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

[claninja]

Why can't that be the case? Look at how the word "houtos" is used here...

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same (houtos) shall be saved.

So, in this verse the word "houtos" is used to refers to those who endure unto the end and Jesus said those same people that He described as enduring unto the end would be saved. He is giving any indication there of what time period He was talking about there other than that it would come just before "the end"? No. So, there's no reason to think that Jesus could not have been referring to a future time after everyone living at that time was dead during which those "who endure unto the end" would be saved. The word "houtos" does not have to be used to only speak of the current time or of a people who were alive at the time Jesus was speaking.

After further reviewing several lexicons and usages, I can concede, that grammatically, "this" is ambiguous enough to point spatially near to Jesus contemporary audience OR contextually near to those living through Matthew 24:4-33

That's only your opinion. I disagree with that opinion and believe "all these things" refer to things that would occur before His future coming at the end of the age. You have a major problem in that He did not come in 70 AD and there was no end to any age in 70 AD.

Sure, then please show grammatically and/or contextually (not your biased framework), why there should be multi thousand year dividing lines in the places that you have determined there should be. In otherwords, grammatically or contextually, why is it required that there be several thousand years between vs 8 and vs 9? Grammatically or contextually, why is it required to be understood that there is a multi thousand year dividing line between vs 14 and 15?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not necessarily. Birth pains indicate the end is not now, not that it is not near. In other words. The beginning of birth pains (war, famine, pestilane, etc...) do not indicate the end has been realized. There is no requirement that the beginning of birth pains means that end is not near. You seem to be importing that meaning onto the passage.

"Usage: This term is used in the New Testament to express the idea that something expected or anticipated has not yet come to pass. It often appears in contexts where there is an expectation of future fulfillment or completion.
actions." (Strong's Greek: 3768. οὔπω (oupó) -- Not yet)



There is nothing grammatical to argue that vs 4-8 must mean the end is not "NEAR". that is solely your interpretation of the passage so that you can draw your invisible dividing line. The end not being "yet", is NOT the same as the end not being "near"




Where is the gathering mention IN LUKE 21 in order to be included in ALL THESE THINGS IN LUKE 21:36?

I have already addressed all of this. Why do you act as if I haven't?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are missing my point. I said redundant because of the way it was explained. Its redundant to say "the generation that sees all these things will not pass away until all these things occur".

And you are missing my point that by looking at it that way you must think that Jesus was being redundant in Matthew 23:36.

After further reviewing several lexicons and usages, I can concede, that grammatically, "this" is ambiguous enough to point spatially near to Jesus contemporary audience OR contextually near to those living through Matthew 24:4-33

Thank you for at least acknowledging that. We need more of that on this forum. So many times people deny even the possibility that the person they are debating could be correct even though that is usually not the case. Obviously, I argue a lot against Premillennialism, but you won't ever see me claiming that it's not even possible.

Right, but we also don't want to fall into the "over harmonization fallacy"

(Exegetical Fallacies in the Greek New Testament - New Testament Greek)

It's funny how you think you need to educate me on things like this. You do not.

Matthew doesn't include "pray that you have to the strength to escape all these things", which includes the gathering. Luke does contain "pray that you have the strength to escape all these things", which does not contain the gathering. The authors are making different points. Attempting to harmonize these to a T can result in the over harmonization fallacy.

Are you forgetting that Matthew, Mark and Luke were quoting things that Jesus said rather than making their own comments? What Jesus said in Luke 21:36 came after He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. In your view, "all these things" include everything He previously talked about. You can't then try to argue that "all these things" only include previous things He said in Luke 21, but not in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That's not a valid argument at all. That's like trying to say that Luke 21 is an entirely separate Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13.

I'm saying they are both about judgement, and the analogy doesn't need be identical in scope or scale or literalness.

I already acknowledged that an analogy doesn't need to be identical in scope or scale, but I believe it has to be identical in literalness. What evidence do you have to show otherwise? But, if that was true, then why did Peter say in 2 Peter 3:7 "by the same word" the heavens and earth were reserved for fire right after referring to the flood waters of Noah's day in the previous verse? And how can comparing "the world that then was" to "the heavens and earth which are now" in 2 Peter 3:6-7 not be a comparison of things of the same type, as in them both being literal? There is just no indication at all there that he wasn't comparing events of the same type and scope.

Jesus made the same comparison that Peter did between what will happen unexpectedly at His second coming in relation to heaven and earth with what happened in the flood and, like Peter, He also gave no indication that He wasn't comparing events of the same type (literal).

