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

[TribulationSigns]

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?

Not if the Holy Spirit has not enlightened you yet like the disciples were?

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

Haven't you research with the Bible on this? The Gospel show many moments where the disciples misunderstood Christ - not just once or tw3ice, but repeatedly throughout His Ministry. For example, they misunderstood His mission, His teachings, His power, and His identity.

Matthew 16:5-12
John 2:19-21
Matthew 16:21-23
Mark 9:33-34/Luke 22:24
Mark 10:35-27
Mark 6:52
Mark 4:35-41
John 14:8-9

Etc. Etc.

The problem is the disciples consistently:

1. Thought physically instead of spiritually
2. Expected a political Messiah
3. Struggled with the idea of suffering and sarcifice
4. didn't fully understanding until AFTER the resurrection and the Holy Spirit.**

Their mi9sunderstanding actually strengthens the Gospel account. it highlights that understanding came later through revelation, not human reasoning.

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.

I did. God did. And only those with spiritual discerned will understand. You? Still playing in the 70AD sandbox. Just like the Jews.

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

Sounds like you still don't get it. Spiritual blindness comes to mind. "Where did Christ said this? Where did Christ said that? Huh?"

Ha.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Matthew 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

What do you think the disciples were asking Jesus with their first question? You acknowledge that when Jesus referred to "these things" in verse 2, He was referring to "the buildings of the temple", right? So, do you see the disciples question as being about the same "these things" (temple buildings) that Jesus said would be destroyed with no stone left upon another? If not, then what exactly do you think they were asking Him about?

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.

You are apparently claiming that Matthew 24:1-2 has no relation to the Olivet Discourse at all. If so, what do you think prompted the disciples questions that they asked Jesus on the Mount of Olives, if not the last thing that Jesus is recorded as telling them, which was that the temple buildings would be destroyed?

 

[covenantee]

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 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.

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 2:46
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

Your Christianity:

Luke 2:46
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in His Body, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 4:9
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

Your Christianity:

Luke 4:9
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of His Body, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 19:45
And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

Your Christianity:

Luke 19:45
And he went into His Body, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

Same temple as Matthew 24:1.
Same stones as Matthew 24:2.

Same unorthodoxy as gnosis psychosis.
Talk about exposure.

 

[covenantee]

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

I answered.

Your dislike of the answer is irrelevant.

 

[Zao is life]

I see in the thread you created that it took you 8 posts to try to get your false point across. You are obsessed with this topic. I'm not going to give that thread any credibility by replying to any of those 8 posts there.

Aww we can't count on your words.

Matthew 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

If you read the words of JESUS, you will see that JESUS Himself did not even once use the word "temple" on the Temple Mount when announcing the coming destruction of the temple of stone to Israel's leaders,

OR in His reiteration about that coming destruction to the disciples just outside the temple,

OR when He was on the Mount of Olives afterwards

- and there are no chapter & verse divisions in the original text

It's the context of what JESUS was saying that He expects us to look for:

Everything written from Matthew 21:23 till Matthew 24:2 took place on the Temple Mount - with Matthew 24:1-2 taking place just outside the temple of stones, still on the Temple Mount.

- unlike Matthew 24:3 onward - which took place on the Mount of Olives.

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

I can't blame you for your ignorance regarding this. Many Christians are ignorant of the fact that chapter divisions in the Bible were only added in 1227 AD, and verse divisions at an even later date. Most churches do not point Christians to this fact.

On the Temple Mount:

Jesus (Matthew 24:1-2):
​

"Verily I say unto you, none of the stones (used in these buildings) will be left one on top of another."

On the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24:3 onward):

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).

1. There is no record in the New Testament that Jesus told them when the temple of stone would be destroyed.

2. What sign that the temple of stone was about to be destroyed did He give them in His reply?
​

According to you, the sign was both armies gathering around Jerusalem, and an abomination of desolation in the holy place.

So let's look at what Jesus said and consider what He did not say or imply:

Mark 13
"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?".
Mark 13 Jesus' reply (summarized):
First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur ..

Luke 21
"Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?".
Luke 21 Jesus reply (summarized):
First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .."

Matthew 24
"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 reply (summarized):

First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .. "

Jesus has still made no mention again up to this point of the temple of stone that Jesus had on the Temple Mount said was going to be destroyed.

