The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Zao is life]

You still haven’t addressed the central issue: where in the text of Matthew 24 is the referent of “temple” changed?

Already addressed in Post #8 and in the posts previous to it so if you're not satisfied with the reply, then so be it

In each case, the gospel accounts of what Jesus was saying in His reply to the disciples' questions on the Mount of Olives make it obvious that Jesus is concerned for the living stones of the New Testament Temple

- He is no longer concerned about the temple of stones on the Temple Mount (which on the Temple Mount He had twice said was going to be utterly destroyed).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

* The gospels contain a number of records of Jesus not answering the disciples' questions in accordance with what was going on in the minds of His disciples - He often answered with an answer that came from the mind of God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was in the mind of God when Jesus was:​

(a) on the Temple Mount when He twice said the Old Testament temple of stones was going to be destroyed? and

(b) on the Mount of Olives when He began talking about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were to experience, and would need to endure?

All three of the synoptic gospels record Jesus replying to their questions on the Mount of Olives by immediately embarking on a long discourse about the tribulation and persecution that His disciples (the living stones of the New Testament Temple) were going to experience for His name's sake

- and not once does He use the word "temple" again during His reply.

The Old Covenant temple of stones was the only "temple of God" the disciples knew the day they asked the questions. The disciples still had:

- the destruction of the temple;
- the end of the age; and
- Christ appearing in His glory,

mixed up (as can be seen by their questions).

No one could have blamed them - but by the time Hebrews 9:11 was written, they no longer needed an answer to the question they had asked on the Mount of Olives about when the temple of stones would be destroyed:

Hebrews 9:11:
"But Christ has come - the high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with (human) hands, that is to say, not of this building.."

 

[Zao is life]

John 2:19 is explicitly interpreted in the text: Jesus is speaking about His body (John 2:21). Matthew 24 is a separate discourse in a different context, where the disciples are pointing to the physical temple buildings, and Jesus describes their destruction WITHOUT any redefinition of “temple.”

Since Matthew often provides explanation and reinterpretations throughout his gospel, just like how John did in John 2:19-21, why didn’t Matthew provide a clear explanation of this in Matthew 24?

John 2:19 is the part of the gospel which brought about an end to the Old Covenant and the temple of stone that represented it as the temple of God and the holy sanctuary of God - when Jesus died on the cross. 50 days following the crucifixion of Christ and 10 days following His ascension into heaven there was a New Testament Temple on earth indwelt by His Spirit.

The wording of your questions imply that Jesus never knew about the above facts when He answered His disciples' questions on the Mount of Olives - and they imply that the disciples already knew it when He replied to their questions on the Mount of Olives.

But you do know the answers to these things and your questions are YET ONCE AGAIN dishonest (like your repeated accusations about "adhominum attacks" though they may not be adhominum attacks at all).

In each case, the gospel accounts of what Jesus was saying in His reply to the disciples' questions on the Mount of Olives make it obvious that Jesus is concerned for the living stones of the New Testament Temple

- He is no longer concerned about the temple of stones on the Temple Mount (which on the Temple Mount He had twice said was going to be utterly destroyed).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

* The gospels contain a number of records of Jesus not answering the disciples' questions in accordance with what was going on in the minds of His disciples - He often answered with an answer that came from the mind of God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was in the mind of God when Jesus was:​

(a) on the Temple Mount when He twice said the Old Testament temple of stones was going to be destroyed? and

(b) on the Mount of Olives when He began talking about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were to experience, and would need to endure?

All three of the synoptic gospels record Jesus replying to their questions on the Mount of Olives by immediately embarking on a long discourse about the tribulation and persecution that His disciples (the living stones of the New Testament Temple) were going to experience for His name's sake

- and not once does He use the word "temple" again during His reply.

The Old Covenant temple of stones was the only "temple of God" the disciples knew the day they asked the questions. The disciples still had:

- the destruction of the temple;
- the end of the age; and
- Christ appearing in His glory,

mixed up (as can be seen by their questions).