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[ewq1938]

• "Strong’s is NOT a Dictionary Strong’s is primarily a concordance, not a dictionary. A dictionary defines words. A concordance acts like an index. While Strong’s does provide a short gloss (English definition) of each Hebrew and Greek word it lists, its function is primarily to show all occurrences of that word in the Bible, not exhaustively define it."

You proved yourself wrong. Strong's is a dictionary, and a concordance etc.

 

[claninja]

I have already addressed all of this. Why do you act as if I haven't?

You seem to be arguing “not yet” means “not near”. That’s not true grammatically. You haven’t addressed this.

Are you forgetting that Matthew, Mark and Luke were quoting things that Jesus said rather than making their own comments? What Jesus said in Luke 21:36 came after He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. In your view, "all these things" include everything He previously talked about. You can't then try to argue that "all these things" only include previous things He said in Luke 21, but not in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That's not a valid argument at all. That's like trying to say that Luke 21 is an entirely separate Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13.

The olivet discourses are harmonious, but not identical. “All these things” is context dependent, not “harmonizing dependent”. The gospel authors are making different points about the same discourse.

If you insist on harmonizing to a T, do you believe Question 2 from the disciples should be harmonized between the gospels, meaning - the SIGN that these things will happen (mark, Luke) = the SIGN of your coming/end of age (Matthew)?

I already acknowledged that an analogy doesn't need to be identical in scope or scale, but I believe it has to be identical in literalness.

I think Peter’s reference to “new heavens and new earth” is an allusion to Isaiah 65 - in which Israel is judged followed by the creation of a new heavens and earth.

I think Peter is also using the same analogy that Christ did In the olivet discourse- Noah’s flood compared to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I think Peter only appears to go beyond this scope, scale, and literalness to due the apocalyptic imagery.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You seem to be arguing “not yet” means “not near”. That’s not true grammatically. You haven’t addressed this.

Nope. I have addressed why I think He was not saying those things are near. In detail. I even talked about how the beginning of birth pains are not an indication of a baby's birth being near, relatively speaking. How can you forget that?

The olivet discourses are harmonious, but not identical. “All these things” is context dependent, not “harmonizing dependent”. The gospel authors are making different points about the same discourse.

We're talking about something Jesus said that is recorded in Luke 21:36, not something Luke said. Before He said what is recorded in Luke 21:36, He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. Keep trying to get around that if you want, but I'm not buying your argument at all.

If you insist on harmonizing to a T, do you believe Question 2 from the disciples should be harmonized between the gospels, meaning - the SIGN that these things will happen (mark, Luke) = the SIGN of your coming/end of age (Matthew)?

That is completely besides the point. My point relates to what Jesus said and when and does not relate to His exact words. My point is that what He said in Luke 21:36 was after He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect.

I think Peter’s reference to “new heavens and new earth” is an allusion to Isaiah 65 - in which Israel is judged followed by the creation of a new heavens and earth.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I agree it's an allusion to Isaiah 65:17-25. And Revelation 21:1-4 makes it clear that there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

I think Peter is also using the same analogy that Christ did In the olivet discourse- Noah’s flood compared to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Christ's analogy had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, it had to do with His second coming, which did not happen in 70 AD.

I think Peter only appears to go beyond this scope, scale, and literalness to due the apocalyptic imagery.

I disagree. Obviously.

 

[claninja]

You proved yourself wrong. Strong's is a dictionary, and a concordance etc.

No, strongs is not a dictionary in that sense, and should not be used as such. The “definitions” provided by strongs concordance are “glosses”, and in the example you provided for g3778, it’s just a list of words, as to how it’s found translated into English without contextual usage.

• “This ties back to the problem of using concordances as dictionaries when they were never intended for that use: Dr. Decker reminded me that the glosses provided by many concordances aren’t definitions at all. In many concordances the glosses represent a list of simply those words the translation committee* decided to render the lemma as in English”

Here is a great 4 part series on correctly using a concordance.

1. How NOT To Use Strong's Concordance | Bible Study | Armchair Theology
2. How NOT To Use Strong's Concordance - Part 2 | Bible Study Resources
3. How To Properly Use Strong's Concordance | Bible Study
4. Strong's Concordance - A Good Example | Bible Study Tools

Choosing a specific gloss that fits with your own framework without consulting a lexicon is just bad exegesis, and prioritizes confirmation bias.

 

[Davidpt]

I think Peter’s reference to “new heavens and new earth” is an allusion to Isaiah 65 - in which Israel is judged followed by the creation of a new heavens and earth.