- Telling His disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gather around Jerusalem is not telling them when the temple would be destroyed (the words ".. because at that time the temple of stone will be destroyed. This is the abomination of desolation in the holy place" are an insertion of a meaning into the text that does not exist in the text).

No one would have known before the end result of that war how the war would end - because Jesus did not add it to what He said when He told the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem - and three of the apostles who asked the question and received the reply were no longer alive in 70 AD.

THE HOLY PLACE

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

(b) The entire New Testament testifies to the fact that the holy place [hagios topos] is where the Holy Spirit is - which since the day of Pentecost, has been in the churches of Christ.

(c) 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: sanctuaries) made with human hands (Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24)

- which is exactly why the Jews who accused them said they had spoken against the holy place (hagios topos)

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).

- Jesus did not call the temple of stone "the holy place" after announcing its destruction.
- The apostles did not call that temple "the holy place" after the Day of Pentecost.

"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:)" (Matthew 24:15)

(d) 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 from God and filled the church gathered in Jerusalem

- and that is where the holy place has remained - in the churches (see Revelation chapters 2 and 3).

In the Olivet Discourse (when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives) Jesus was not referring to the same temple as "the holy place" that the unbelieving Jewish accusers of Stephen and of Paul had referred to as "the holy place".

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

You can argue against preterism and its claim that Jesus only talked about things related to 70 AD in the Olivet Discourse all you want because I do the same.

No you don't do the same. Your argument is with their doctrine and for their doctrine with regard to the holy place.
​

Sadly, your arrogance and words of arrogance prove time and again that your mind is way too fleshly to understand why Jesus did not talk about that temple of stone again after walking away from it, and away from the Temple Mount.

 

[Zao is life]

Not if the Holy Spirit has not enlightened you yet like the disciples were?



Haven't you research with the Bible on this? The Gospel show many moments where the disciples misunderstood Christ - not just once or tw3ice, but repeatedly throughout His Ministry. For example, they misunderstood His mission, His teachings, His power, and His identity.

Matthew 16:5-12
John 2:19-21
Matthew 16:21-23
Mark 9:33-34/Luke 22:24
Mark 10:35-27
Mark 6:52
Mark 4:35-41
John 14:8-9

Etc. Etc.

The problem is the disciples consistently:

1. Thought physically instead of spiritually
2. Expected a political Messiah
3. Struggled with the idea of suffering and sarcifice
4. didn't fully understanding until AFTER the resurrection and the Holy Spirit.**

Their mi9sunderstanding actually strengthens the Gospel account. it highlights that understanding came later through revelation, not human reasoning.



I did. God did. And only those with spiritual discerned will understand. You? Still playing in the 70AD sandbox. Just like the Jews.



Sounds like you still don't get it. Spiritual blindness comes to mind. "Where did Christ said this? Where did Christ said that? Huh?"

Ha.

You are 100% correct.

The reason why I refused to reply to @claninja 's demand that I give him other examples in scripture where Jesus did not answer them in accordance with their understanding or what was going on in their minds, but in accordance with the mind of God, is because I know that he knows perfectly well that there are many examples of this in the gospels, but is feigning ignorance - part of his usual M.O.

No one who has read the gospels and believes in Christ has not realized this - each time they have read the gospels. But as you said, he is still playing in the 70 AD sandbox. Just like the unbelieving Jews.​

 

[Zao is life]

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 2:46
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

Your Christianity:

Luke 2:46
And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in His Body, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 4:9
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

Your Christianity:

Luke 4:9
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of His Body, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

Orthodox Christianity:

Luke 19:45
And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

Your Christianity:

Luke 19:45
And he went into His Body, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

You're making a fool of yourself again.

When did the temple of stone mentioned in the verses you quoted - which Jesus went into - cease being considered by God the holy sanctuary of God? Before Jesus died, or when He died?

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

1. The temple of stone ceased being considered by God as the holy sanctuary of God the moment Jesus died on the cross and the veil in it was torn in two.

2. Jesus did not go into the temple of stone in Jerusalem even once after He died - He went into it before He died - and the last time was when He said it would be destroyed.

Your Christianity:

It was considered the holy sanctuary of God until it was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

The Old Covenant - which was represented by the temple of stone which stood for another 40 years afterward - was abolished in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross.

