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

[Zao is life]

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

You have added the word "temple".

Jesus never used the word "temple" in His reply to the disciple's questions on the Mount of Olives. He used the word "Jerusalem" once, and the words "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" once.

On the Temple Mount he never used the word "temple" either. He had called the temple of stones "YOUR house" when saying it would be left desolate.

The gospel authors make it very clear that the temple of stones was being referred to on the Temple Mount - because THEY use the word "temple" in reference to it.

But Jesus never used that word.

The context of what He said on the Temple Mount is the criteria by which we understand what HIS SUBJECT WAS.

And the context of what He said on the Mount of Olives is the criteria by which we understand what HIS SUBJECT WAS:

- on the Temple Mount: the temple of stone (up till that point it had been His only subject).

- on the Mount of Olives: the persecution and tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were to experience (they were His ONLY SUBJECT on the Mount of Olives).

Despite the apostles' questions and what the apostles may or may not have understood at that point, Jesus never spoke about any other "temple" except the living stones of the New Testament Temple after reaching the Mount of Olives.

With respect to Jesus reply to the disciple's questions on the Mount of Olives, you have added the word "temple", and ignored the fact that in His reply to their questions on the Mount of Olives Jesus only spoke about the tribulation that His disciples - i.o.w the living stones of the New Testament Temple - would experience.

As a result, with respect to what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives, you have conflated two different types of temple.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

That's not what my copy of Matthew Henry's complete commentary says

- but it makes no difference to me because

1. I concur with Jesus and what He said on the Temple Mount about the coming destruction of the temple of stones.

2. I concur with Jesus and what He said on the Mount of Olives about the tribulation and persecution His disciples would experience in this world - in the 1st century BEFORE the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return, and FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return.

Christians who stick to interpreting scripture according to what the text in scripture says show by doing so that they believe the Bible.

 

[covenantee]

That's not what my copy of Matthew Henry's complete commentary says

- but it makes no difference to me because

1. I concur with Jesus and what He said on the Temple Mount about the coming destruction of the temple of stones.

2. I concur with Jesus and what He said on the Mount of Olives about the tribulation and persecution His disciples would experience in this world - in the 1st century BEFORE the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return, and FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return.

Christians who stick to interpreting scripture according to what the text in scripture says show by doing so that they believe the Bible.

Clearly, you're holier than Matthew Henry.

Why hasn't the Church known of you before this?

 

[Zao is life]

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?

It's already been shown and proved that the immediate context of the discussion was not grounded in what Jesus had said on the Temple Mount about the temple of stones being destroyed

- so only you understand what you mean by the above question, because the question makes no sense.

Let's stick to the context that is grounded in what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives about the persecution and tribulation of the living stones of the New Testament Temple.

Note: As has already been shown and proved, the discussion on the Mount of Olives was shifted by Jesus to birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return (all three synoptic gospels);

and the focus of the discussion on the Mount of Olives was shifted by Jesus to the persecution and tribulation that His disciples - the living stones of the New Testament Temple - would experience both BEFORE and AFTER the same birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of His return.

Your question is based NOT on what Jesus said.

Though you seem to think you can, the discussion on the Mount of Olives can't legitimately be shifted back to the temple of stones that Jesus finished speaking about on the Temple Mount

- so your questions are ridiculous and will remain as weak and beggarly as your arguments for as long as you keep trying to change what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives.

Besides this, there are a number of examples in the gospels, besides the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus did not answer questions in accordance with what was in His dsicples' minds, but instead with what was in the mind of God.

The reason I'm not going to quote ANY is because your question implies that you are so lazy that you have never read the Bible, and so you are totally unaware of the many examples of it, and need someone else to find them. I'm not going to quote ANY because I don't assume the kind of laziness that your question implies. They are indeed there - and I believe you know it.

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?

Firstly, the temple of stones and what Jesus said about it in Matthew 24:1-2 is not part of Jesus's Olivet Discourse.

For the reader: Note that chapter divisions in the Bible were only added in 1227 AD, and verse divisions at an even later date.

According to the context, Matthew 23 should close where Matthew 24:2 is now placed

- because Matthew 24:1-2 took place on the Temple Mount.

The immediate context of what Jesus said about the stones of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2, is not part of the immediate context of what He later said on the Mount of Olives about the tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience in this world.