I think Peter is also using the same analogy that Christ did In the olivet discourse- Noah’s flood compared to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I think Peter only appears to go beyond this scope, scale, and literalness to due the apocalyptic imagery.

You can not have 2 Peter 3:10-12 meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD without having all of the preceding verses supporting that. For example. Does verse 3 support that? What about verse 4? What about verse 7 and verse 9?

Should we understand verse 4 like such?

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews in this generation? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Should we understand verse 7 like such?

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Keeping in mind, no one can argue, not even Preterists, that the coming meant in verse 4, and the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, is not meaning verses 10-12. Nor can anyone argue that verses 10-12 is not what ends His longsuffering to us-ward. Why are we still here some 2000 years later and salvation is still possible if His longsuffering to us-ward ended 2000 years ago when the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD fulfilled verses 10-12?

Or maybe we should understand verse 9 like such instead?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews still occupying it, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to unbelieving Jews in the first century, not willing that any unbelieving Jew in the first century should perish, but that all unbelieving Jew should come to repentance

These verses preceding verses 10-12 make zero sense if we are to take verses 10-12 to be meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. One cannot have verses 10-12 involving one thing, then have the preceding verses involving things that have zero to do with verses 10-12. But look what happens when we have to change what is meant in the preceding verses in order to try and make it fit with our interpretation of verses 10-12.


But it's not just Preterists that do things like this. @Spiritual Israelite does similar things in the Discourse. He has verse 14 in Matthew 24 involving the end of this age then has verses 15-21 involving the first century and 70 AD. As if 70 AD would somehow still be relevant at this point. It makes no sense to me the way some of you all go about interpreting things at times, then insist it is someone, such as me, that is the one misinterpreting some of these things. That I am misinterpreting Matthew 24:15-21 but you all are not, even though someone, such as @Spiritual Israelite, where he has Jesus focusing on the end of the age in verse 14 then has Jesus back focusing on the first century again.


Though, you yourself are being consistent in regards to verse 14 and verses 15-21, rather than @Spiritual Israelite, look what you do with 2 Peter 3, though. Nothing consistent about how you are interpreting any of that since it is not reasonable to apply any of the verses prior to verses 10-12 to that of what you are taking verses 10-12 to be involving. IOW, the preceding verses prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12. In the same way, verse 14 in Matthew 24 proves that @Spiritual Israelite is misinterpreting verses 15-21.

The ironic thing about it. I bet you a million dollars @Spiritual Israelite agrees with me that the verses that precede verses 10-12 in 2 Peter 3 prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12 since that would mean you have to have the preceding verses fitting with your interpretation of verses 10-12 since that's what the preceding verses are pertaining to, meaning they are pertaining to verse 10-12.

But when it comes to how he interprets Matthew 24:15-21 in light of verse 14, now all of a sudden he no longer agrees with me, that what preceded something proves one is not interpreting what follows this something correctly if one has what is preceding it not even involving what follows it. IOW 70 AD has zero to do with verse 14 if verse 14 is involving the final days of this age. In the same way, 2 Peter 3-10-12 has zero to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD if the verses that precede it are meaning the final days in this age resulting in the final day of this age.

Clearly, 2 Peter 3:7 is meaning verses 10-12 and is also meaning the day and hour which no man knows(Matthew 24:36), and is meaning this generation that passes away(Matthew 24:34).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You can not have 2 Peter 3:10-12 meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD without having all of the preceding verses supporting that. For example. Does verse 3 support that? What about verse 4? What about verse 7 and verse 9?

Should we understand verse 4 like such?

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews in this generation? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Should we understand verse 7 like such?

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Keeping in mind, no one can argue, not even Preterists, that the coming meant in verse 4, and the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, is not meaning verses 10-12. Nor can anyone argue that verses 10-12 is not what ends His longsuffering to us-ward. Why are we still here some 2000 years later and salvation is still possible if His longsuffering to us-ward ended 2000 years ago when the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD fulfilled verses 10-12?

Or maybe we should understand verse 9 like such instead?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews still occupying it, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to unbelieving Jews in the first century, not willing that any unbelieving Jew in the first century should perish, but that all unbelieving Jew should come to repentance

These verses preceding verses 10-12 make zero sense if we are to take verses 10-12 to be meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. One cannot have verses 10-12 involving one thing, then have the preceding verses involving things that have zero to do with verses 10-12. But look what happens when we have to change what is meant in the preceding verses in order to try and make it fit with our interpretation of verses 10-12.