Your Christianity:

The Old Covenant was abolished in the temple of stone when the Romans destroyed it 40 years later.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

Jesus is the Temple of God - which the temple of stone represented until He came - but the temple of stone only represented Him until He died. He rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven 40 days following His death, and He sent the Holy Spirit 10 days later on the Day of Pentecost.

Your logic (expressed yet again in your above post):

Therefore the body of Jesus is a body of stone.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

The churches of Christ became the New Testament Temple of God and the only holy sanctuary of God when the Holy Spirit came down from God and filled the believers on the Day of Pentecost.

Your Christianity:

The temple of stone remained considered by God the holy sanctuary of God until it was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later.

You expose yourself more and more in every post you make. Throw those toys of yours - like the ones in your post I just quoted - out of the stroller you are sitting in. They were made in China and are fake and poisonous - and the hat that goes with them, that you are so proudly wearing, makes you look ridiculous.

 

[covenantee]

You're making a fool of yourself again.

When did the temple of stone mentioned in the verses you quoted - which Jesus went into - cease being considered by God the holy sanctuary of God? Before Jesus died, or when He died?

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

1. The temple of stone ceased being considered by God as the holy sanctuary of God the moment Jesus died on the cross and the veil in it was torn in two.

2. Jesus did not go into the temple of stone in Jerusalem even once after He died - He went into it before He died - and the last time was when He said it would be destroyed.

Your Christianity:

It was considered the holy sanctuary of God until it was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

The Old Covenant - which was represented by the temple of stone which stood for another 40 years afterward - was abolished in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross.

Your Christianity:

The Old Covenant was abolished in the temple of stone when the Romans destroyed it 40 years later.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

Jesus is the Temple of God - which the temple of stone represented until He came - but the temple of stone only represented Him until He died. He rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven 40 days following His death, and He sent the Holy Spirit 10 days later on the Day of Pentecost.

Your logic (expressed yet again in your above post):

Therefore the body of Jesus is a body of stone.

Orthodox Christianity (same as my own belief):

The churches of Christ became the New Testament Temple of God and the only holy sanctuary of God when the Holy Spirit came down from God and filled the believers on the Day of Pentecost.

Your Christianity:

The temple of stone remained considered by God the holy sanctuary of God until it was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later.

You expose yourself more and more in every post you make. Throw those toys of yours - like the ones in your post I just quoted - out of the stroller you are sitting in. They were made in China and are fake and poisonous - and the hat that goes with them, that you are so proudly wearing, makes you look ridiculous.

What happened to your claim that the temple was Jesus' body?

Did you abandon it?

Your gnosis psychosis is worsening. Did you take your meds?

 

[Zao is life]

What happened to your claim that the temple was Jesus' body?

Did you abandon it?

Your gnosis psychosis is worsening. Did you take your meds?

The Temple IS Jesus's body. He ascended to heaven bodily. You still do not understand.

and your posts make it apparent that your pychosis precedes your gnosis.

The church age where the church on the earth is filled with His Spirit during His absence is temporary. In the new heavens and new earth He is still the Temple of God among us.

 

[claninja]

Not if the Holy Spirit has not enlightened you yet like the disciples were?



Haven't you research with the Bible on this? The Gospel show many moments where the disciples misunderstood Christ - not just once or tw3ice, but repeatedly throughout His Ministry. For example, they misunderstood His mission, His teachings, His power, and His identity.

Matthew 16:5-12
John 2:19-21
Matthew 16:21-23
Mark 9:33-34/Luke 22:24
Mark 10:35-27
Mark 6:52
Mark 4:35-41
John 14:8-9

Etc. Etc.

The problem is the disciples consistently:

1. Thought physically instead of spiritually
2. Expected a political Messiah
3. Struggled with the idea of suffering and sarcifice
4. didn't fully understanding until AFTER the resurrection and the Holy Spirit.**

Their mi9sunderstanding actually strengthens the Gospel account. it highlights that understanding came later through revelation, not human reasoning.



I did. God did. And only those with spiritual discerned will understand. You? Still playing in the 70AD sandbox. Just like the Jews.



Sounds like you still don't get it. Spiritual blindness comes to mind. "Where did Christ said this? Where did Christ said that? Huh?"

Ha.

