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

[ewq1938]

I’m saying the Jews murdering Jesus was the abomination that left Jerusalem desolate.

It doesn’t matter if all of orthodox Christianity disagrees with me, the Jews rejecting and killing Jesus is why Jerusalem was left desolate.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

In context it was desolate BEFORE the cross so the theory does not work.


Dan_12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

There was not 1290 days between the end of the daily sacrifice and the cross so, again, the theory does not fit the scriptures. The AoD was not the crucifixion.

It is something the enemy does to make things worse in the world and it happens in the time period people call the tribulation.

 

[IndianaRob]

Are you the real church?

The body of Christ is the real church.

In context it was desolate BEFORE the cross so the theory does not work.


Dan_12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

There was not 1290 days between the end of the daily sacrifice and the cross so, again, the theory does not fit the scriptures. The AoD was not the crucifixion.

It is something the enemy does to make things worse in the world and it happens in the time period people call the tribulation.

I disagree. Fruit was being produced even in the wicked system of the Pharisees, people were still coming to Christ.

When Christ came he took the kingdom from the wicked Jews and gave it to the Godly Jews and they are the ones producing fruit now.

 

[covenantee]

The body of Christ is the real church.

Yes. And no one in the body of Christ, the real church, believes as you do that Jesus was the abomination of desolation.

 

[Douggg]

I’m saying the Jews murdering Jesus was the abomination that left Jerusalem desolate.

Rob, the abomination of desolation is a thing that will be "set up" , namely a statue image of the coming beast-king.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

 

[IndianaRob]

Yes. And no one in the body of Christ, the real church, believes as you do that Jesus was the abomination of desolation.

Instead of trying to establish that I’m inferior to you, why don’t you present a biblical argument for why killing Jesus wasn’t the abomination of desolation?

 

[IndianaRob]

Rob, the abomination of desolation is a thing that will be "set up" , namely a statue image of the coming beast-king.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Do you not think that Judas didn’t set up Jesus. The abomination of desolation IS NOT a thing. It’s an abomination in the eyes of God that is so incredibly terrible that God made the entire unbelieving Jewish nation desolate… completely washed his hands of them forever.

 

[IndianaRob]

@Douggg

1290 Days from the Conspiracy to Kill Christ until He Was Crucified

This is all you need to know about setting up the abomination of desolation.

Matthew 12:14 records the first plot against Jesus, and John 11:53 shows the leaders formally agreeing He must die. From that point until the crucifixion was about 3.5 years. While it isn’t possible to pin down the exact number of days, the timeframe falls in the range of 1,260–1,290 days. Daniel 12:11 speaks of 1,290 days from the setup until the sacrifice was taken away — fulfilled when Christ, the true daily sacrifice, was crucified.

 

[covenantee]

Instead of trying to establish that I’m inferior to you, why don’t you present a biblical argument for why killing Jesus wasn’t the abomination of desolation?

Instead of whining, why not refer to Jesus' own explanations? Speaking through Luke in Luke 21:20, He identified armies as the source of desolation. I'm sure you're aware that it was Roman armies that desolated Jerusalem in 70 AD. Speaking through Matthew in Matthew 24:15, He identified that desolation, i.e. Roman armies, as an abomination. Not only were they an abomination because of the desolation which they wrought, but of even greater abhorrence to the monotheistic Jews, an abomination because of the Roman polytheistic idolatrous pagan ensigns which were worshiped as deities and besought for assistance in battle, e.g. the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

So Jesus Himself explained the abomination of desolation, but never once associated it with His own death.

 

[LoveYeshua]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

Why this matters is because of what Matthew 24:15, for one, records.

Matthew 24:15 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

If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed. Don't some interpreters even grasp what a 'contradiction' is? That contradictions clearly lead to lies not the truth?

What does one do then, assuming they are at least humble enough to admit that they are contradicting that they agree Christ's death and resurrection made the 2nd temple no longer the holy place by insisting that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple? Do they do like Dispys do, make it be involving a rebuilt temple in the future? Like that is the only option. But if it was the only option, I for sure don't fault them for insisting the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple in that case. Because clearly, a literal rebuilt temple in the future being how one should interpret this, is one of the most far-fetched ideas anyone has ever come up with. And I'm thinking there may have been a time in the past when that was my position as well. And if so, that was then, this is now.

Is there another option? Of course there is. It's involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. Except 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple, not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters insisting the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is the 2nd temple are on the same page with me concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that it is not involving a literal temple.

