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

[Zao is life]

Why would I leave with you and them?

You're the gnostic. When did all the Preterists in your church leave because the gnostic gospel was preached in your church and you find yourself alone?

 

[Earburner]

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.

I have provided no nonsense, nor do I make false accusations.
The prophecy spoken by Jesus, concerning the destruction of the Temple, literally took place and has no viable reason whatsoever to be formed into a parallel for a spiritual version of fiction.

Therefore, in my post #84, I then provided an example of a viable and honest spiritual reality, through scripture, of how "the abomination that maketh dedolate" shall not be caused by an Antichrist in the future, but rather WAS the literal Lord of Glory Himself, nailed to cross shedding his INNOCENT blood. All of which was NOT an abomination against the Jews, or even to you and I, but rather it was an abomination against God the Father Himself, as stated in Prov. 6:16-19.

Did Jesus spiritualize that event, in relation to Himself and the literal temple building, that was to be destroyed in 70 AD? Yes, he did!! BUT, in no uncertain terms can we justify it as Him meaning that His personal physical body is the church. However, at the moment in the reverse, OUR mortal bodies are the Temple of the Lord.

So then, when we are Born again of His Spirit, we are in essence by His Holy Spirit made to be spiritual members of the body of the Lord, but we are not the literal physical body of the Immortal Lord Jesus Himself, just as He himself was not the literal Temple building.

John 2
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

 

[covenantee]

You're the gnostic. When did all the Preterists in your church leave because the gnostic gospel was preached in your church and you find yourself alone?

What are you blathering about?

I didn't leave with you and them. So I'm no gnostic.

And Jesus was the Greatest Preterist who ever lived.

And I'm historicist but I'm aware that means nothing to you.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Are there NO Judean Christians alive today?

You're obsessed with the flesh and the stones of a building because the Romans destroyed it.

Very True.

 

[covenantee]

Very True.

Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into His body, and cast out all them that sold and bought in His body, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

Very gnostic.

 

[claninja]

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.

No, my argument is that BECAUSE Matthew consistently marks misunderstanding, through correction, explanation, or even explicit commentary by the author of the gospel, THEN
the absence of any such marker in Matthew 24 makes the claim of “misunderstanding” textually unsupported and less likely from a narrative standpoint.

Again, You’ve provided more great examples ( John 2 and 14,Mark 6, Matthew 16) where we know the audience misunderstands Jesus, BECAUSE THE TEXT TELLS US. However, Matthew 24 is absent of any clear textual indicators.

THUS, to argue that the disciples misunderstood Jesus in Matthew 24, we must 1.) IGNORE Matthew’s consistent pattern of providing clear textual evidence when the audience misunderstands and 2.) infer BEYOND what text indicates, inserting a misunderstanding.

so if the gospels consistently provide textual indicators when the audience misunderstands, what justifies inserting misunderstanding into Matthew 24, when there is no clear textual indicator?

 

[claninja]

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.​

1.) the context of Jesus’ response in the olivet discourse is set up by the question posed by the disciples: the destruction of the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

2.) the author of Matthew mentions the book of Daniel in regards to the abomination of desolation of the “holy place”. In Daniel, this consistently refers to the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

3.) Zero textual indication that the disciples didn’t understand what they were asking, and that Christ reframed their question to a different understanding.

Therefore Interpreting the holy place as something else, despite these points, is introducing something new and something beyond what the text actually says.

As you’ve already stated, you believe Christ reframed and corrected the disciples misunderstanding in Matthew 24, introducing a new concept of a symbolic temple that they were not asking about. So your opening statement here is not true.

 

[Davidpt]

1.) the context of Jesus’ response in the olivet discourse is set up by the question posed by the disciples: the destruction of the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

2.) the author of Matthew mentions the book of Daniel in regards to the abomination of desolation of the “holy place”. In Daniel, this consistently refers to the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

3.) Zero textual indication that the disciples didn’t understand what they were asking, and that Christ reframed their question to a different understanding.

Therefore Interpreting the holy place as something else, despite these points, is introducing something new and something beyond what the text actually says.

As you’ve already stated, you believe Christ reframed and corrected the disciples misunderstanding in Matthew 24, introducing a new concept of a symbolic temple that they were not asking about. So your opening statement here is not true.

When Jesus spoke those words 2 Thessalonians 2:4 hadn't even been written yet. But even so, why should we assume that Jesus, who was also a prophet, would have no insight into 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, at the time? My point being this. Maybe the holy place is meaning the temple per 2 Thessalonians 2:4, not the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Except it's not meaning a literal temple.

One might then argue, what about all the fleeing involved? How does one flee from an AOD involving a temple that is not even literal?

Probably the same way one flees from some of the following, for example.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Or this...

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


Do either of these examples involve literally fleeing from one geographic location to aother geographic location? Obviously, no. IMO anyway.

But we also have to factor in this. Once Christ died and rose, was the 2nd temple still the holy place up until it was destroyed some years later? Not per the perspective of unbelieving Jews, but per the perspective of God Himself. The text plainly says that an AOD stands in the holy place, not in an unholy place instead. Obviously, once Christ died and rose, the 2nd temple became an unholy place, and not this instead, continued to be a holy place until it was destroyed. The third temple is the holy place meant, not the 2nd temple. Except the third temple is not a literal temple. As if Jesus can return without 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves being fulfilled first.

And since the Discourse records Christ's 2nd coming in the end of this age, though I realize you disagree that it does, therefore it is not unreasonable for Jesus to bring up the subject pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, in the Discourse as well. It would be pretty pathetic of Him if He didn't, the fact 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves is greater than what all 70 AD involved. The former involves global, the latter involved local.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Aww we can't count on your words.

I didn't address any of your original 8 posts. I said I wouldn't do that and I have kept to that. I did not say I would not reply to any post at all in the thread. You need to learn how to read. You continue to make a fool of yourself over and over and over again. Do you never tire of that?

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]​

LOL! You continue to show everyone how terrible your reading comprehension skills are. You didn't address my questions AT ALL.

I was asking you what you think the disciples were intending to ask Jesus. Is that too hard for you to understand? I said: "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?".

Can you actually answer the questions I asked or would you rather just repeat your usual nonsense instead?

I also said the following which you did not address:

"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?".

Are my questions just too difficult for you to answer or do you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever? It's hard to tell sometimes what exactly is the reason that you fail to answer people's questions and address their arguments.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Is it your view that the disciples asked Jesus when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed, but you believe they were mistaken to ask Him such a question despite the fact that the last thing Jesus is recorded as telling them is that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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?

So, do you acknowledge that the first question the disciples asked ("when will these things be?"), as recorded in Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, was about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed with no stone left upon another? If so, why would you think that Jesus's answer to that question would not be recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (I believe you have acknowledged before that He answered it in Luke 21:20-24a)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are there NO Judean Christians alive today?

You're obsessed with the flesh and the stones of a building because the Romans destroyed it.

Tell me, what would be the reason that it would be difficult for nursing Christian mothers and pregnant Christian women in Judea to flee to the mountains in the future? And what would be the reason that it would be difficult for Judean Christians to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath in the future?

Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When Jesus spoke those words 2 Thessalonians 2:4 hadn't even been written yet. But even so, why should we assume that Jesus, who was also a prophet, would have no insight into 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, at the time? My point being this. Maybe the holy place is meaning the temple per 2 Thessalonians 2:4, not the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Except it's not meaning a literal temple.

One might then argue, what about all the fleeing involved? How does one flee from an AOD involving a temple that is not even literal?

Probably the same way one flees from some of the following, for example.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

None of that says anything about fleeing. It has a different context from Matthew 24:15-21. It's about being content with what you have and staying where you are and not desiring to pursue temporal things instead of eternal things. Read verse 33 for context. Jesus did not say anything about fleeing there, but rather was talking about being willing to lose your life physically for His sake in order to gain eternal spiritual life instead of clinging to the things of this temporal life and losing out on eternal life as a result, with Lot's wife being an example of that. The Luke 17 passage relates to His future return, but Matthew 24:15-21 does not.

Or this...

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Do either of these examples involve literally fleeing from one geographic location to aother geographic location? Obviously, no. IMO anyway.

So, tell me how fleeing being particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers and being particularly difficult during the winter and on the Sabbath can be explained in a figurative sense. That's what you need to do if you want to be taken seriously about this. Along with explaining why Jesus's answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed would only be recorded in Luke 21 and not in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

 

[Davidpt]

1.) the context of Jesus’ response in the olivet discourse is set up by the question posed by the disciples: the destruction of the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

2.) the author of Matthew mentions the book of Daniel in regards to the abomination of desolation of the “holy place”. In Daniel, this consistently refers to the PHYSICAL TEMPLE.

3.) Zero textual indication that the disciples didn’t understand what they were asking, and that Christ reframed their question to a different understanding.

Therefore Interpreting the holy place as something else, despite these points, is introducing something new and something beyond what the text actually says.

As you’ve already stated, you believe Christ reframed and corrected the disciples misunderstanding in Matthew 24, introducing a new concept of a symbolic temple that they were not asking about. So your opening statement here is not true.