You’re absolutely right that the disciples often misunderstood. I didn’t ask this question because I was unaware of this. I wanted to understand your thought process for how you “knew” they misunderstood, and you answered exactly as i hoped.

SO HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING you should recognize from your own response, as this was exactly what I was looking for: in every example you gave, the misunderstanding is either corrected by Jesus or explained BY THE VERY TEXT.

HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDED, Matthew 24 has no correction, no clarification, and no statement that the temple means something spiritual. Unlike all your examples, there is no clear textual indication that Jesus reframed the disciples misunderstanding.

So, since your argument, with those great examples, is that you know the disciples misunderstood from a textual basis, then on what TEXTUAL basis are you claiming a reinterpretation is happening in Matthew 24?

 

[claninja]

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.

No, i never asserted this Strawman argument you created.

 

[claninja]

You are 100% correct.

The reason why I refused to reply to @claninja 's demand that I give him other examples in scripture where Jesus did not answer them in accordance with their understanding or what was going on in their minds, but in accordance with the mind of God, is because I know that he knows perfectly well that there are many examples of this in the gospels, but is feigning ignorance.

No one who has read the gospels and believes in Christ has not realized this - each time they have read the gospels. But as you said, he is still playing in the 70 AD sandbox. Just like the unbelieving Jews.

Not feigning ignorance, but attempting to understand your thought process for how you “know” when the disciples misunderstood. @TribulationSigns gave several fantastic examples where the text itself makes it clear to us, that WHEN WE READ these stories, the disciples definitely misunderstood Jesus. There is clear textual evidence. However, contrary to these wonderful examples, Matthew 24 doesn’t contain any similar language to spell it out to the reader.

in other words, from those other great examples @TribulationSigns provided, you know the disciples misunderstood Jesus FROM A TEXTUAL BASIS. so from what TEXTUAL BASIS in Matthew 24 do you know Jesus is correcting the disciples understanding and reframing the physical temple to a spiritual temple????

 

[Zao is life]

You’re absolutely right that the disciples often misunderstood. I didn’t ask this question because I was unaware of this. I wanted to understand your thought process for how you “knew” they misunderstood, and you answered exactly as i hoped.

SO HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING you should recognize from your own response, as this was exactly what I was looking for: in every example you gave, the misunderstanding is either corrected by Jesus or explained BY THE VERY TEXT.

HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDED, Matthew 24 has no correction, no clarification, and no statement that the temple means something spiritual. Unlike all your examples, there is no clear textual indication that Jesus reframed the disciples misunderstanding.

So, since your argument, with those great examples, is that you know the disciples misunderstood from a textual basis, then on what TEXTUAL basis are you claiming a reinterpretation is happening in Matthew 24?

Not feigning ignorance, but attempting to understand your thought process for how you “know” when the disciples misunderstood. @TribulationSigns gave several fantastic examples where the text itself makes it clear to us, that WHEN WE READ these stories, the disciples definitely misunderstood Jesus. There is clear textual evidence. However, contrary to these wonderful examples, Matthew 24 doesn’t contain any similar language to spell it out to the reader.

in other words, from those other great examples @TribulationSigns provided, you know the disciples misunderstood Jesus FROM A TEXTUAL BASIS. so from what TEXTUAL BASIS in Matthew 24 do you know Jesus is correcting the disciples understanding and reframing the physical temple to a spiritual temple????

You don't hear the words of Jesus in respect of this prophecy, because the false doctrine that you have placed your faith in makes you incapable of it, so there is no way you will hear His words now.

Mark 13
"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?".
Jesus' reply (summarized):
First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur ..

Luke 21
"Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?".
Jesus reply (summarized):
First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .."

Matthew 24
"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 reply (summarized):
Jesus reply (summarized):
First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .. "

Jesus did not begin or end what He said on the Mount of Olives with any talk about the temple of stone which on the Temple Mount he had already told them would be destroyed.

Matthew 24:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse. The words were spoken on the Temple Mount and only in 1227 AD did a Christian scholar insert chapter divisions into the text - in some places in the wrong place - as between the close of Matthew 23 and Matthew 24:2.

The chapter division belongs between Matthew 24:2 & 3, because that would stick to the location and the context of what JESUS said on each mountain - which is two different things and two different locations (albeit the two locations are close to one another).

Your faith in Preterist theology has ensured that you have no ears to hear the words of Jesus, and you ignore context, so it's pointless anyone repeating anything to you

You will merely keep up your own denial that exists in your own mind that Jesus' words - which I have just quoted - did not correct them

- and you will also only keep up your ridiculous denial of the fact that the apostles only fully understood from the Day of Pentecost onward

- that Jesus' words and what He spoke about on the Mount of Olives in His reply to their questions had corrected them.

Then you will keep asking the same ridiculous question and continue to falsely claim that Jesus' reply to their questions on the Mount of Olives "did not correct them" (After all, as we all know you have a non-biblical false doctrine to uphold, which Jesus and scripture must comply with).

This means only one thing: The fact that you expect that the apostles would have understood what Jesus was saying on that day already - which was before the last supper and what He said about His body and blood, and before the crucifixion, and before His resurrection, and before His ascension into heaven, and before the Day of Pentecost

is more than enough proof and evidence that you cannot hear Jesus when it comes to His reply on the Mount of Olives.

- and it's because you have a non-biblical false doctrine to uphold, which Jesus and scripture must comply with.

- and when Jesus tells the saints "Be not deceived" it was not only for that generation - because just as applicable as His words were in the first century, so they have been in every century following it

- because just as there were false teachers attempting to deceive the saints with their false doctrines, so even till now

- and you are one of the false teachers teaching false doctrine that Jesus is warning about when telling the saints not to be deceived.

Your Preterist doctrine regarding Jesus' words on the Mount of Olives, is false. You have placed your faith fully in a false doctrine - instead of in what the Bible actually says - hence you cannot hear Jesus' correction.

- and your questions are often accusative or asked in an accusative tone - no doubt just like the leaders in the synagogues etc who opposed the apostles' doctrine.

Hopefully you won't ask anyone to repeat again in this thread where Jesus corrected the apostles' questions on the Mount of Olives. They would not have fully understood until the Day of Pentecost - and their understanding may have taken a while (a few days or weeks maybe) for their minds to process following the Day of Pentecost. There had been truly dramatic events they had witnessed in the space of less than two months. Many of today's ministers would take a year long sabbatical!​

 

[covenantee]

The Temple IS Jesus's body. He ascended to heaven bodily. You still do not understand.

and your posts make it apparent that your pychosis precedes your gnosis.

The church age where the church on the earth is filled with His Spirit during His absence is temporary. In the new heavens and new earth He is still the Temple of God among us.

My post was completely accurate. You believe that every reference to the NT temple is in fact a reference to Jesus' Body.

There is a plethora of other Scriptures about which you then believe the same.

Thanks for the confirmation of your modernist revisionist gnosis psychosis.

Readers, take note of this contemporary cult, with history going back to the first century.

 

[claninja]

You don't hear the words of Jesus in respect of this prophecy, because the false doctrine that you have placed your faith in makes you incapable of it, so there is no way you will hear His words now.

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

Jesus' reply (summarized):

First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur ..

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

Jesus reply (summarized):

First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .."

Matthew 24
"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 reply (summarized):

Jesus reply (summarized):

First words: "Be not deceived. 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 am about to give you - begin to occur .. "

Jesus did not begin or end what He said on the Mount of Olives with any talk about the temple of stone which on the Temple Mount he had already told them would be destroyed.

Matthew 24:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse. The words were spoken on the Temple Mount and only in 1227 AD did a Christian scholar insert chapter divisions into the text - in some places in the wrong place - as between the close of Matthew 23 and Matthew 24:2.

The chapter division belongs between Matthew 24:2 & 3, because that would stick to the location and the context of what JESUS said on each mountain - which is two different things and two different locations (albeit the two locations are close to one another).

You have no ears to hear the words of Jesus, and you ignore context, so it's pointless anyone repeating anything to you

You will merely keep up your own denial that exists in your own mind that Jesus' words - which I have just quoted - did not correct them

- and you will also only keep up your ridiculous denial of the fact that the apostles only fully understood from the Day of Pentecost onward

- that Jesus' words and what He spoke about on the Mount of Olives in His reply to their questions had corrected them.

Then you will keep asking the same ridiculous question and continue to falsely claim that Jesus' reply to their questions on the Mount of Olives "did not correct them" (After all, as we all know you have a non-biblical false doctrine to uphold, which Jesus and scripture must comply with).