No one could have blamed them - but by the time Hebrews 9:11 was written, they no longer needed an answer to the question they had asked on the Mount of Olives about when the temple of stones would be destroyed:

Hebrews 9:11:
"But Christ has come - the high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with (human) hands, that is to say, not of this building.."

 

[grafted branch]

So you think Eusebius might have meant this or might have meant that but you don't really know what he was saying.

Well, I quoted what he said, or at least the English translation of what he said. I said “I think” because I’m simply being honest, I haven’t read all of Eusebius’ writings nor have I studied the early church fathers.

What do you want? Do you want someone to claim they know exactly what Eusebius meant? If I were to say that then you would accuse me of making a claim that can’t be substantiated.

Well I know that the only vouchsafed men who Jesus had told about the coming destruction of the temple of stones were the apostles He was talking to on the Mount of Olives and the only time He did so was in AD 30.

How do you know this? Aren’t you yourself speculating that that’s the case?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

- because they would have already known that when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, they must flee Judea - because that information is what they had already learned from the vouchsafed men Jesus gave that information to in AD 30.

Right, that’s an interpretation of what Eusebius meant. He could’ve been saying that the revelation was given to them many years ago and they believed it and fled when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies. I’m not arguing against that, that is a definite possibility. In Church History 3,5,4 he talks about how they went to Jerusalem thinking it was a city of perfect safety. An issue is that wouldn’t have been the case if they had already known that Jerusalem was going to be surrounded by armies and they would have to flee again to Pella. Why wouldn’t they just go directly to Pella if they already understood the revelation he just wrote about in Church History 3,5,3?

It appears to me that Eusebius could’ve also meant that a revelation was given to approved men just shortly before the war. That revelation could’ve been that making sacrifices after the cross was an abomination that makes desolate and you need to flee. From Acts 21:20 we know that in Jerusalem there were many thousands of Jews who believed and were still zealous of the law. Acts 21 took place approximately in 59AD, just 11 years prior to the war. So if this was the case, then they “saw” <1492> the AOD stand in the holy place when they received the revelation and then fled to Pella.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I still see some people treating the temple stones like they’re the missing puzzle piece for the Olivet Discourse—just toss in “70 AD” and suddenly every verse magically snaps into place… no context needed, just add interpretive duct tape and call it settled.

 

[Zao is life]

In Matthew 24, the disciples explicitly point out the physical temple buildings, and Jesus responds by saying not one stone will be left upon another.

Yep. On the Temple Mount - just outside the temple buildings.

Then there is a shift to the Mount of Olives - and you have Jesus responding to the loaded questions they asked Him about the sign of his coming and of the end of the age and about when all these things will be,

by describing the destruction of the stones !!

Yet Jesus began speaking only of the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience BEFORE the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and His return (as recorded by Luke) would ever begin to occur,

as well as AFTER the birth-pain signs (as recorded by Matthew and Mark)

- two completely different time-periods.

In Luke 21 when Jesus told His disciples why and when they should flee Judea, He said nothing about the temple of stones in Jerusalem again

- but only mentioned armies gathering around the city as a sign for them to flee Judea.

You have Jesus describing the destruction of the stones for the entire Olivet Discourse!

The referent is clearly established

Yep. The referent to the living stones of the New Testament Temple is established on the Mount of Olives by the word "ye" in Luke 21:8, 12 & 20.

The same goes for the referent being established on the Mount of Olives by the words "you" and "ye" in Matthew 24 and Mark 13

- and after the referent was established by Jesus on the Mount of Olives, Jesus is talking about the living stones of an entirely different Temple than what He spoke about on the Temple Mount.

and there is no textual shift to a symbolic or “living stones”

LoL. That's ridiculous. You need reading glasses when you read scripture. Maybe it will help you

- because only someone who is blind will fail to see that there is indeed a textual shift - completely away from any reference to the physical temple in Jerusalem and its stones - and completely onto the New Testament Temple instead.