Note that

(a) The words "holy place" in Matthew 24:15 are from the Greek words hagios (holy), and topos (place).

(b) The unbelieving Jews who falsely accused Stephen called the Jerusalem temple of stones (which was no longer the holy sanctuary of God) "the holy place" [hagios topos];

and the unbelieving Jews who later falsely accused Paul likewise called the Jerusalem temple of stones "the holy place" [hagios topos]

- but the same two apostles - Stephen and Paul -

both said that the Most High does not dwell in temples (G3485 naos: santuaries) made with human hands (Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24)

Jesus Himself said this:

"The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus was not referring to the same temple as the holy place that the unbelieving Jewish accusers of Stephen and of Paul referred to as "the holy place".

Neither was Jesus saying that an abomination of desolation could defile something that is NOT the holy place.

But like unbelieving Jews in the first century, many of today's Christians who call themselves Preterists have the same belief regarding the holiness of the temple in Jerusalem following the death of Christ that the unbelieving Jews held (and, sadly - traditionally and historically) many Christians have held the same interpretation of Jesus' words as the Preterists, ignoring the context.

NOTE @claninja : I'm not answering any more of your questions - because once again you have already only proved that ALL your questions are going to be based on (what in your case) is your ostensible ignorance regarding biblical facts.

From the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives

Introduction & background -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Every day Jesus was ...

god-of-the-living.blogspot.com

 

[Zao is life]

Clearly, you're holier than Matthew Henry.

Why hasn't the Church known of you before this?

Pity you don't seem to know of Jesus who was before Matthew Henry and was holier than him.

 

[claninja]

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.

As you’ve already agreed, Matthew 24 begins with the disciples asking about the physical temple. Where, in Matthew 24, does Jesus correct this misunderstanding in a clear manner, so that we know for certain he had transitioned to talking about a spiritual temple?

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.

I’m really interested in this part - How do you know the disciples consistently misunderstood throughout the gospels?

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.

You are overextending the meaning. Just because stone can mean spiritual stone in one context (Matthew 21), doesn’t mean it means spiritual stone in every context.

Where, in the context of Matthew 24, does the author of Matthew demonstrate Jesus redefining/correcting the disciples on physical temple building.

 

[covenantee]

Pity you don't seem to know of Jesus who was before Matthew Henry and was holier than him.

Pity you're too proud to recognize that others than you have been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than yours.

 

[claninja]

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.

When you’ve already called me a joke in a previous forum, and then dance around the issues brought up, then It’s definitely one in rhetoric. no reason to be all demeaning/condescending with the whole “your straw” and “your fool’s gold”. A simple I disagree with your hermeneutic is fine and explain why is acceptable . I’m assuming we are all adults here.

 

[claninja]

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?

You have provided zero examples. YOU claimed jesus did not always answer the disciples in accordance with what was going on in the disciples mind - then you went on to provide zero examples to support this claim:

From your OP:

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.

GOD'S DAY OF JUDGMENT WAS NOT AD 70​

The generation Jesus was talking to in Matthew 23:29-36 were self-righteous and had said to themselves, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

So Jesus turned it around, telling them that THEY had murdered the prophets ("whom YOU murdered") - because they were going to do the exact same things to the people whom Jesus was going to send to them, hence they will face the same judgement for their actions that their ancestors of previous generations (who had murdered prophets and righteous men) will face - but as the scriptures tell us,

"God has set A DAY on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31).

(a) The Bible (Acts 17:31) tells us that God has set a day. Not different days. Not A.D 70 + another day. One day, and one day only.

(b) The Bible tells us that on that day those whose names are not found written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15).

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.."

 

[claninja]

You have added the word "temple".

Jesus never used the word "temple" in His reply to the disciple's questions on the Mount of Olives. He used the word "Jerusalem" once, and the words "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" once.

On the Temple Mount he never used the word "temple" either. He had called the temple of stones "YOUR house" when saying it would be left desolate.

The gospel authors make it very clear that the temple of stones was being referred to on the Temple Mount - because THEY use the word "temple" in reference to it.

But Jesus never used that word.

The context of what He said on the Temple Mount is the criteria by which we understand what HIS SUBJECT WAS.