This means only one thing: The fact that you expect that the apostles would have understood what Jesus was saying on that day already - which was before the last supper and what He said about His body and blood, and before the crucifixion, and before His resurrection, and before His ascension into heaven, and before the Day of Pentecost

is more than enough proof and evidence that you cannot hear Jesus when it comes to His reply on the Mount of Olives.

- and it's because you have a non-biblical false doctrine to uphold, which Jesus and scripture must comply with.

- and when Jesus tells the saints "Be not deceived" it was not only for that generation - because just as applicable as His words were in the first century, so they have been in every century following it

- because just as there were false teachers attempting to deceive the saints with their false doctrines, so even till now

- and you are one of the false teachers teaching false doctrine that Jesus is warning about when telling the saints not to be deceived.

Your Preterist doctrine regarding Jesus' words on the Mount of Olives, is false. You have placed your faith fully in a false doctrine - instead of in what the Bible actually says - hence you cannot hear Jesus' correction.

- and your questions are often accusative or asked in an accusative tone - no doubt just like the leaders in the synagogues etc who opposed the apostles' doctrine.

Hopefully you won't ask anyone to repeat again in this thread where Jesus corrected the apostles' questions on the Mount of Olives. They would not have fully understood until the Day of Pentecost - and their understanding may have taken a while (a few days or weeks maybe) for their minds to process following the Day of Pentecost. There had been truly dramatic events they had witnessed in the space of less than two months. Today's ministers would take a year long sabbatical!​

1.) Location change is irrelevant due to the very fact that the disciples, on the mount of olives, asked “when will these things be”, IN REGARDS TO Jesus’ statement at the temple about the physical temple being destroyed.

So for example, If we were out at a friends house, and i told you I’m going to buy a house soon, then later that day, at a restaurant, you asked me when will I buy that house, obviously, location change has nothing to do with how I would respond.

So I have no idea what this argument of location change has to do with anything????

2.) the Bible makes is clear, TEXTUALLY, when the disciples are not understanding. @TribulationSigns gave great examples to attest to this. However, Matthew 24 doesn’t contain any clear TEXTUAL EVIDENCE as to Jesus correcting the disciples understanding of the physical temple destruction. You’ve made the claim contrary to the text, and resort to ad hominems and demeaning rhetoric when questioned about it. That tells me all I need to know about the truth of your position.

 

[Zao is life]

1.) Location change is irrelevant due to the very fact that the disciples, on the mount of olives, asked “when will these things be”, IN REGARDS TO Jesus’ statement at the temple about the physical temple being destroyed.

Proved what I said in my previous post. You heard the apostles' questions asked out of ignorance - but you never heard JESUS.

Proved again that you do not know where Jesus was when He told them that the temple of stone was going to be destroyed - and that you never heard JESUS and what He said AFTER what He said about the temple of stone - till now you have heard only the questions the apostles asked on the Mount of Olives out of ignorance, but not JESUS.

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?

 

[Zao is life]

My post was completely accurate. You believe that every reference to the NT temple is in fact a reference to Jesus' Body.

There is a plethora of other Scriptures about which you then believe the same.

Thanks for the confirmation of your modernist revisionist gnosis psychosis.

Readers, take note of this contemporary cult, with history going back to the first century.

Your sticks and stones regarding Orthodox Christian doctrine about Jesus and who He is are as ignorant as your Preterist doctrine that you think is Orthodox

- besides making one wonder how old you are.

 

[claninja]

Proved what I said in my previous post. You heard the apostles' questions asked out of ignorance - but you never heard JESUS.

Again, how do you know the question was asked out of ignorance? Where is the textual indicator that they asked out of ignorance in the same manner as the wonderful examples as provided by @TribulationSigns ?

Proved again that you do not know where Jesus was when He told them that the temple of stone was going to be destroyed - and that you never heard JESUS and what He said AFTER what He said about the temple of stone - till now you have heard only the questions the apostles asked on the Mount of Olives out of ignorance, but not JESUS.

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here.

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

According to thayers Greek lexicon, the “holy place” in Matthew 24:15 refers to the temple. What lexical resource says differently? You’ve provided zero lexical references. (A concordance is not a lexicon, by the way).