Jesus' reply showed that He was not concerned anymore with the temple on the opposite mountain that they had pointed out the structure and buildings of when they were all still on that mountain.

He was speaking to them only of the New Testament Temple - THEM.

The followers of Jesus were given a sign to flee Judea around 70 AD, and even before 70 AD - when the Roman armies first besieged the city.

The birth-pain signs of the end of the age is what Jesus gave US of the nearness of the end.

The fact that you do not believe that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple in Jerusalem ceased being the holy sanctuary of God (that an abomination could defile),

is a sign to believers of the gospel of your unbelief of the gospel.

 

[Zao is life]

Well, I quoted what he said, or at least the English translation of what he said. I said “I think” because I’m simply being honest, I haven’t read all of Eusebius’ writings nor have I studied the early church fathers.

What do you want? Do you want someone to claim they know exactly what Eusebius meant? If I were to say that then you would accuse me of making a claim that can’t be substantiated.


How do you know this? Aren’t you yourself speculating that that’s the case?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Right, that’s an interpretation of what Eusebius meant. He could’ve been saying that the revelation was given to them many years ago and they believed it and fled when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies. I’m not arguing against that, that is a definite possibility. In Church History 3,5,4 he talks about how they went to Jerusalem thinking it was a city of perfect safety. An issue is that wouldn’t have been the case if they had already known that Jerusalem was going to be surrounded by armies and they would have to flee again to Pella. Why wouldn’t they just go directly to Pella if they already understood the revelation he just wrote about in Church History 3,5,3?

It appears to me that Eusebius could’ve also meant that a revelation was given to approved men just shortly before the war. That revelation could’ve been that making sacrifices after the cross was an abomination that makes desolate and you need to flee. From Acts 21:20 we know that in Jerusalem there were many thousands of Jews who believed and were still zealous of the law. Acts 21 took place approximately in 59AD, just 11 years prior to the war. So if this was the case, then they “saw” <1492> the AOD stand in the holy place when they received the revelation and then fled to Pella.

I'm not interested in "The Bible according to Eusebius and what grafted branch knows and doesn't know about Eusebius and his opinions", nor in "The Bible according to what Eusebius knew and did not know about the history of 70 AD, as far as grafted branch can make out."

I doubt many besides you are interested in that Bible.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not interested in "The Bible according to Eusebius and what grafted branch knows and doesn't know about Eusebius and his opinions", nor in "The Bible according to what Eusebius knew and did not know about the history of 70 AD, as far as grafted branch can make out."

I doubt many besides you are interested in that Bible.

Are you insinuating that you can somehow tell if something gets fulfilled without any extra Biblical information?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I'm not interested in "The Bible according to Eusebius and what grafted branch knows and doesn't know about Eusebius and his opinions", nor in "The Bible according to what Eusebius knew and did not know about the history of 70 AD, as far as grafted branch can make out."

I doubt many besides you are interested in that Bible.

If 70 AD fulfillment is true, it must be clearly proven from Scripture first—not dependent on a 4th-century historian. This is because their eyes are on this world and its preoccupation with secular history, rather than on the Bible alone and Biblical history. Biblical history corroborates, substantiates, and validates how the prophecies are fulfilled. But we have to be open-minded, like the Bereans. For if man cannot even understand when earthly declarations are inconsistent and a contradiction, how is he to understand the harmony of the heavenly things "that it prefigured or represented?"

Selah.

