exist back then), I doubt that a pregnant woman would consider the birth of her baby to be near when her birth pains are just starting. Those 12 hours or so can seem like a long time to a woman because of how difficult it is to get through it because of the pain.

So, again, I really don't think that a woman would claim that the birth of her baby is near during the early stage of labor or beginning of birth pains. I don't think she would say it's near until at least until it gets to the point of what is called "active labor" when she is dilating from 6 to 10 cm. Active labor doesn't start until about 6 to 12 hours after "early labor" and it lasts about 4-8 hours and then the actual delivery of the baby typically takes about 30-60 minutes. Yes, I looked this all up, but so what (haha).

This might seem silly for me to be talking about all this, but if we want to understand what Jesus was intending to say by comparing the wars, etc. to birth pains, then we need to take into consideration whether the beginning of birth pains in relation to the actual moment a baby is born is something that would be analogous to wars, famines, etc. being an indication that Christ's coming was near. I don't believe so. Relatively speaking, the birth pains get worse slowly over the course of those 12 or however many hours after the birth pains begin, so I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that the beginning of birth pains is an indication that the birth of the baby is near. Which would mean Jesus comparing certain events to the beginning of birth pains would not mean that He was saying those things would be indications that His coming was near.

He did seem to imply that those things would increase in frequency over time since that is what happens with birth pains. But, like a woman's birth pains, it would gradually get worse as time went on, so the beginning of those things occurring would not be an indication that "the end" was near. But, feel free to try to make an argument to show otherwise.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus' final statement about the old covenant temple had ALREADY been made on the Temple Mount:

"Not one stone will be left upon another".
In your opinion. I disagree.

That He spoke about it again on the Mount of Olives is 100% your opinion.
Of course it's my opinion. I did not say otherwise.

You acknowledge that the disciples asked Him when the temple buildings would be destroyed, right? I just don't find it to be reasonable to think that He would not answer that question because He would have wanted them to know when they would need to leave Judea and head for the mountains in order to avoid getting caught up in the destruction that was going to occur in that area, especially in Jerusalem.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
11,764
4,760
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus' final statement about the old covenant temple had ALREADY been made on the Temple Mount:

"Not one stone will be left upon another".

That He spoke about it again on the Mount of Olives just because His disciples were still preoccupied with the old though He was not, is 100% your opinion
Can you please calm down? The way you're talking comes across that you are getting upset. You're repeatedly telling me that my opinion is...my opinion. Yes, I know that. I never said otherwise. You're acting like I said that my opinion is a fact and that you're upset about that, but I never said I was stating a fact. I have a strong opinion on this and you do, too. So what? It's nothing to be upset about and there's no reason to think that I'm claiming that my opinions are facts.

- and that's why you clumsily extract an integral part of Matthew 24:9-31 out of its future context and push it into a year that's in a different millennium to the rest.
I'm not being clumsy with the text by believing that Jesus actually answered both of the disciples' questions.

The temple in Jerusalem was already as good as destroyed when Jesus pronounced the end of it and the old covenant system it represented, not 40 years later. God no longer acknowledged its existence as the Temple of God after Christ died and rose again. Jesus was not going to look back to what was destroyed by talking about it just because His disciples asked Him to.
You're making a strawman argument here. I'm not saying that Jesus was looking back at the old covenant system, I'm saying that the unbelieving Jews had to reap what they sowed for rejecting Christ's blood of the new covenant. God determined that He would punish them for that by way of destroying their city and their precious temple that they refused to acknowledge was rendered to be spiritually desolate and obsolete like the old covenant itself.

Where is specifically the temple mentioned in what Jesus said about the attack on Jerusalem? Why was it not specifically mentioned by Jesus in Luke 21:20-24 though the disciples had specifically asked about the old covenant temple?
Why would it need to be specifically mentioned when He was talking about the entire city being made desolate? Obviously, that would include the temple buildings within the city. I'm sorry, but I don't find this to be a particularly strong argument.