I agree with all of this, but then, for some strange reason, you had to bring me into this. Why? I'm not a preterist. For goodness sakes, why do you do this? It's very weird. Why not just make an argument disproving the preterist understanding of 2 Peter 3, which I don't share with them, and leave it at that? But, no, you have to bring me into it for some weird, unknown, ridiculous reason.

But it's not just Preterists that do things like this. @Spiritual Israelite does similar things in the Discourse. He has verse 14 in Matthew 24 involving the end of this age then has verses 15-21 involving the first century and 70 AD.

You spiritualize passages like Matthew 24:15-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 that give no indication whatsoever that they should be spiritualized, so you have no room to talk. Unlike you, I do not try to say that Matthew and Mark inexplicably did not record Jesus's answer to the first question that the disciples asked while only Luke did for some unknown reason.

And, it is very hypocritical for you to criticize how I interpret Matthew 24 in terms of Jesus going from talking about things related to the end of the age, to then talking about things related to 70 AD when you do the exact same thing with Luke 21! So, how about you criticize yourself for doing that with Luke 21 if it's not acceptable to do that with Matthew 24?

As if 70 AD would somehow still be relevant at this point.

You make it as if Matthew and Mark didn't think it was relevant to record Jesus's answer to the question about the temple buildings at all. Which I believe makes no sense. Why would they not have wanted to record His answer to that question?

It makes no sense to me the way some of you all go about interpreting things at times, then insist it is someone, such as me, that is the one misinterpreting some of these things.

LOL! See above for why we question the way you interpret things. You sometimes interpret literal things figuratively and figurative things literally and you also make arguments against an approach to interpreting scripture that you do yourself, which is hypocritical.

Though, you yourself are being consistent in regards to verse 14 and verses 15-21, rather than @Spiritual Israelite, look what you do with 2 Peter 3, though.

LOL. You are truly hilarious. Should I accuse you of being inconsistent with the way you interpret Luke 21, since you have Jesus talking about things related to His future coming and the end of the age in Luke 21:8-19 and then switching to talking about things related to 70 AD in verse 20?

Nothing consistent about how you are interpreting any of that since it is not reasonable to apply any of the verses prior to verses 10-12 to that of what you are taking verses 10-12 to be involving. IOW, the preceding verses prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12. In the same way, verse 14 in Matthew 24 proves that @Spiritual Israelite is misinterpreting verses 15-21.

Since you interpret Luke 21:19 to be related to the future coming of Christ at the end of the age, then that means you are misinterpreting Luke 21:20-24 when you say it's about 70 AD, right? According to your own logic, that would be the case. But, far be it from you to recognize how contradictory and hypocritical you are being here.

The ironic thing about it. I bet you a million dollars @Spiritual Israelite agrees with me that the verses that precede verses 10-12 in 2 Peter 3 prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12 since that would mean you have to have the preceding verses fitting with your interpretation of verses 10-12 since that's what the preceding verses are pertaining to, meaning they are pertaining to verse 10-12.

Yes, I do agree with that because, surely, Peter was not talking about the Lord being longsuffering towards people while giving them the opportunity to repent only until 70 AD. That is completely ludicrous, as I'm sure you agree.

But when it comes to how he interprets Matthew 24:15-21 in light of verse 14, now all of a sudden he no longer agrees with me, that what preceded something proves one is not interpreting what follows this something correctly if one has what is preceding it not even involving what follows it.

LOL! Hello? It's as if you forget every discussion that ever happens in the past. When you have made this ridiculous argument in the past, I have pointed out how you do the exact same thing with Luke 21. Why do you forget that? You instead insist on making this same weak argument that you would not dream to make against yourself in relation to Luke 21 even though you do the same thing with Luke 21 that you accuse me of doing with Matthew 24.

 

[claninja]

Nope. I have addressed why I think He was not saying those things are near. In detail. I even talked about how the beginning of birth pains are not an indication of a baby's birth being near, relatively speaking. How can you forget that?

I disagree with the way you used the analogy. Birth pains do not signal that the birth is far off. That’s not a thing. The beginning of Birth pains signal the birth is in process of happening or closer to happening.

Grammatically or linguistically why should “the end is not yet” be understood to mean “the end is not near” or “the end is far off”?

We're talking about something Jesus said that is recorded in Luke 21:36, not something Luke said. Before He said what is recorded in Luke 21:36, He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. Keep trying to get around that if you want, but I'm not buying your argument at all.

Your argument is an over harmonization exegetical fallacy. Luke does not include the gathering in his discourse, so praying for the strength to escape all these things, doesn’t include the gathering, as it’s not WITHIN the context of the Luke.