Do most theologians, and some Christians here, believe 70AD fulfilled the prophecy of the "fallen temple?" Yes! Because most of the church doesn't have its eyes focused on Christ. Their eyes are on temporal things of this world, like physical genealogies, nations, temple buildings, holy lands, wars, famines, prosperity, pestilence, angels, their belly, and such. And just as those who went before them, they totally miss that the point of prophecy is a Spiritual lesson using physical imagery to represent "deeper" Spiritual truths. As our examples, even Christ's disciples missed the point of representations, and Christ had to provide revelation concerning the cryptic nature of His words, for example:

Matthew 16:11-12

• "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
• Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Bread represented doctrine. Wine represented His blood. Water Baptism represented spiritual ablutions. The promised land was a Spiritual inheritance. And so on and so forth. God wants us to worship Him in Spirit and truth, not in physical meat and drink. Not being a citizen in physical Jerusalem, but being a citizen of Spiritual Jerusalem. Likewise, the city and temple of prophecy where Christ said they would have every stone thrown down was NOT the literal city and temple He was speaking of! It was the Old Testament body of Moses who remained under law and rejected Him as the cornerstone of its rebuilding following its fall. It was because of the abominations in God's house that they were cast down as stones from a temple, and not one left standing. For example, the whole house was destroyed, and a new house built upon better promises was constructed. The kingdom representation was taken from them, and given to another. This is all a Spiritual portrait that can be seen in Jeremiah's prophecy!

Jeremiah 8:12-13

• "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."

According to Scripture, the time of their visitation is when Christ came, and that is when there was abominations in the Old Testament congregation, and that is when they were cast down. Not 70 AD, but even as Christ Himself spoke of this when weeping over the City in plainly declaring not one stone would be left standing there that was not cast down. 70 AD does not qualify! Period!

Yes, I would imagine that "probably" most theologians believe 70 ad fulfilled the prophecy of the fallen temple and city because their eyes are on the physical and not the Spiritual. God is not interested in judging bricks or stones of a city or a temple, but the church and its people who were "represented" by the stones! Hello! Remember when Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem (the representation of the church), and then made the prophecy concerning it, saying not one stone would be left standing? He then "cast out" the "buyers and sellers" from the Holy Temple. That whole scenario of the city and its temple represented the congregation/church of that day, and that temple represented His body that people would destroy. The buyers and sellers cast out represent those who are judged at that time by God. If it represented the literal city and literal temple as supposed, then the prophecy has not been fulfilled because no one can honestly say every stone was thrown down. That was a requirement of the prophecy. And yet every stone was cast/thrown down of the spiritual city Jerusalem because God completely destroyed her where she no longer represented the kingdom. Remember, The kingdom was taken from that congregation and given to another. All within 3 days! Thus that city and temple are left desolate because of the abominations that stood in it. For example:

Luke 19:41-45

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;"

It cannot get much plainer than that. The reason the congregation is judged is because they rejected Christ, not knowing the time of their visitation! Remember the prophecy in Jeremiah? Christ is here talking to a city, and saying her children within her would "all" be thrown down right along with her. The Lord was talking about HIS PEOPLE, HIS CONGREGATION that the city (temple of the body) represented! ...And they were, not one left standing, because there is now constructed a "New" Covenant with Israel, and that is the church, now built with living stones, with Christ being the chief cornerstone of that Holy Nation (1st Peter) and temple. Theologians are looking elsewhere when the truth is right in front of their eyes.

The 70AD doctrine is the result of their spiritual blindness.

 

[covenantee]

I still see some people treating the temple stones like they’re the missing puzzle piece for the Olivet Discourse—just toss in “70 AD” and suddenly every verse magically snaps into place… no context needed, just add interpretive duct tape and call it settled.

Matthew Henry, recognized acclaimed Bible scholar and historian:

Christ, hereupon, foretells the utter ruin and destruction that were coming upon this place...
Christ, instead of reversing the decree, ratifies it; Verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another...
He speaks of it as an utter ruin.

I concur with Matthew Henry.

 

[claninja]

I believe your arguments do require them, yes - except that there were no ad hominems in my reply - only truth and a fair reaction to nonsense.

And you still have not addressed the issues brought up in the OP.

There is a difference between simply saying “i disagree” or arguing against improper hermeneutics that you disagree with VS personally attacking someone via words like “a joke”, or “fools gold”. You seem to rely on the ad hominem of the latter for someone reason, which is absolutely not an appropriate response, when having a serious debate/discussion.