Your statement implies that God was being vengeful when Jerusalem was destroyed, though on His "death-bed" Jesus had asked the Father to forgive them saying, "for they do not understand what they do"; and your statement forgets the fact that the only concern Jesus had in telling His disciples about the coming destruction of Jerusalem, was for their own safety.
I believe the Father did forgive them at that time for killing Jesus, but do you expect He would forgive them for the years following that when they refused to accept Jesus after that while continuing to insist on being under the old covenant and the law of Moses instead of embracing the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ? Of course, not all of them rejected Christ, but most did. Enough of them to make it so that God was fed up with them.

There was no other reason save the safety of His disciples why He mentioned the coming destruction of Jerusalem, warning them to flee when they see armies gathered around the city.
This comment confuses me. I thought you didn't think that Jesus spoke at all about 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse? Now, you're talking about Jesus warning His disciples to flee when they saw cities gathering around the city. What gives here? What am I missing? Can you explain what you're talking about here, because it comes across that you believe that Jesus was warning them about coming destruction of Jerusalem in their lifetimes, which does not line up with other things you have said.

Possibly it ultimately refers to something that is still coming
I am very confused by your comments because I thought you have said that He did not say anything at all about what happened in 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse. But, now you're saying it's possible that He did?

- but you want to interpret part of the Olivet Discourse in terms of your obsession with an old covenant thing that Jesus had already pronounced the end of and God the Father no longer acknowledged as having anything to do with Him 40 years before the thing was literally destroyed.
You are annoying me with some of your unnecessary personal comments. I have no "obsession with an old covenant thing". You're talking to me like I'm a full preterist or something. Stop that nonsense.

You're obsessed with the old covenant and with an old covenant thing that Jesus had announced the end of and turned his back on the moment he turned his back on that temple after saying, "Not one stone will be left upon another" and began making His way to the Mount of Olives.
And now you said it again. I have no interest in returning to us making nasty and personal comments back and forth to each other. Is that what you want? It kind of seems like it. But, I'm not interested in that.

@Spiritual Israelite The fact that the disciples were still preoccupied with that old covenant thing (the day that they asked about it), is understandable because Jesus had not even announced the new covenant in His blood to them yet, and had not died and risen yet - but you have the scriptures.
I just don't get your point here. This has nothing to do with being obsessed and preoccupied with the old covenant, but rather has to do with unbelieving Jews rejecting Christ and His shed blood of the new covenant and being punished for that.
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
4,012
1,466
113
Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
I just don't find it to be reasonable to think that He would not answer that question because He would have wanted them to know when they would need to leave Judea and head for the mountains
He did that by telling them that when they see armies gathered around Jerusalem they should flee Judea, without mentioning the temple.

So it's an argument based in a logical fallacy.

@Spiritual Israelite

Though you want to add to the scriptures and the words of Jesus the words, "because that is when the temple is going to be destroyed", it does not exist there.

Fact: The temple was destroyed last. The city had been under siege for months, and eventually the outer walls of the city were broken through by the Roman battering-rams. They had still not reached the temple.

The apostles would not even have known at that stage if it would go as far as the Roman armies destroying the temple - but they knew that needed to flee when those armies besieged Jerusalem, because THAT is what Jesus had said. Note: Not what YOU say Jesus said, or what YOU add to what Jesus said, but what JESUS said.

Even though the apostles would have known by 71 AD that Yes, the Roman armies besieging Jerusalem indeed DID go as far as the temple being destroyed, Jesus had said NOTHING about the temple in Luke's record of what He said. They only knew to flee because they saw Roman armies besieging Jerusalem.

Anyway, if I were you repeating the same argument as you, I would call my argument "The song of the logical fallacy" and see if I can get a song-writer to add a tune to it. Part of the chorus would have the words, :musicn2:"adding words to scripture and a reference to the temple in Jerusalem that are not in the text and Jesus did not utter" :musicn2:
 
Last edited: