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

[Zao is life]

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”

I agree, Jesus certainly does not introduce a new or symbolic meaning of “holy place.” - that is what you have done, not Jesus.

The audience of Jesus was Jewish. The Jewish audience of Jesus immediately recognized the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place to be referring to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel that had been placed in the 2nd temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes which did not cause its destruction - because the 2nd temple was reconsecrated to God after it had been cleansed following the defilement.
​

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

"Abomination of desolation" is a phrase from Daniel's final vision in the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 11:31), which was later identified with the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily qorban in the Second Temple, or the altar of sacrifice on which such offerings were made.

Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

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

The New Testament Temple - which Jesus was referring to in Mathew 24:15 - cannot be destroyed but it can be defiled:
​

1 Corinthians 3:17
"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

"And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

The Jewish festival of Hannukah - celebrated by Jesus and His apostles - is based on the abomination of desolation in the temple - and that is what the apostles understood Jesus to be referring to. It's spoken of in Daniel 8:11, Daniel 11:31, and Daniel 12:11-12.

It's also associated in Daniel with the temporary removal of daily sacrifices for sins, and the defilement of God's sanctuary.
​

The coming of the Messiah is associated with the permanent removal of sacrifices for sins in Daniel 9:27 and the destruction of the 2nd temple.

The apostles understood that Jesus was not referring in Matthew 24:15 to the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 - that is YOUR conflation.

The apostles - espcially after the Day of Pentecost - understood that Jesus was referring to what Paul later mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - which Paul likewise associated with a coming apostasy, just as the type (the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel) was.

The conflation of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 with Daniel 9:26-27 and Jesus' announcement on the Temple Mount is entirely derived from later Gentile church theology

- it's based on ignorance - and in your case, your own continued ignorance shows that you do not study the scriptures and do proper historical research, but have placed your faith entirely in false Preterist theology instead of on Christ alone and on the teaching of His apostles alone.
​

It is known that the later Gentile churches began conflating the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 with Daniel 9:26-27 and Jesus' announcement on the Temple Mount

- because Wikipedia - based on its Christian resources - goes on to state that the phrase was "taken up by the authors of the gospels "in the context of" the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70"

- which is information derived from Gentile Christian theology and is false and neither scriptural nor historical,
​

because it contradicts the fact - as mentioned by Wikipedia - that the phrase is from Daniel's final vision in the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 11:31), which was later identified with the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily qorban in the Second Temple, or the altar of sacrifice on which such offerings were made.

History does not lie.

But Paul certainly understood what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:15 when Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Jesus' disciples were Jews, not Romans and not Gentiles - and the apostles immediately associated Matthew 24:15 with an abomination of desolation that was placed in the 2nd temple in the 2nd century BC by Antoichus IV - which did not result in the destruction of the temple.

Jesus did not introduce a new or symbolic meaning of “holy place.” - that is what you have done, not Jesus. Your conflation of Daniel 9:26-27 and Jesus' announcement on the Temple Mount regarding the temple of stone with the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place is not biblical, factual, or historical.

Jesus' first century Jewish audience - the apostles - understood what He was referring to by that phrase - and later (after the Day of Pentecost) they would have perfectly understood what He was saying - otherwise Paul would not have written 2 Thessalonians (and specifically 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

But here we are in the 21st century and you - along with many other Christians (including some who post in these boards - but not all) still don't understand what Jesus was saying - and as long as your faith remains in the false doctrine of Preterism, you never will

- because your spring-board is not based solely on Jesus, the doctrine of the apostles, scripture and historical facts - but on your own Preterist theology which corrupts historical facts such as the only origin of the phrase "abomination of desolation" - as well as scripture - by trying to force scripture and historical facts to comply with your theology.​

 

[Zao is life]

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.

Nonsense. The temple of stone was emphatically being referred to as this holy place by unbelieving Jews because Stephen and Paul had said God does not dwell in temples made with human hands and they were accusing them of defaming the temple of stones.

Are you an unbelieving Jew?

You have shown once again that though your arguments have already all been proved to be baseless, you then insist on proving them to be baseless all over again by appealing to hermeneutics, calling sound hermeneutics "not proper hermeneutics" while you practice unsound and improper hermeutics!

It also proves how Preterism changes the meaning of everything it has need to change the meaning of in order to attempt to force scripture, Jesus, Apostolic doctrine and historical facts to comply with the theology.

I can only shake my head.

 

[Zao is life]

4.) your interpretation makes Jesus’ warning incoherent.

Nonsense. Totally flawed human thinking. Just because you don't understand why Jesus is telling specifically those CHRISTIANS who have ears to hear who are in Judea to flee when they see what Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15, does not mean that Jesus is incoherent.

You see Jesus as incoherent with regard to His warning because your flawed Preterist basis has caused you to conflate things in your thinking.

Like many other Christians, I believe Jesus and the teaching of His apostles regarding this passage, so just because I know that the events Jesus and the apostles described in Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 have not occurred yet, does not mean that just because I do not yet know why He told specifically those CHRISTIANS who have ears to hear who are in Judea to flee when they see it,

I have to therefore cut Matthew 24:15 out and paste it into a time period 1.930 years before they will occur!

That's totally flawed human thinking - and caused by exactly the same flawed human reasoning that causes some to cut Daniel 9:27 out of Daniel 9 and paste it into the end of this age.

 

[Earburner]

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.

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.."

I think in all of your series of posts, you have neglected a pivotal biblical context of proof that the literal stones of the Temple were literally taken apart in the Roman siege of 70 AD by Titus.
Mark 13
1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.


Have you never read the historic eyewitness account given by Flavius Josephus?
Flavius Josephus describes the destruction of the Temple in detail, noting that it was set on fire and ultimately razed [torn down and broken up] during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. He emphasizes the tragic loss and the events leading to its destruction, including the actions of the Roman soldiers.
Wikipedia josephus.org

Description of the Temple's Destruction​

Flavius Josephus provides a detailed account of the destruction of the Second Temple during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. He notes that the Temple was set on fire and ultimately razed [torn down and broken up] by Roman soldiers.

Key Events Leading to the Destruction​

• Siege of Jerusalem: The Romans besieged the city, leading to significant destruction.
• Setting Fire to the Temple: Josephus describes how a soldier, driven by a "divine fury," ignited the Temple, which led to its eventual destruction.
• Razing [the tearing down and breaking up] of the Temple: The Temple was not only burned but also dismantled as part of the Roman campaign to crush the Jewish revolt.

Impact of the Destruction​

Josephus emphasizes the tragic loss of the Temple, which was a central place of worship for the Jewish people. The destruction marked a significant turning point in Jewish history, leading to profound consequences for the Jewish community.
In summary, Josephus does describe the Temple being taken apart, highlighting the fire and subsequent destruction as pivotal
moments in the siege of Jerusalem.
Wikipedia josephus.org

Edit:
However, since you are attempting to go that route of spiritualizing the LITERAL stones into believing that Jesus meant the LIVING stones, being all we who are Born again since Pentecost, I have one even BETTER!!

"The abomination that maketh desolate"- (Dan. 11:31, 12:11) is NOT about a future man that church-ianity loves to call THE Antichrist, but rather it was the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus [the abomination against God, in Prov. 6:16-19, is the shedding of innocent blood] that brought about/"caused" the desolation and destruction of the Jewish Temple.

Dan. 9:37
27 And he [Jesus] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the [70th] week he [Jesus] shall cause the [Temple] sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations [the continuance of animal sacrifice] he [Jesus] shall make it desolate [void of God/destroyed], even until the consummation [the end of time], and that determined [vs. 24] shall be poured [out] upon the desolate [Pentecost: believers, who were void of God- Acts 2:17]

 

[Zao is life]

I think in all of your series of posts, you have neglected a pivotal biblical context of proof that the literal stones of Temple were taken apart in the Roman siege of 70 AD by Titus.

Nonsense. You have just proved that you can come up with nothing better than a false accusation.

LoL. Not one of my posts has denied that on the Temple Mount Jesus said that not one stone of the temple of stones would be left one on top of another, and not once have I even implied or suggested in any way, shape or form that that temple of stones was not destroyed in 70 A.D.

Your post can quote as much history as you like from Josephus, Tacitus and anyone else who wrote about the actual history of the actual events - presuming they were not based on hearsay (Josephus' accounts are the most reliable because he was a witness to the events)

- because I have not, and do not deny the temple of stone was destroyed as Jesus said it would be, and as Daniel 9:26-27 said it would be

- historically Daniel 9:26-27 is not referring to the origin of the phrase "abomination of desolation" as encyclopedias, history, and the festival of the Jews show - to this day.

Your false accusation is just the usual drivel that comes from someone who has no valid argument.