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

Not sure what you mean by “taken out of context”? The context is set up in Matthew 24:1-3. Jesus says the physical temple is destroyed, then later in the day the disciples ask “when”.

Here’s a grammatical example;

“John went to Andrew’s house for a birthday party. At the party, Andrew said he is going to move into a new house. Later that day Andrew and John went out to eat at a restaurant. There, John asked when will this happen? Andrew said when the foundation is laid, the plumbing and electrical finished, the windows put in, siding put up, and the roof is on, then he will be ready to move in, so probably by end of year.”

The context is setup in Andrew’s statement and John’s question to that statement, this forms the basis of the response by Andrew. This is literally how grammar works.

In Matthew 24, the context is setup up by Jesus’ statement about the temple destruction and the disciples question about that statement. This forms the basis of Jesus’ answer………….UNLESS there is some textual clue that Jesus is correcting or reframing the disciple’s question - but you have provided zero grammatical evidence for this

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?

Great question. Why does the gospel of Matthew, written decades after the cross refer to the temple as the holy place? Probably the same reason that the gospel of Matthew, written decades after the cross, refers to the physical city of Jerusalem as the HOLY city: Matthew 4:5, Matthew 27:53.

 

[Zao is life]

You’re absolutely right that the disciples often misunderstood. I didn’t ask this question because I was unaware of this. I wanted to understand your thought process for how you “knew” they misunderstood, and you answered exactly as i hoped.

SO HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING you should recognize from your own response, as this was exactly what I was looking for: in every example you gave, the misunderstanding is either corrected by Jesus or explained BY THE VERY TEXT.

HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDED, Matthew 24 has no correction, no clarification, and no statement that the temple means something spiritual. Unlike all your examples, there is no clear textual indication that Jesus reframed the disciples misunderstanding.

So, since your argument, with those great examples, is that you know the disciples misunderstood from a textual basis, then on what TEXTUAL basis are you claiming a reinterpretation is happening in Matthew 24?

You are so blind. Here once again is the proof that Jesus corrected their questions on the Mount of Olives by His reply:

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

(b) The entire New Testament testifies to the fact that the holy place [hagios topos] is where the Holy Spirit is - which since the day of Pentecost, has been in the churches of Christ.

(c) 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 both those apostles - Stephen and Paul -

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

- which is exactly why the Jews who accused them said they had spoken against the holy place (hagios topos)

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).

- Jesus did not call the temple of stone "the holy place" after announcing its destruction.
- The apostles did not call that temple "the holy place" after the Day of Pentecost.

"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:)" (Matthew 24:15)

(d) 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 from God and filled the church gathered in Jerusalem

- and that is where the holy place has remained since the Day of Pentecost - in the churches (see Revelation chapters 2 and 3).

In the Olivet Discourse (when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives) Jesus was not referring to the same temple as "the holy place" that the unbelieving Jewish accusers of Stephen and of Paul had referred to as "the holy place".

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

At the time the apostles asked their questions on the Mount of Olives, they:-

- still did not know about Jesus's words which He was still to utter at the last supper about His blood and the new covenant,

- nor about what was to transpire immediately after the last supper,

- nor about the veil of the temple between the holy of holies and the holy place being torn in two when Jesus died,

- nor about Jesus's resurrection from the dead,

- nor about His ascension into heaven,

- nor about the Holy Spirit coming down and filling the church on the day of Pentecost.

- They did not know about the New Testament Temple when they asked the question.

Their questions were asked in ignorance - and Jesus did not answer their questions by speaking about the temple of stones which on the Temple Mount He had said was going to be destroyed - after the Day of Pentecost they knew that He had corrected their questions by answering them only regarding the tribulation that the Living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience.

You are blind regarding this and you will remain blind for as long as your place your faith in and uphold the false doctrine of Preterism - instead of placing your faith only in Jesus and upholding only what the gospel and the scriptures teach about the New Covenant and its Temple - the holy place of Matthew 24:15.​

 

[claninja]

You are so blind. Here once again is the proof that Jesus corrected their questions on the Mount of Olives by His reply:

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

(b) The entire New Testament testifies to the fact that the holy place [hagios topos] is where the Holy Spirit is - which since the day of Pentecost, has been in the churches of Christ.

(c) 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 both those apostles - Stephen and Paul -

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

- which is exactly why the Jews who accused them said they had spoken against the holy place (hagios topos)

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).