And the context of what He said on the Mount of Olives is the criteria by which we understand what HIS SUBJECT WAS:

- on the Temple Mount: the temple of stone (up till that point it had been His only subject).

- on the Mount of Olives: the persecution and tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were to experience (they were His ONLY SUBJECT on the Mount of Olives).

Despite the apostles' questions and what the apostles may or may not have understood at that point, Jesus never spoke about any other "temple" except the living stones of the New Testament Temple after reaching the Mount of Olives.

With respect to Jesus reply to the disciple's questions on the Mount of Olives, you have added the word "temple", and ignored the fact that in His reply to their questions on the Mount of Olives Jesus only spoke about the tribulation that His disciples - i.o.w the living stones of the New Testament Temple - would experience.

As a result, with respect to what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives, you have conflated two different types of temple.

Your argument doesn’t make sense . Jesus also didn’t use the word “spiritual stones” in his response to the disciples question, so your argument is hypocritical. Its untenable to argue Jesus wasnt talking about the physical temple because you don’t believe the word temple is found in jesus response (contrary to lexical evidence), while at the very same time argue that Jesus was talking about the “spiritual stones” when the words spiritual stones are found no where in Jesus’ response in the OD

Thayers Greek lexicon defines the word holy place in Matthew 24:15 as the temple. But if that is incorrect, then maybe you could provide a lexical source that defines the holy place as spiritual stones?

 

[Zao is life]

On the Temple Mount:

Jesus:

"Verily I say unto you, none of these stones of this temple will be left one on top of another."

On the Mount of Olives:

Peter, James, John and Andrew:

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (Mark 13).

"Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Luke 21).

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24).

Jesus did not tell the apostles when the destruction of the temple of stones would be - but he did warn them that they should flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem - and only one of them was still alive when it happened.

Jesus' words were not only for the apostles He was talking to, or for the generation that was contemporary with His ministry (His words hardly ever were):

Mark 13 Jesus' reply (summarized):

"This will be what ye, My disciples, will experience FOLLOWING the time that the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of My return - that I have just given you - begin to occur ..

Luke 21 Jesus reply (summarized):

"This will be what ye, My disciples, will experience even BEFORE the time that the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of My return - that I have just given you - begin to occur .."

Matthew 24 Jesus reply (summarized):

"This will be what ye, My disciples, will experience FOLLOWING the time that the birth-pain signs of the end of the age and time of My return - that I have just given you - begin to occur .. "

No mention of the temple of stone that Jesus had on the Temple Mount said was going to be destroyed.

The holy place [hagios topos] is where the Holy Spirit is - which since the day of Pentecost, has been the churches of Christ.

Greek Concordance: ἁγίῳ (hagiō) -- 26 Occurrences

Greek Concordance: τόπῳ (topō) -- 15 Occurrences

(a) The words "holy place" in Matthew 24:15 are from the Greek words hagios (holy), and topos (place).

(b) The unbelieving Jews who falsely accused Stephen called the Jerusalem temple of stones (which was no longer the holy sanctuary of God) "the holy place" [hagios topos];

and the unbelieving Jews who later falsely accused Paul likewise called the Jerusalem temple of stones "the holy place" [hagios topos]

- but the same two apostles - Stephen and Paul -

both said that the Most High does not dwell in temples (G3485 naos: santuaries) made with human hands (Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24)

Jesus Himself said this:

"The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24).

The veil in the holy place of the temple of stone was torn in two from top to bottom when Jesus died on the cross (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). 50 days later the Holy Spirit came down and filled the church gathered in Jerusalem

- and that is where the holy place has remained - in the churches (Revelation).

 

[Zao is life]

Pity you're too proud to recognize that others than you have been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than yours.

Pity you're too proud to realize that Jesus has been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than all believers put together - and He gives His Holy Spirit to all.

Do you agree with Matthew Henry that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 refers to the abomination placed in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC?

Yes or no.

 

[covenantee]

Pity you're too proud to realize that Jesus has been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than all believers put together - and He gives His Holy Spirit to all.

So both Matthew Henry and you are right.

Do you agree with Matthew Henry that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 refers to the abomination placed in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC?

Yes or no.

I'm undecided.

How about you?

 

[Zao is life]

Pity you're too proud to recognize that others than you have been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than yours.