 

[covenantee]

I have not and do not deny the temple of stone was destroyed as Jesus said it would be, and as Daniel 9:26-27 said it would be

Did the stones morph into Jesus' body before or after they were destroyed?

 

[Davidpt]

- and I have not and do not deny the temple of stone was destroyed as Jesus said it would be, and as Daniel 9:26-27 said it would be

In Matthew 24 what are you applying Daniel 9:26-27 to, where it appears you apparently take Daniel 9:26-27 to be involving 70 AD? Thus begs the question, but what do you take in Matthew 24 to be involving 70 AD? We have to keep in mind, per Daniel 9:26-27 abominations are involved for some of what is recorded in those verses. As of Matthew 24:1-2 there is zero mention of abominations at this point. Nowhere did Jesus say in verse 2 that the temple of stone is to be destroyed because of abominations.

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(Daniel 9:27). Where you appear to be applying this to 70 AD. Yet it is verse 15 in Matthew 24, not verse 2, where the subject of abomination comes up. Except you are not applying verse 15 to 70 AD.


I for sure don't agree with Preterists. Yet your view is equally confusing when you insist Daniel 9:26-27 involved 70 AD when Matthew 24:2 doesn't even support it since Jesus mentioned zero about any abominations in that verse.

 

[covenantee]

In Matthew 24 what are you applying Daniel 9:26-27 to, where it appears you apparently take Daniel 9:26-27 to be involving 70 AD? Thus begs the question, but what do you take in Matthew 24 to be involving 70 AD? We have to keep in mind, per Daniel 9:26-27 abominations are involved for some of what is recorded in those verses. As of Matthew 24:1-2 there is zero mention of abominations at this point. Nowhere did Jesus say in verse 2 that the temple of stone is to be destroyed because of abominations.

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate(Daniel 9:27). Where you appear to be applying this to 70 AD. Yet it is verse 15 in Matthew 24, not verse 2, where the subject of abomination comes up. Except you are not applying verse 15 to 70 AD.


I for sure don't agree with Preterists. Yet your view is equally confusing when you insist Daniel 9:26-27 involved 70 AD when Matthew 24:2 doesn't even support it since Jesus mentioned zero about any abominations in that verse.

Matthew 24:16 applies to 70 AD.

Historically confirmed.

 

[TribulationSigns]

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?

Your objection assumes that if there is no explicit correction, then there is no misunderstanding. But that standard is not consistent with how The Gospel of Matthew—or the Gospels in general—present Christ’s teaching.

The issue is not whether Jesus always corrected misunderstanding immediately, but whether the disciples were capable of misunderstanding even without instant clarification. The record clearly shows they were.

Across the Gospels, the disciples repeatedly interpreted Christ in a physical or earthly way when He was speaking in deeper or spiritual terms. This pattern matters:

• In Gospel of John 2:19–21, Jesus speaks of the temple, and it is only later understood that He spoke of His body. No immediate correction is recorded in the moment.
• In Gospel of Mark 6:52, they witnessed miracles yet “did not understand,” and no direct correction follows that specific instance.
• In Gospel of Matthew 16:21–23, Peter outright rejects Christ’s suffering—showing a fundamentally wrong expectation even after extensive teaching.

The pattern is clear: understanding often came later, especially after the resurrection and the giving of the Spirit (cf. John 14:26).

So when we come to Matthew 24, the question is not:

“Did Jesus explicitly correct them right there?”

But rather:

“Is it consistent with their pattern that they could misunderstand what they were seeing and hearing?”

The answer is yes.

Your argument also assumes that Christ must always reinterpret symbolic language immediately. But that is not how He taught. He frequently spoke in ways that required later revelation, reflection, or spiritual discernment (parables are the clearest example).

So the absence of an explicit correction in Matthew 24 does not prove the disciples understood correctly—it only proves that no correction is recorded at that moment.

In fact, given their consistent pattern:

• thinking physically instead of spiritually
• expecting a political kingdom
• struggling with suffering and prophetic language

…it is entirely reasonable to question whether their initial perspective about the temple was complete.


Now, this doesn’t automatically prove your interpretation is correct—but it does dismantle your claim that “no correction = no misunderstanding.”

That conclusion simply does not hold when compared with the broader Gospel pattern.

 

[Davidpt]

Matthew 24:16 applies to 70 AD.

Historically confirmed.

Unlike some around here, mainly meaning Preterists and those that align with Preterist thinking but are not Preterists, in general I like to dig deeper first, before coming to any final conclusions about things.


Before they went to the mount of Olives the subject involved the temple they were at, and that Jesus told them there would be no stone left upon another stone. Yet look what they asked---what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What possessed them to ask that? Surely they didn't think the end of the temple equaled the end of the world. Did they?

Something else we have to keep in mind is the following.

What we have to factor in here, is this.


A) When Jesus entered the temple the day in question, it began all the way back in Matthew 21:23

B) As to the Mark account, when Jesus entered the temple the day in question, it began all the way back in Mark 11:27

C) As to the Luke account, when Jesus entered the temple the day in question, it began all the way back in Luke 20:1


A) Gospel of Matthew (starting at Matthew 21:23)

Matthew 21:23–27 Religious leaders question Jesus’ authority. He counters with a question about John the Baptist.

Matthew 21:28–32 Parable of two sons

Matthew 21:33–46 Parable of the tenants

Matthew 22:1–14 Parable of the wedding banquet

Matthew 22:15–22 Question about taxes

Matthew 22:23–33 Sadducees question resurrection

Matthew 22:34–46 Greatest commandment

Matthew 23:1–12 Warning against pride and hypocrisy of religious leaders.

Matthew 23:13–33 Series of woes condemning scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew 23:34–39 Judgment foretold, lament over Jerusalem.

B) Gospel of Mark (starting at Mark 11:27)

Mark 11:27–33 Authority of Jesus questioned, same exchange about John the Baptist.

Mark 12:1–12 Parable of the tenants, leaders recognize it’s about them.

Mark 12:12–17 Question about paying taxes to Caesar.

Mark 12:18–27 Debate with Sadducees about resurrection.

Mark 12:28–34 Greatest commandment, love God and neighbor.

Mark 12:35–40 Jesus teaches about the Messiah, warns against scribes.

Mark 12:41–44 Widow’s offering

C) Gospel of Luke (starting at Luke 20:1)

Luke 20:1–8 Religious leaders question Jesus’ authority while He is teaching in the temple, same exchange about John the Baptist.

Luke 20:9–19 Parable of the tenants, rejection of God’s Son.

Luke 20:20–26 Question about taxes

Luke 20:27–38 Sadducees challenge resurrection

Luke 20:39–47 Jesus teaches about the Messiah, warns against scribes’ hypocrisy.

Luke 21:1–4 Widow’s offering

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

IMO, the debate about the resurrection might cause the end of the age to have crossed their mind. Plus, in Matthew 23 when Jesus asked how can they escape the damnation of hell, He obviously wasn't meaning the damnation of 70 AD. Therefore, this too may have caused the end of the age to cross their mind. After all, there can't be a resurrection in the future without Him coming first. Nor can there be the damnation of hell without Him coming first, then judging, sentencing and casting one into the LOF.

 

[covenantee]

Yet look what they asked---what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

They first asked "Tell us, when shall these things be?", referring to the things in verse 2.

 

[Zao is life]

In Matthew 24 what are you applying Daniel 9:26-27 to, where it appears you apparently take Daniel 9:26-27 to be involving 70 AD? Thus begs the question, but what do you take in Matthew 24 to be involving 70 AD?

Hello David. Nice to see you back after your (hopefully voluntary) short 'sabbatical' Lol.

I had to edit some of your questions out due to character limit in my reply.

The answer to your question: Just so we're clear I'm applying nothing in Matthew 24 to Daniel 9:26-27 and 70 AD except Matthew 24:1-2.

- Jesus did not say what you are quoting in Matthew 24:1-2 on the Mount of Olives. He said it just after telling the scribes and Pharisees in the temple of stone "YOUR house is left to you desolate".

I'm saying this for the benefit of anyone who reads this, because I think you understand this already:

Think about that. Would his disciples have been with Him and around Him in the temple and heard him say that?

Would it have saddened them to think that the temple they knew so well (and probably loved) would be destroyed - so that just outside the temple (Matthew 24:1-2) they would comment on how magnificent its structure was?

IMO it would have caused that remark they made about the buildings.

Think about it some more - Bearing in mind that once Jesus had turned His back on the temple to make His way down and across the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives, He knew that His final hour was soon - within the next two days - upon Him; and He knew what suffering that was going to involve for Him, personally - and no one would be there to help or even support Him. He was going to face it alone.

He also knew that what He was going to do, was also going to bring about an entirely New Temple - one not made of stone.

He also knew about the tribulation that His disciples were going to have to face in this world following His ascension - with the worst periods of tribulation occurring in the first century (apostles being brutally murdered etc) and again in the last century nearing His return

- but also in every century in-between.

Then, when He sat down on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24:3) they - because they at that point had no way of understanding anything that was still to come - they asked Him AGAIN about that temple of stone.

In His reply Jesus spoke to them only about what the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience in this world, beginning His reply with:

"Be not deceived."

Why should He have answered the questions they asked at that point according to what was on THEIR minds - instead of what He wanted them to know, and to be warned about?

I ask that question because some here insist that Jesus "must have" answered their question about the temple of stone "just because they asked it." - as though Jesus did not have the right to answer their questions in accordance with what was on HIS mind at the time, and in accordance with what HE wanted them to know and be warned about, and to think about?

But the proof is in the pudding - the gospels only record Jesus answering by talking about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament Temple were going to experience in this world.

That day they could not have understood why He replied like that - but following the Day of Pentecost they certainly DID understand - and the fact that they did understand following the Day of Pentecost is attested to in their doctrine - all over Acts, and the epistles.
​

We have to keep in mind, per Daniel 9:26-27 abominations are involved for some of what is recorded in those verses. As of Matthew 24:1-2 there is zero mention of abominations at this point. Nowhere did Jesus say in verse 2 that the temple of stone is to be destroyed because of abominations.

IMO Jesus did not have to tell them that it was going to be "because of abominations" - He did not tell the scribes and Pharisees either.

He did not have to say, "Remember that Daniel wrote that "on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate?".

He did not say anything like that about Daniel 9:26-27 - but we all know (correction: we all SHOULD know) that 70 AD fulfilled what Daniel wrote in Daniel 9:26-27, and Matthew 24:1-2 was spoken on the Temple Mount and was still part of the discussion regarding Jesus' announcement regarding the coming destruction of that temple.

The text in Daniel 9:26-27 doesn't tell us what those abominations entailed. IMO continued animal sacrifices for sins make a strong contender - but Jesus did not have to mention Daniel 9:26-27, and did not mention Daniel 9:26-27. His own Word about it sufficed.

Preterists - some of them - like Josephus - believe that the abominations Daniel mentioned consisted in the detestable acts the Jews did in the temple of stone between 66 and 70 AD, and - like Josephus - Preterists believe that the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 were done in "the holy place" - and that is why that temple of stone was destroyed
​

- as though it was a holy place that could be defiled by an "abomination of desolation in the holy place" and as though those abominations would not be associated with the destruction of the 2nd temple.

 

[Davidpt]

They first asked "Tell us, when shall these things be?", referring to the things in verse 2.

Yes, I realize that. Which then means that question in particular involves what Jesus said in Matthew 24:2. The questions the disciples asked once they reached the Mount of Olives require being connected to something said earlier. No one starts a conversation by asking questions that have no prior context to go by. who begins conversations like that? Where they start asking questions that have nothing to do with anything previously said? Kind of reminds me of how some read Daniel 12:1 and then insist Daniel 11 from verse 21-45 is involving the days of A4E when a resurrection event has to follow the fulfilling of Daniel 12:1.

Notice how Daniel 12:1 starts out--And at that time shall Michael stand up. Which begs the question since something disclosed before verse 1 has to explain it.

At the time of the days of A4E? That that explains it? That during the days of A4E Michael stood up, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt--that that explains it?

Obviously then, Daniel 11 can't be meaning A4E since it makes absurd nonsense out of verse 1 and 2 in Daniel 12. Also keeping in mind that Daniel 12:11 is obviously meaning during the time of Daniel 12:1. Where Matthew 24:15-21 undeniably proves it. Therefore, based on Daniel 12 alone, it is absurd that Matthew 24:15-21 is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD. Both accounts involve a time of trouble that can't be equaled nor surpassed. Both accounts involve an AOD during this unequaled time of trouble.

That's not a coincidence. Someone is trying to tell us something here since it is absurd that there could be two different times of trouble that can't be equaled nor surpassed, since that would be a contradiction. There can be only one time of trouble that can't be equaled nor surpassed. Therefore, Matthew 24:15-21 and Daniel 12 are involving the same events, the same era of time. And that Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be pertaining to 70 AD, since no resurrection of the dead followed 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, I realize that. Which then means that question in particular involves what Jesus said in Matthew 24:2. The questions the disciples asked once they reached the Mount of Olives require being connected to something said earlier. No one starts a conversation by asking questions that have no prior context to go by. who begins conversations like that? Where they start asking questions that have nothing to do with anything previously said? Kind of reminds me of how some read Daniel 12:1 and then insist Daniel 11 from verse 21-45 is involving the days of A4E when a resurrection event has to follow the fulfilling of Daniel 12:1.