- Jesus did not call the temple of stone "the holy place" after announcing its destruction.
- The apostles did not call that temple "the holy place" after the Day of Pentecost.

"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:)" (Matthew 24:15)

(d) 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 from God and filled the church gathered in Jerusalem

- and that is where the holy place has remained since the Day of Pentecost - in the churches (see Revelation chapters 2 and 3).

In the Olivet Discourse (when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives) Jesus was not referring to the same temple as "the holy place" that the unbelieving Jewish accusers of Stephen and of Paul had referred to as "the holy place".

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

At the time the apostles asked their questions on the Mount of Olives, they:-

- still did not know about Jesus's words which He was still to utter at the last supper about His blood and the new covenant,

- nor about what was to transpire immediately after the last supper,

- nor about the veil of the temple between the holy of holies and the holy place being torn in two when Jesus died,

- nor about Jesus's resurrection from the dead,

- nor about His ascension into heaven,

- nor about the Holy Spirit coming down and filling the church on the day of Pentecost.

- They did not know about the New Testament Temple when they asked the question.

Their questions were asked in ignorance - and Jesus did not answer their questions by speaking about the temple of stones which on the Temple Mount He had said was going to be destroyed - after the Day of Pentecost they knew that He had corrected their questions by answering them only regarding the tribulation that the Living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience.

You are blind regarding this and you will remain blind for as long as your place your faith in and uphold the false doctrine of Preterism - instead of placing your faith only in Jesus and upholding only what the gospel and the scriptures teach about the New Covenant and its Temple - the holy place of Matthew 24:15.​

1.) in Matthew 24, Jesus does not introduce a new or symbolic meaning of “holy place.” The author of Matthew explicitly anchors it to “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel” IN RESPONSE TO THR DISCIPLES QUESTION ABOUT THR DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE. That directs us back to Book of Daniel, where the “holy place” refers to the temple sanctuary being defiled. In the LXX of Daniel, the same Greek words for “holy place” are found in regards to the PHYSICAL temple. There is no example in Daniel where this refers to God’s people or a spiritual body, instead it is consistently a physical location.

2.), your argument about hagios topos assumes that because believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the phrase must now mean the church. But that is reading later theology back into the text - which is improper hermeneutic. Words are defined by context, and here the context is explicitly Daniel’s temple imagery, NOT the post-Pentecost church.

3.) your use of Acts actually works against your position. In Acts 6–7, Stephen’s accusers refer to the temple as “this holy place,” and that terminology is recorded without correction. That shows “holy place” was still a recognized way to refer to the temple in the New Testament period. Stephen’s statement that God does not dwell in temples made with hands is about God’s transcendence, not a redefinition of what “holy place” means in prophetic language. Additionally, when you read farther into the book of acts (acts 24), Christian Jews were still zealous for the law of Moses, and still practicing in the temple. This is consistent with Matthew still referring to the city as HOLY even after the cross.

4.) your interpretation makes Jesus’ warning incoherent. In Matthew 24, Jesus says that when people see the abomination standing in the holy place, those in Judea should flee to the mountains. That requires a visible, localized event tied to a specific place. A spiritualized “church” interpretation cannot account for something being “seen” in a location that people must physically flee from Judea.

5.) the timeline does not support your view. The disciples asked about the destruction of the temple they were looking at, and Jesus’ warning directly answers that concern. There is no indication in the text that He shifts to a completely different, post-Pentecost concept of a “new temple” without explaining it, especially when giving urgent, practical instructions to flee and “hopefully that it doesn’t occur during winter or on the sabbath”. You haven’t been able to explain any of this from your position.

7.) the tearing of the veil in Matthew 27 signifies access to God, not a redefinition of all temple language. Even after that event, the temple still stood and was still referred to in normal terms.

So the issue is not whether believers are a temple in a theological sense, that’s true elsewhere, but whether that meaning is intended in Matthew 24:15. The context, the absence of clear grammatical correction of the “claimed disciples misunderstanding”, the Daniel reference, and the practical instructions all point in the same direction: a real, physical holy place associated with the temple, not a symbolic reference to the church.

Also, dismissing disagreement by calling someone “blind” doesn’t address the argument, it just avoids dealing with the actual textual issues, which has been a consistent issue on your part.