Pity you're too proud to realize that Jesus has been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than all believers put together - and He gives His Holy Spirit to all.

Do you agree with Matthew Henry that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 refers to the abomination placed in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC?

Yes or no.

I'm undecided.

So in accordance with your false accusation about me being "full of pride" if I say things that disagree with what Matthew Henry said about them, you are so full of pride that you believe that Matthew Henry could have been wrong.

So your own words point at you:

Pity you're too proud to recognize that others than you have been vested with wisdom and discernment greater than yours.

In any case I don't think you understand what you read when you read what Matthew Henry said about anything - because in his Complete Commentary on the Olivet Discourse he talks about different viewpoints without choosing any.

If I were you I would just stop quoting sources found outside of the Bible when talking about what is written IN scripture - i.e what Jesus Himself and His apostles themselves said or wrote, because then it becomes easier to see clearly so that you can acknowledge what Jesus Himself and His apostles themselves did NOT say. It's no wonder you are so confused.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm undecided.

How about you?

I'm likewise undecided about whether or not I will answer your question because you are undecided and have not answered my question.

 

[covenantee]

So in accordance with your false accusation about me being "full of pride" if I say things that disagree with what Matthew Henry said about them, you are so full of pride that you believe that Matthew Henry could have been wrong.

I said that both you and Matthew Henry are right.

But you've confirmed that you cannot distinguish between right and wrong.

If I were you I would just stop quoting sources found outside of the Bible when talking about what is written IN scripture - i.e what Jesus Himself and His apostles themselves said or wrote, because then it becomes easier to see clearly so that you can acknowledge what Jesus Himself and His apostles themselves did NOT say.

If I were you I would dispose of your gnostic modernist revisionism back in the pit from whence it comes, and refer to the wisdom and discernment of the recognized heroes of the faith of historic orthodox Christianity.

But I'm sufficiently realistic to recognize that the probability of such is 0.

 

[Zao is life]

Jesus also didn’t use the word “spiritual stones” in his response to the disciples question

So you are saying that Jesus was saying that the temple on the Temple Mount and the stones of that temple were going to be delivered up to tribulation and be killed, and that they should see to it that they be not deceived, and that when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies those stones should get up and flee, and the temple with it, etc etc

What you assert about which temple Jesus was referring to in His reply makes no sense.

 

[covenantee]

I'm likewise undecided about whether or not I will answer your question because you are undecided and have not answered my question.

I'm humble enough to admit that I'm undecided.

Let's see how humble you are.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm humble enough to admit that I'm undecided.

Let's see how humble you are.

I'm humble enough to admit that I'm undecided about whether or not I will answer your question because you are undecided and have not answered my question

 

[Zao is life]

If I were you I would dispose of your gnostic modernist revisionism back in the pit from whence it comes, and refer to the wisdom and discernment of the recognized heroes of the faith of historic orthodox Christianity.

Orthodox Christianity does not disagree with what I have said about the fact that the temple of stone ceased being the holy sanctuary of God the moment the veil was torn in two - which happened the moment Christ died.

Nor does Orthodox Christianity disagree with what I have said about the saints being called "the living stones" (living humans) who together make up the New Testament Temple.

Nor does Orthodox Christianity disagree with the fact that the New Testament Temple is the only Temple of God - through the presence of His Holy Spirit;

nor does Orthodox Christianity disagree that the New Testament Temple has been the only Temple of God through the presence of His Holy Spirit, since circa AD 30 when the Holy Spirit came down from God and filled the believers after Jesus ascended.

My argument also quotes only the words of Jesus and the teaching of scripture regarding the Temple of God.

My arguments brought forward as the reason I disagree with the established view are not gnostic, but Orthodox, and fall fully within the boundaries of legitimate Orthodox disagreement.

On the other hand, your words which you have now uttered regarding the only ones whose words I have been quoting - the words of Jesus and His apostles - which you have now asserted "come from the pit", are entered into your account already for you to explain in the day that the Light makes them known

- and in each case the heart that produces such unbelief regarding words spoken by Jesus and His apostles and the teaching of Christ and His apostles regarding the holy sanctuary of God, will be exposed by the same light at the same time

- and what I have just said is all Orthodox Christianity

- and you have just made it known that the faith in Preterist theology that you are following, is a cult.

All you do is expose yourself with almost every post.