Already addressed in Post #8 and in the posts previous to it so if you're not satisfied with the reply, then so be it

My question was about Matthew 24, and where in it does Christ, or the author of Matthew, clearly and explicitly redefine the temple to not mean the literal temple buildings that the disciples asked about.

1.) A Change in location within the same story does not change the antecedents of the disciples question. Therefore the argument of moving from the Temple Mount to mount of olives is irrelevant.

2.) Christ does often answer questions in ways the disciples do not expect, usually by reframing their assumptions or redirecting the focus of the question. And Jesus doing this is often explained by the author of the gospel. However, I am not aware of any clear example in Matthew where He gives an answer that is unrelated to the question or disconnected from its context without any textual or contextual clues indicating a shift in meaning from the gospel author. In other words, Matthew explains when Christ is answering beyond expectations. Matthew does not do this Matthew 24.

Outside of passages like Matthew 24, could you provide an example in Matthew, where Jesus redefines the disciples’ question in a way that is not grounded in the immediate context of the discussion? I ask because I would like evidence for your claim that Jesus answers beyond expectation without the author of the gospel explaining He was answering beyond their expectations.

3.) The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse. According to Strong’s Greek lexicon, the words “holy place” in Matthew 24:15 refer to the temple.

• τόπος ἅγιος the temple, Matthew 24:15 (on which passage see βδέλυγμα, c.)

Can you provide a lexicon that agrees with your position, that it doesn’t refer to the temple?

 

[claninja]

John 2:19 is the part of the gospel which brought about an end to the Old Covenant and the temple of stone that represented it as the temple of God and the holy sanctuary of God - when Jesus died on the cross. 50 days following the crucifixion of Christ and 10 days following His ascension into heaven there was a New Testament Temple on earth indwelt by His Spirit.

The wording of your questions imply that Jesus never knew about the above facts when He answered His disciples' questions on the Mount of Olives - and they imply that the disciples already knew it when He replied to their questions on the Mount of Olives.

But you do know the answers to these things and your questions are YET ONCE AGAIN dishonest (like your repeated accusations about "adhominum attacks" though they may not be adhominum attacks at all).

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here. John 2:19 is explained in vs 21 by the author of the gospel. Where does Matthew explain that Jesus was actually referring to living stones when he answered their questions?

 

[claninja]

Yep. On the Temple Mount - just outside the temple buildings.

Then there is a shift to the Mount of Olives - and you have Jesus responding to the loaded questions they asked Him about the sign of his coming and of the end of the age and about when all these things will be,

by describing the destruction of the stones !!

Yet Jesus began speaking only of the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience BEFORE the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and His return (as recorded by Luke) would ever begin to occur,

as well as AFTER the birth-pain signs (as recorded by Matthew and Mark)

- two completely different time-periods.

In Luke 21 when Jesus told His disciples why and when they should flee Judea, He said nothing about the temple of stones in Jerusalem again

- but only mentioned armies gathering around the city as a sign for them to flee Judea.

You have Jesus describing the destruction of the stones for the entire Olivet Discourse!



Yep. The referent to the living stones of the New Testament Temple is established on the Mount of Olives by the word "ye" in Luke 21:8, 12 & 20.

The same goes for the referent being established on the Mount of Olives by the words "you" and "ye" in Matthew 24 and Mark 13

- and after the referent was established by Jesus on the Mount of Olives, Jesus is talking about the living stones of an entirely different Temple than what He spoke about on the Temple Mount.



LoL. That's ridiculous. You need reading glasses when you read scripture. Maybe it will help you

- because only someone who is blind will fail to see that there is indeed a textual shift - completely away from any reference to the physical temple in Jerusalem and its stones - and completely onto the New Testament Temple instead.

Jesus' reply showed that He was not concerned anymore with the temple on the opposite mountain that they had pointed out the structure and buildings of when they were all still on that mountain.

He was speaking to them only of the New Testament Temple - THEM.