That is completely besides the point. My point relates to what Jesus said and when and does not relate to His exact words. My point is that what He said in Luke 21:36 was after He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect.

Luke omits the gathering from the OD in his investigation and reporting on the olivet discourse, so obviously, the “all these things”, in regards to the vs 36, doesn’t include the gathering.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I agree it's an allusion to Isaiah 65:17-25. And Revelation 21:1-4 makes it clear that there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

Read the entire passage of Isaiah 65.

Christ's analogy had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, it had to do with His second coming, which did not happen in 70 AD.

I disagree

 

[ewq1938]

No, strongs is not a dictionary in that sense, and should not be used as such.

You remain wrong. It is a dictionary because it provides definitions for the words.

 

[David in NJ]

You remain wrong. It is a dictionary because it provides definitions for the words.

Here is the clear answer as to when the Temple ceased being the Holy Place.

After JESUS rose from the grave and then Ascended back to Heaven.

How do we know this???

The pharisees stopped making bagels with holes in the center = they became lazy.

They continued baking but without holes and then they changed the name of 'bagel' (which means 'for God') to 'roll'.
So Go judged them by 'rolling' out of town.............

REAL genuine bagels are extinct = i know for i cannot find any REAL bagels anymore

Those REAL bagels became extinct along with the GREAT donuts that used to be made in-house at Dunkin Donuts.
DD coffee used to be the best but now it's just bad tasting brown water.

 

[claninja]

You remain wrong. It is a dictionary because it provides definitions for the words.

sure....we will just have to agree to disagree. I never said strong's dictionary does not meet the basic definition of a dictionary. My point was that it doesn't meet the scholarly sense of a true lexicon because it provides only glosses - 1 or 2 word english equivalents, and not an exhaustive definition of the word. I think it is important to recognize that Strong, himself, even included in the preface of his dictionary that the glosses were short and brief and should not replace consulting with a lexicon to fully understanding meaning and usage.

My other point was that it would be bad exegesis, and going against strongs own advice, to pull out one of those glosses and then retranslate a passage in order to fit your framework. But apparently you believe it's ok to do that. Again, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[claninja]

You can not have 2 Peter 3:10-12 meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD without having all of the preceding verses supporting that. For example. Does verse 3 support that? What about verse 4? What about verse 7 and verse 9?

Should we understand verse 4 like such?

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews in this generation? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Should we understand verse 7 like such?

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Keeping in mind, no one can argue, not even Preterists, that the coming meant in verse 4, and the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, is not meaning verses 10-12. Nor can anyone argue that verses 10-12 is not what ends His longsuffering to us-ward. Why are we still here some 2000 years later and salvation is still possible if His longsuffering to us-ward ended 2000 years ago when the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD fulfilled verses 10-12?

Or maybe we should understand verse 9 like such instead?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise to destroy Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews still occupying it, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to unbelieving Jews in the first century, not willing that any unbelieving Jew in the first century should perish, but that all unbelieving Jew should come to repentance

These verses preceding verses 10-12 make zero sense if we are to take verses 10-12 to be meaning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. One cannot have verses 10-12 involving one thing, then have the preceding verses involving things that have zero to do with verses 10-12. But look what happens when we have to change what is meant in the preceding verses in order to try and make it fit with our interpretation of verses 10-12.


But it's not just Preterists that do things like this. @Spiritual Israelite does similar things in the Discourse. He has verse 14 in Matthew 24 involving the end of this age then has verses 15-21 involving the first century and 70 AD. As if 70 AD would somehow still be relevant at this point. It makes no sense to me the way some of you all go about interpreting things at times, then insist it is someone, such as me, that is the one misinterpreting some of these things. That I am misinterpreting Matthew 24:15-21 but you all are not, even though someone, such as @Spiritual Israelite, where he has Jesus focusing on the end of the age in verse 14 then has Jesus back focusing on the first century again.


Though, you yourself are being consistent in regards to verse 14 and verses 15-21, rather than @Spiritual Israelite, look what you do with 2 Peter 3, though. Nothing consistent about how you are interpreting any of that since it is not reasonable to apply any of the verses prior to verses 10-12 to that of what you are taking verses 10-12 to be involving. IOW, the preceding verses prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12. In the same way, verse 14 in Matthew 24 proves that @Spiritual Israelite is misinterpreting verses 15-21.

The ironic thing about it. I bet you a million dollars @Spiritual Israelite agrees with me that the verses that precede verses 10-12 in 2 Peter 3 prove you are misinterpreting verses 10-12 since that would mean you have to have the preceding verses fitting with your interpretation of verses 10-12 since that's what the preceding verses are pertaining to, meaning they are pertaining to verse 10-12.