Why can't these same interpreters plainly see, that by applying 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to Matthew 24:15 rather than the 2nd temple, now they are no longer speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Now they are no longer contradicting that they agree that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, as opposed to it continuing to be the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. But who cares, right? It's way better to contradict something rather than trying to understand something in such a manner where nothing is being contradicted. God forbid, that the latter makes the better sense.

What one should be asking themselves since Jesus was a prophet and knew He was going to the cross, did He too think the 2nd temple remained the holy place until it would be destroyed in 70 AD? After all, keep in mind, Jesus is the one who called the temple in mind the holy place. Would He be so silly to contradict that His death and resurrection would make the 2nd temple no longer the holy place, by then meaning the 2nd temple rather than the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple?

When do some of you think the 3rd temple initially came into affect? In 70 AD when the 2nd temple was destroyed? Surely not. There you go then unless you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth. That the 3rd temple came into affect once Christ died and rose, therefore, causing the 2nd temple to cease being the holy place, yet the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple. What a confused interpreter this person is, spouting nothing other than one contradiction after another.

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

The answer has to be when Christ died and rose, not in 70 AD. The reason is what happened at His death: “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:51 NKJV). That was not just a sign of mourning — it was God Himself showing that His presence had departed from that physical holy place, and that the way into His true dwelling had now been opened through Christ. From that moment onward, the temple was no longer the “holy place” in God’s eyes, because Jesus had fulfilled the Law and the sacrifices.

Yet, even after this, the temple building still stood, and sacrifices still continued until 70 AD. But just because men kept sacrificing did not mean God accepted those sacrifices. The priests carried on with rituals, but it was empty worship, for Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice had already fulfilled what the temple pointed to. This is why Jesus also prophesied its destruction (Matthew 24:2).

So in Matthew 24:15, when Jesus spoke of “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” He used the language His listeners would understand — they still saw the temple as the holy place. But Jesus knew full well that after His death, God would no longer dwell there. He called it “holy place” because that is how it was still known outwardly, even though in reality God’s presence had moved to a greater temple: the living body of Christ and the spiritual house built of His people (John 2:19–21; 1 Peter 2:5).

This avoids the contradiction. The temple ceased to be holy at the cross, but in prophecy Jesus referred to it in the terms His audience still used, because the structure still stood and would soon face judgment. From God’s side, the true “third temple” — the spiritual one — began at Christ’s resurrection, not in 70 AD.

 

[IndianaRob]

Instead of whining, why not refer to Jesus' own explanations? Speaking through Luke in Luke 21:20, He identified armies as the source of desolation. I'm sure you're aware that it was Roman armies that desolated Jerusalem in 70 AD. Speaking through Matthew in Matthew 24:15, He identified that desolation, i.e. Roman armies, as an abomination. Not only were they an abomination because of the desolation which they wrought, but of even greater abhorrence to the monotheistic Jews, an abomination because of the Roman polytheistic idolatrous pagan ensigns which were worshiped as deities and besought for assistance in battle, e.g. the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

So Jesus Himself explained the abomination of desolation, but never once associated it with His own death.

God sent the Roman army to destroy Israel. How is that an abomination in God's eyes? The whole abomination of desolation story is given here:

Matthew 21:38–46 (KJV)​

Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Tenants)

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Matthew 22:7 explains what "he will miserably destroy those wicked men". It means that he would send forth his armies (Roman Armies) to destroy those murders and burn their city up.

Matthew 22:7 (KJV)​

Parable of the Wedding Feast

7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

 

[covenantee]

God sent the Roman army to destroy Israel. How is that an abomination in God's eyes? The whole abomination of desolation story is given here:

Matthew 21:38–46 (KJV)​

Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Tenants)



Matthew 22:7 explains what "he will miserably destroy those wicked men". It means that he would send forth his armies (Roman Armies) to destroy those murders and burn their city up.

Matthew 22:7 (KJV)​

Parable of the Wedding Feast

Explain how your cited Scriptures are about the "abomination of desolation" when neither "abomination" nor "desolation" appears therein.

Your cited Scriptures have nothing to do with the actual "abomination of desolation".

If you disagree with Jesus' explanations of the actual "abomination of desolation", you'll have to argue with Him.

 

[IndianaRob]

Explain how your cited Scriptures are about the "abomination of desolation" when neither "abomination" nor "desolation" appears therein.

Your cited Scriptures have nothing to do with the actual "abomination of desolation".

If you disagree with Jesus' explanations of the actual "abomination of desolation", you'll have to argue with Him.

I can’t make it any clearer. The Jews murdered Jesus and for that abomination God destroyed them and the city.

I’m sure God was more angry over the Roman armies surrounding Israel, the armies he sent, than he was the Jews murdering Jesus.

Common sense and reading comprehension just doesn’t exist anymore.

 

[covenantee]

I can’t make it any clearer. The Jews murdered Jesus and for that abomination God destroyed them and the city.

I’m sure God was more angry over the Roman armies surrounding Israel, the armies he sent, than he was the Jews murdering Jesus.

Common sense and reading comprehension just doesn’t exist anymore.

Common sense and reading comprehension necessitate the recognition and comprehension of the actual words and expressions involved, not of conjured speculations and presumptions.

Unfortunately, yours exemplify the latter.

Whom to believe?

1. You
or
2. Jesus

No hint needed.

 

[Truth7t7]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

Why this matters is because of what Matthew 24:15, for one, records.

Matthew 24:15 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

If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed. Don't some interpreters even grasp what a 'contradiction' is? That contradictions clearly lead to lies not the truth?

What does one do then, assuming they are at least humble enough to admit that they are contradicting that they agree Christ's death and resurrection made the 2nd temple no longer the holy place by insisting that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple? Do they do like Dispys do, make it be involving a rebuilt temple in the future? Like that is the only option. But if it was the only option, I for sure don't fault them for insisting the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple in that case. Because clearly, a literal rebuilt temple in the future being how one should interpret this, is one of the most far-fetched ideas anyone has ever come up with. And I'm thinking there may have been a time in the past when that was my position as well. And if so, that was then, this is now.

Is there another option? Of course there is. It's involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. Except 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple, not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters insisting the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is the 2nd temple are on the same page with me concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that it is not involving a literal temple.

Why can't these same interpreters plainly see, that by applying 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to Matthew 24:15 rather than the 2nd temple, now they are no longer speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Now they are no longer contradicting that they agree that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, as opposed to it continuing to be the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. But who cares, right? It's way better to contradict something rather than trying to understand something in such a manner where nothing is being contradicted. God forbid, that the latter makes the better sense.

What one should be asking themselves since Jesus was a prophet and knew He was going to the cross, did He too think the 2nd temple remained the holy place until it would be destroyed in 70 AD? After all, keep in mind, Jesus is the one who called the temple in mind the holy place. Would He be so silly to contradict that His death and resurrection would make the 2nd temple no longer the holy place, by then meaning the 2nd temple rather than the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple?

When do some of you think the 3rd temple initially came into affect? In 70 AD when the 2nd temple was destroyed? Surely not. There you go then unless you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth. That the 3rd temple came into affect once Christ died and rose, therefore, causing the 2nd temple to cease being the holy place, yet the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple. What a confused interpreter this person is, spouting nothing other than one contradiction after another.

When Jesus died the veil in the temples holy place was torn from top to the bottom, at this time it ceased being the holy place of God

Matthew 27:50-51KJV
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

 

[Timtofly]

Irrelevant, and that is the fallacy known as the argument from silence.





No, I am not. Two candlesticks is symbolism for two churches. It cannot be argued.

No, the symbolism is Jesus walking among the candlesticks.

"These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;"

"And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man."

Jesus was not literally walking on the earth. The candlesticks were not on the earth.

However in Revelation 11, the two individuals were walking in Jerusalem. They are the only church on the earth at that point. They are the only candlesticks symbolically on the earth. That is why they are called the two candlesticks and two olive trees, because they were the only church left on the earth at that point in time. There were no other believers alive at that point. Then they too, were dead, and never buried for 3 days.

Symbolically these two individuals are candlesticks. Symbolically a church congregation is a candlestick. As individuals we are representing the church as symbolic candlesticks. That is consistent throughout the entirety of history and Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

The angels who rebelled and came to earth were not locked up until God sent the Flood.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Jude 1:6

Jude does not say they came to the earth. You are adding human opinion to your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

Had you provided some verses or some evidence to back up any of the claims you made, maybe I could have taken you seriously.

I have. You must have overlooked them.

 

[Exegesis]

I have. You must have overlooked them.

OK, thanks.

 

[David in NJ]

Jude does not say they came to the earth. You are adding human opinion to your interpretation of Scripture.

Jude wrote that the angels left their proper place/position that was established for them by God?

How did Jude know this???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes I get it. Jesus standing on the cross was the abomination that left Jerusalem desolate.

Who fled to the mountains when seeing Jesus on the cross? Jesus Himself made it clear that when the abomination of desolation was seen, then those in Judea should flee to the mountains.