The followers of Jesus were given a sign to flee Judea around 70 AD, and even before 70 AD - when the Roman armies first besieged the city.

The birth-pain signs of the end of the age is what Jesus gave US of the nearness of the end.

The fact that you do not believe that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple in Jerusalem ceased being the holy sanctuary of God (that an abomination could defile),

is a sign to believers of the gospel of your unbelief of the gospel.

Ok, so you provided zero examples of Jesus shifting the referent from the literal temple to a spiritual living stones in Matthew 24. What verse in Matthew 24 explains that Jesus shifted from talking about the literal temple, to “living stones”?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here. John 2:19 is explained in vs 21 by the author of the gospel. Where does Matthew explain that Jesus was actually referring to living stones when he answered their questions?...


...What verse in Matthew 24 explains that Jesus shifted from talking about the literal temple, to “living stones”?

I think you’re missing the bigger biblical pattern here.

Look at Matthew 21:42–45. Jesus calls Himself the stone the builders rejected—and notice who the builders are. Verse 45 says the Pharisees knew He was speaking about them. So this isn’t about literal stones at all—it’s about people in covenant with God.

Then Jesus says the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another nation producing fruit (v.43). That’s a transfer—not of buildings—but of a people.

So when you connect this with:

• 1 Peter 2:5 — believers are living stones
• Ephesians 2:19–22 — built into a spiritual temple
• 1 Corinthians 3:16 — we are God’s temple

…the picture becomes consistent.

The “temple” was NEVER ultimately about physical stones—it represented God’s people!

So yes, in John 2:19–21 Jesus speaks of His temple of His body, which represents HIS PEOPLE. His body becomes the foundation of a new temple made of people.

Both before and after the cross, the true “stones” are people in covenant with God. The difference is that after Christ, that temple is rebuilt and expanded through Him. The kingdom representative transfer took place in 3 days! Nothing to do with 70AD or the need to wait for physical stones falling to fit your flawed doctrine!

That’s the point being made—it’s not contradicting John, it’s following the same spiritual pattern throughout Scripture.

Selah!

 

[marks]

The fact that your weak and beggarly arguments

You are proving their point here, you know.

 

[claninja]

I think you’re missing the bigger biblical pattern here.

Look at Matthew 21:42–45. Jesus calls Himself the stone the builders rejected—and notice who the builders are. Verse 45 says the Pharisees knew He was speaking about them. So this isn’t about literal stones at all—it’s about people in covenant with God.

Then Jesus says the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another nation producing fruit (v.43). That’s a transfer—not of buildings—but of a people.

So when you connect this with:

• 1 Peter 2:5 — believers are living stones
• Ephesians 2:19–22 — built into a spiritual temple
• 1 Corinthians 3:16 — we are God’s temple

…the picture becomes consistent.

The “temple” was NEVER ultimately about physical stones—it represented God’s people!

So yes, in John 2:19–21 Jesus speaks of His temple of His body, which represents HIS PEOPLE. His body becomes the foundation of a new temple made of people.

Both before and after the cross, the true “stones” are people in covenant with God. The difference is that after Christ, that temple is rebuilt and expanded through Him. The kingdom representative transfer took place in 3 days! Nothing to do with 70AD or the need to wait for physical stones falling to fit your flawed doctrine!

That’s the point being made—it’s not contradicting John, it’s following the same spiritual pattern throughout Scripture.

Selah!

You’re conflating two different uses of “temple.”

Yes, Scripture teaches believers are a spiritual temple (1 Peter 2, Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 3). But that does not mean every reference to the temple is symbolic.

In Matthew 24, the disciples explicitly point to physical temple buildings, and Jesus responds that not one stone will be left upon another. There is no indication He changed the subject to people.

In contrast, John 2 explicitly tells us Jesus was speaking symbolically about His body. Matthew 24 gives no such clarification.

So your argument assumes a symbolic meaning where the text itself gives none, and that’s the interpretive leap that needs to be justified.