But when it comes to how he interprets Matthew 24:15-21 in light of verse 14, now all of a sudden he no longer agrees with me, that what preceded something proves one is not interpreting what follows this something correctly if one has what is preceding it not even involving what follows it. IOW 70 AD has zero to do with verse 14 if verse 14 is involving the final days of this age. In the same way, 2 Peter 3-10-12 has zero to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD if the verses that precede it are meaning the final days in this age resulting in the final day of this age.

Clearly, 2 Peter 3:7 is meaning verses 10-12 and is also meaning the day and hour which no man knows(Matthew 24:36), and is meaning this generation that passes away(Matthew 24:34).

Textual negotiation with the olivet discourse:

LINGUISTICALLY
Dictionaries, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, and the majority of English Bible translations overwhelmingly translate genea to mean the English equivalent generation - group of people living at the same time within Matthew 24:34.

CONTEXTUALLY
The olivet discourse is Jesus an answering 2 questions: - 1.)When will these things be? (the antecedent being the destruction of the temple) and 2.) what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age

GRAMMATICALLY
There are zero transitionary clauses that clearly and explicitly separate the different events within the OD by extreme long periods of time, ie thousands of years. ALL as is in “all these things” found Matthew 24:34 is inclusive of all its antecedents - all the previously listed events.


So where do you negotiate in order to fit the olivet discourse into your framework?

Since I believe linguistically, genea means generation; contextually Jesus is answering both questions; and grammatically, ALL in vs 34 refers to all previous events, where there exists no explicit transitionary clauses - then obviously I believe all of it fulfilled In the first century. This means I would the need to negotiate with the nature of : the son of man coming on the clouds, the gathering, stars falling, heaven and earth passing away…….in other words in spiritual/metaphoric, non literal ways, but only if consistent with similar OT usage and language.

So turn to 2 peter. How do I understand 2 Peter in light of the Olivet discourse?

1.) 2 Peter may very well have been a forgery, as its inclusion into cannon was the most debated due to dating and authorship and writing style. I’m pretty sure even more debated than revelation.

2.) but for argument sake, assuming it’s legit from Peter prior to 70ad. Obviously I’m not going to interpret 2 peter 3’s apocalyptic narrative beyond the linguistical, grammatical, and contextual scope of the Olivet discourse. In other words, the scoffers were scoffing during Peter’s day, the last days; Peter compares the flood to the judgment in similar manner that Christ compares the flood to the judgement of Jerusalem; Peter alludes to Isaiah 65 and it’s narrative of a creation of NHNE following Israel’s judgment - all these things told using hyperbolic and metaphorical language consistent with first century apocalypticism.

 

[Timtofly]

But, what we do know, if the historical documents written by Josephus and others are accurate, is that Christians in Judea did flee the scene to the mountains when the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and the city and the temple buildings were destroyed and it was indeed an event that would have caused difficulty for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee and such.

This is not accurate of Josephus' account. The fleeing was 3.5 years earlier in 66AD. When the Romans had come and left. There was a campaign and all walled towns in Palestine were destroyed one by one, until Jerusalem was left. There was no fleeing in 70AD. In fact, the Romans let millions from all over their empire enter for that last Passover. Something they did every year since they returned from Babylon.

So saying the Christians fled in 70AD is not accurate. Josephus never recorded that. The fact that every other walled city was destroyed in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem was certain indication that if the Jews did not give up their civil war, even Jerusalem would be destroyed. They had 42 months from 66AD to leave Judaea, and the other walled cities were already being systematically destroyed. Most of the fighting factions thought Jerusalem was their best chance. It obviously was their last stand. They were either killed or became slaves.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is not accurate of Josephus' account. The fleeing was 3.5 years earlier in 66AD. When the Romans had come and left. There was a campaign and all walled towns in Palestine were destroyed one by one, until Jerusalem was left. There was no fleeing in 70AD. In fact, the Romans let millions from all over their empire enter for that last Passover. Something they did every year since they returned from Babylon.

You misunderstand everything you read. I didn't say that no one fled until 70 AD. Jesus said to flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies. I didn't say that didn't happen until 70 AD. They didn't actually destroy Jerusalem until 70 AD. The Christians who heeded Jesus's warning had fled the area before that happened.

So saying the Christians fled in 70AD is not accurate.

I agree. They fled before that. I didn't say otherwise. You just misread what I said because that's what you do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I disagree with the way you used the analogy. Birth pains do not signal that the birth is far off. That’s not a thing. The beginning of Birth pains signal the birth is in process of happening or closer to happening.