Notice how Daniel 12:1 starts out--And at that time shall Michael stand up. Which begs the question since something disclosed before verse 1 has to explain it.

At the time of the days of A4E? That that explains it? That during the days of A4E Michael stood up, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt--that that explains it?

Obviously then, Daniel 11 can't be meaning A4E since it makes absurd nonsense out of verse 1 and 2 in Daniel 12. Also keeping in mind that Daniel 12:11 is obviously meaning during the time of Daniel 12:1. Where Matthew 24:15-21 undeniably proves it.

Does that disprove the historic flight of the Judaean Christians in Matthew 24:16?

 

[Zao is life]

Did the stones morph into Jesus' body before or after they were destroyed?

You don't seem to care about how blasphemous against Jesus your mocking is when you think you're only mocking me.

 

[covenantee]

You don't seem to care about how blasphemous against Jesus your mocking is when you think you're only mocking me.

Yes, bring out the full load of faux sanctimony again.

We're thoroughly sick of it.

 

[Davidpt]

Does that disprove the historic flight of the Judaean Christians in Matthew 24:16?

What I just posted in post #93 proves it since Daniel 12 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be pertaining to 70 AD to begin with..

 

[Zao is life]

Yes, I realize that. Which then means that question in particular involves what Jesus said in Matthew 24:2. The questions the disciples asked once they reached the Mount of Olives require being connected to something said earlier. No one starts a conversation by asking questions that have no prior context to go by. who begins conversations like that? Where they start asking questions that have nothing to do with anything previously said? Kind of reminds me of how some read Daniel 12:1 and then insist Daniel 11 from verse 21-45 is involving the days of A4E when a resurrection event has to follow the fulfilling of Daniel 12:1.

Notice how Daniel 12:1 starts out--And at that time shall Michael stand up. Which begs the question since something disclosed before verse 1 has to explain it.

At the time of the days of A4E? That that explains it? That during the days of A4E Michael stood up, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt--that that explains it?

Obviously then, Daniel 11 can't be meaning A4E since it makes absurd nonsense out of verse 1 and 2 in Daniel 12. Also keeping in mind that Daniel 12:11 is obviously meaning during the time of Daniel 12:1. Where Matthew 24:15-21 undeniably proves it.

I won't debate it with you for long because we've been down that road before,

but it's as though you think no one in the Bible could possibly be a type or forerunner of anyone else to come later,

and no events in the Bible could possibly be a type or forerunner of events that occur later,

the image of the Babylonian (Nebuchadnezzar) cannot possibly be a type or forerunner of the image of the beast of the Revelation,

and A4E cannot possibly be a type or forerunner of the one who will fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Matthew 24:15,

nor can the events surrounding what he did possibly be a type or forerunner of the same

- and in Matthew 24:15 Jesus could not possibly have given anyone or anything in the Bible as a type or forerunner of the AoD.

So according to you the New Testament Temple is going to be destroyed (not just defiled by the AoD) (because that - by the way - is all that Daniel 9:26-27 says is going to be the end of it).

Either that - or Jesus must have plucked such a thing as an AoD spoken of by Daniel out of the sky - because there is no such thing in the Bible.

PS: If Daniel 11 and 12 are not talking about anything that A4E did and Jesus is not speaking about that as a type or forerunner of the AoD you have a serious issue to resolve - because you then must have the sacrifices for sin and their temporary suspension linked to everything written in Daniel 11 & 12, as occurring at the end of this age - just like the Dispensationalists do.

 

[covenantee]

What I just posted in post #93 proves it since Daniel 12 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be pertaining to 70 AD to begin with..

Did the historic Judaean Christians flee?

 

[Zao is life]

Yes, bring out the full load of faux sanctimony again.

We're thoroughly sick of it.

So you have no conscience about your blasphemy - using Jesus for your juvenile jokes when you want to mock others, and mocking Jesus in the process.

You expose yourself with every post you make.

LoL. I used to think you were around 25 judging by your level of maturity. Then I had to bring it down to about 18. Now I don't even know.

What grade are you in?