Like, John 2 , and so many other passages, that provide a spiritual explanation, Where is the explanation provided by Jesus or the author of the gospel, in Matthew 24?

 

[grafted branch]

So this isn’t about literal stones at all—it’s about people in covenant with God.

If the stones represent people in covenant with God, and according to Hebrews 13:20 His blood is an everlasting covenant, then how does “not one stone on another” take place? Is it referring only to the old covenant and not the new covenant?

 

[TribulationSigns]

You’re conflating two different uses of “temple.”

Not at all.

The argument that therefore Matthew 24 must be limited to only physical temple stones assumes something the text itself doesn’t require.

In Matthew 24:1–2, the disciples point out the physical temple buildings, and Jesus responds that not one stone will be left upon another. However, throughout the Gospels, the disciples consistently misunderstand Jesus when He speaks in covenant or kingdom categories before they are fully enlightened. They often interpret His words in strictly physical terms while He is speaking about deeper spiritual realities.

That is important here, because the Gospel of Matthew itself already defines “stone” and “temple” language in covenant terms before we reach chapter 24. Selah!

In Matthew 21:42–45, Jesus identifies Himself as the rejected stone and ties the “kingdom of God being taken and given to another people” to covenant judgment. The issue is NOT construction material—it is covenant leadership and covenant transition.

So when we come to Matthew 24, the language of “not one stone left upon another” fits within that same covenant framework: the end of the old covenant temple order tied to that generation and leadership, not merely a statement about architecture in isolation.

That fits the broader New Testament pattern where:

• 1 Peter 2:5 — believers are living stones
• Ephesians 2:19–22 — the true temple is God’s people in Christ
• 1 Corinthians 3:16 — God’s temple is His people

So the point isn’t that Matthew 24 “explicitly says” everything in symbolic terms. The point is that Matthew has already established a covenant pattern of temple/stone language referring to people and kingdom transition, not just physical structures.

From that perspective, Jesus is not simply describing architectural destruction, but the collapse of the old covenant temple with people in it when Christ visited them, and the rebuilding of fallen God’s dwelling, in three days, in Christ—fulfilled in a new people made up of both Jews and Gentiles as “living stones.” Here is the fall of the Old Testament congregation.

Luk 19:41-44
(41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(43) For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
(44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

 

[Zao is life]

There is a difference between simply saying “i disagree” or arguing against improper hermeneutics that you disagree with VS personally attacking someone via words like “a joke”, or “fools gold”.

The theology which you cherish as gold is fool's gold. Attacking doctrine is not a personal attack. You should brush up on your understanding because you clearly do not understand the difference between ad hominem and what I said.

 

[Zao is life]

You are proving their point here, you know.

1. Referring to someone's weak and beggarly arguments and false assertions about 'faulty and flawed hermeneutics' as "weak and beggarly" are not speaking about the person.

2. Nor is the theology someone espouses, the person.

3. Nor is calling anyone's theology fool's gold "an ad hominem attack".

Your statement is a weak and beggarly appeal to a logical fallacy.

 

[Zao is life]

Ok, so you provided zero examples of Jesus shifting the referent from the literal temple to a spiritual living stones in Matthew 24. What verse in Matthew 24 explains that Jesus shifted from talking about the literal temple, to “living stones”?

I have already provided ample examples, and I'm not going to repeat them again just because you are clearly blind and cannot see them - or maybe willfully blind and simply refuse to see them.

But you have provided zero examples in what Jesus said in His reply to their questions on the Mount of Olives of the referent remaining with the physical temple on the Temple Mount, and its stones.

So because I have provided ample examples, instead of being a hypocrite with your weak argument, tell us:

1. What verse in Matthew 24:4-14 and 16-31 is talking about the stones of the temple on the Temple Mount?

2. Why would you take Matthew 24:15 out of the context of the rest of the passage?

3. Why would the temple of stones on the Temple Mount be regarded as the holy sanctuary of God that could be defiled by an abomination even after it was no longer the holy sanctuary of God from the time that the veil in that temple was torn in two?