Grammatically or linguistically why should “the end is not yet” be understood to mean “the end is not near” or “the end is far off”?



Your argument is an over harmonization exegetical fallacy. Luke does not include the gathering in his discourse, so praying for the strength to escape all these things, doesn’t include the gathering, as it’s not WITHIN the context of the Luke.



Luke omits the gathering from the OD in his investigation and reporting on the olivet discourse, so obviously, the “all these things”, in regards to the vs 36, doesn’t include the gathering.





Read the entire passage of Isaiah 65.



I disagree

Clearly, no matter what I say, you will try to find a way around it. As for reading the entire passage of Isaiah 65, why would I need to do that? The part that relates to the new heavens and new earth is the relevant part of the chapter that relates to what I was talking about.

I'm done with this discussion. It is going nowhere. I have nothing to add.

Edit: I thought I was done with the discussion, but I just can't let blatant false teaching go.

 

[Timtofly]

There is no mention of your supposed future millennium in this text. You have to add it onto Scripture.

There is no finality in the text, at the Second Coming. You have to add that thought onto Scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So turn to 2 peter. How do I understand 2 Peter in light of the Olivet discourse?

1.) 2 Peter may very well have been a forgery, as its inclusion into cannon was the most debated due to dating and authorship and writing style. I’m pretty sure even more debated than revelation.

Good grief. This is ridiculous. Peter taught the same thing that Jesus did. Compare these passages...

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The similarities between these passages are obvious, so it's ludicrous to suggest that 2 Peter should not be part of canon.

• Both Jesus and Peter taught that His second coming would come unexpectedly.
• Both Jesus and Peter directly compared the level of destruction that will occur when Jesus comes to what occurred with the flood in Noah's day.
• Both Jesus and Peter pointed out that no unbelievers survived the flood and then compared that fact directly to what will happen when Jesus returns, implying that at His return no unbelievers will survive, either.
• Both Jesus and Peter indicated that heaven and earth, as we know them, will pass away when Jesus comes.
• Both Jesus and Peter pointed out the importance of being ready for Jesus's return.

It's not reasonable whatsoever to think that 2 Peter 3 should not be part of canon since what Peter wrote there matches up perfectly with what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse.

2.) but for argument sake, assuming it’s legit from Peter prior to 70ad.

LOL.

Obviously I’m not going to interpret 2 peter 3’s apocalyptic narrative beyond the linguistical, grammatical, and contextual scope of the Olivet discourse.

Obviously.

In other words, the scoffers were scoffing during Peter’s day, the last days;

We're still in the last days now because Jesus hasn't come yet. There is no basis whatsoever to think that the last days had to end in Peter's day. None.

Peter compares the flood to the judgment in similar manner that Christ compares the flood to the judgement of Jerusalem;

Nonsense. They both compared the flood to His coming when heaven and earth will pass away which has not yet occurred.

Peter alludes to Isaiah 65 and it’s narrative of a creation of NHNE following Israel’s judgment - all these things told using hyperbolic and metaphorical language consistent with first century apocalypticism.

Preterism is nothing more than a joke. To deny the climactic, future glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ when He will rid the world of sin and death forever while ushering in the new heavens and new earth where only righteousness will dwell and where there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain is just mind boggling to me.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I am back from vacation in Bali!

Now my response to Zao as promised:

Maybe the most important parts of what you said above are going to be missed because of false and "not Christian, not biblical" doctrine in the churches, so I'm taking the liberty of repeating them, your words only slightly changed to my own words. So please correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying:

Christ is THE Temple, which His people (builders) represented. He told them (the Jews - builders) to destroy this Temple and in three days, he would rebuild it. So exactly when was THAT temple destroyed and rebuilt?​

At the Cross.

@TribulationSigns I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING you say in all your posts, but IMHO the above points you make are crucially important - but they will fly over their heads in unbelief in respect of far too many who post in these boards and they will fail to notice it - because of their false doctrines or the false doctrines they believe and adhere to - which is why I've re-posted it here.

My answer: It did not take place in 70 AD, because the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD was no more a "holy place" than a Hindu shrine. It will take place in a New Testament congregation in the end of time.​

Good.

Allow me to explain more about WHAT QUALIFIES as the "holy place" that many people here do not get it.

When I said that the congregation was the only Holy Place that qualifies is very simple. When we study scripture, we will find that there are only three things that God labels as the Holy Place where He dwells. They are:

#1. The Holy Temple: The Temple of God Himself
#2. The Holy Temple: The Temple of Believers
#3. The Holy Temple: The Temple that is God's External/Visible Congregation (The Lord's House)

Biblically speaking, there are no other holy places found anywhere. And certainly not where Christians are where they would have to flee. God dwells in all three of those Holy Temples, but in only one can/will/has He depart/ed from it. That is His external covenant congregation. It is the only one that qualifies to have an abomination stand, that will make it desolate.

We should let the Bible interpret itself, and do not go off half-cocked with extraneous beliefs, this prophesy can only be speaking about one of these three holy temples of God where abomination is to stand. So now we examine the scriptures carefully, within the pertinent context, in the light of the whole Bible, and our answer is right there. Not with preconceived ideas about temple in 70AD, but with open mindedness to what scripture actually says.

Mat 24:15-18
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
(17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
(18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Looking at these passages "OBJECTIVELY" and in their context, it is very plain that God is referring to a place called Judea, that those who are there are to flee "FROM", "TO" the mountains. Moreover, in Luke 21:21, we are not to enter again into Judaea for any reason. Right? So why are the Jews back in Jersualem we see today despite the 70AD theory?! LOL. The very context makes this absolutely clear. Second, we are further enlightened by Christ explaining that this is the prophesy of Daniel (Daniel 9:17-20), which again illustrates it is the prophecy of the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ABOMINATIONS prior to Second Coming, and not any other alleged holy place. SELAH! For example, the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. We also see that as He tells us of this abomination that stands in the Holy Place we are cautioned in instruction by God that this is a passage that we are not to take lightly, but to carefully understand what we read! Spiritual Discerned! For example, "let him that readeth understand."

Mar 13:14
(14) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Here the wording is that this abomination stands where it ought not. Now remember the only three possible holy places of God in the New Testament, according to scripture:

1.) God
2.) God's Elect person
3.) External or visible Congregation/Church.

And also remember, the unbelievers of the world are not a holy Temple of the Lord! Let's scratch off number one right away, because abomination cannot or never will stand in God! So we only have two holy places left where abomination can stand. In a Believer or in the Church. Now Abomination cannot stand in a believer because He is the Temple of God, and God "HIMSELF" dwells within him. Selah! Can God and Satan dwell in the same Holy Place, within our bodies? Of course not! A holy temple cannot be occupied by two rulers, both Satan and Christ. Scratch number two, abomination cannot stand within a believer. That's the whole point of a believer being a Holy place, it's because God dwells within us to make us a Holy Place. That leaves only the Holy Temple, which is the external covenant church. It is the only "Biblical" Holy place left wherein abomination can stand and that can be left desolate!! The holy temple of a believer cannot be left desolate, the Holy Temple Christ cannot be left desolate, only the Holy Temple, which is the church, can have abomination stand in it and be made desolate.

And low and behold, that is exactly what 2nd Thessalonians 2 illustrates to us in no uncertain terms. It is expressly stated the Holy Temple where the man of lawlessness takes a seat and is worshiped as God. We have our answer yet again! That's abomination of the highest order, and that will leave this Holy Temple desolate. Of that you can be 100 percent sure! The external church, the only holy Place that qualifies!

2Th 2:3-5
(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
(4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
(5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Behold, he has told us, Jesus has told us, John has told us, but some people are just not listening. If the man of sin sitting in the Holy Temple of God ruling as God is not abomination that will leave it desolate, then I am a flying elephant!!!!!

Those who keep parroting that it's not the Church are dealing in wishful thinking, not in a sound exegesis of scriptures. I'm sorry to say it's a growing error that is warned of God. The great deception which is the false Christ. The false Church that shows itself as God, but is ruled by Satan.

So that’s what I mean when I declare that no other holy place qualifies to have abomination stand in it that "WILL" make it desolate. We have to be careful what we read, because often something sounds Biblical that is really not biblical at all. The fact is, this sign should be obvious to faithful Christians. Since "His house" is the only Holy Place of God, that God has ever brought to desolation. Who will make this Holy Place desolate? Read for yourself in Revelation:

Rev 17:16
(16) And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

God has put into their hearts (do you know who they are?) to do God's will to bring the judgment upon the whore (according to the authority of scripture). This woman of defilement and abominations is the unfaithful New Testament Church, from which we are commanded to depart from, to flee from, to come out of her, and NEVER enter back in for any reason or ever again (Luke 20:20), that we not be judged as she is being judged by God. Humm? Does this fit the bill for their 70AD so-called Jewish temple, they "THINK" is the holy place God at that time in Jersualem? Not at all!