One thing you and I have in common is this. We both are staying consistent throughout the Discourse, while some others aren't. @Spiritual Israelite being one good example.

For example, Matthew 24:15-30. Because you take verses 15-26 to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, you then have no choice but to take verse 30 to be meaning a coming in an unseen sense involving 70 AD. Otherwise, you would end up making total nonsense out of verse 29 if you were to take the coming in verse 30 to mean 2000 years later. The point being, 2000 years later is not immediately after anything.

The way some try and get around that, they employ eisegesis rather than exegesis, by insisting that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 are not meaning the tribulation of those days involving verses 15-21. But are meaning another tribulation of days the texts in question know nothing about.

Now consider why I have to conclude what I do. Because I am 100% convinced that the coming meant in verse 30 is the 2nd coming in the end of this age. And that I am 100% convinced that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 are meaning the ones in verses 15-26, I have no choice but to reject that verses 15-21 involved 70 AD. Because, clearly, 2000 years later is not immediately after anything. Nor am I going to be dishonest with the text like at least one person in this thread is being, that based on posts by him in other threads involving this subject, by insisting that the trib of days meant in verse 29 is not meaning the trib of days meant in verses 15-21. It is meaning a tribulation of days that the text never mentions, thus knows zero about.

Assuming someone is correct, whether that be you or me, obviously we both can't be correct. Yet we are both being consistent throughout compared to someone such as @Spiritual Israelite who isn't. At least he isn't in regard to Matthew 24:15-30.

A hypothetical for you. Let's assume you too were fully convinced that verse 30 is meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. How would you then be interpreting verses 15-21 in light of that? Would you still insist 70 Ad is meant in verse 15-21? Would you be inventing another trib of days the text knows nothing about, in order to supposedly not make nonsense out of 'immediately after' in verse 29?

 

[Davidpt]

So, do you acknowledge that the first question the disciples asked ("when will these things be?"), as recorded in Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, was about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed with no stone left upon another? If so, why would you think that Jesus's answer to that question would not be recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (I believe you have acknowledged before that He answered it in Luke 21:20-24a)?

As long as it is answered, why does it matter? It would be different if it wasn't answered in Luke 21 as well. It's still one Discourse regardless that it is spread throughout 3 different accounts. But I have other reasons why I conclude what I do. Daniel 12 being one of those reasons. Plus what I just argued in my post prior to this one.

 

[amigo de christo]

Tell me, what would be the reason that it would be difficult for nursing Christian mothers and pregnant Christian women in Judea to flee to the mountains in the future? And what would be the reason that it would be difficult for Judean Christians to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath in the future?

Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

The great war rages on my friend . And the whore has blown her trumpet to call all children home to her .
We are not witnessing the beginning of the mystery of inquity or that which is of anti christ .
Its been and its been at work . What we are witnessing is its peak hour .
The blood of the saints is not new . It has been throughout all ages as has been the mystery of inquity and he who has been letting it .
But its gonna blow its top in a peak . And much blood will be shed upon the saints .
Just a reminder that none enter into compromise and negotiations with an ecumenical harlot .
Stay the course in Christ and let all be faithful even unto death . Many will betray many .
But he who endures unto the end the same shall be saved . Faithful to Christ loving not their lives unto death .
That is not a figure of speech . its TRUTH and we will soon face harships and perescutions , trials and afflictions
so few have . Many have read about such . In the bible we see such .
And throughout the ages we have seen it .
BUT NOW in the last hour IT WILL GO world wide and the western societies will SEE IT TOO .
Our b etrayer and our betrayal is at the door . And they have betrayed the SON and soon his peoples
with a kiss of inclusivity . T hey kissed the golden calf of ecuminecal interfaith of anti christ .
And it wont bode well for any who do so on THE DAY OF THE LORD JESUS .
But they are gonna come f or us soon . I dont know how much longer we have. IT RISES and when it do
IT WILL CONVINCE the WORLD of the solution to RID this earth of ALL that did not conform to its image
of what it calleth god and it says is love and heeds its plan of peace .

 

[claninja]

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.

Christian Jews still followed the law of Moses zealously and worshipped in the physical temple. See acts 21. Matthew, written decades after the cross, still referred to the physical city of Jerusalem as the “holy city”.

Jesus told them to flee a specific location - Judea. Jesus told them to pray this fleeing wouldn’t be on the sabbath or winter.

These instructions do not make any sense with your interpretation.

When Jesus spoke those words 2 Thessalonians 2:4 hadn't even been written yet. But even so, why should we assume that Jesus, who was also a prophet, would have no insight into 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, at the time? My point being this. Maybe the holy place is meaning the temple per 2 Thessalonians 2:4, not the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Except it's not meaning a literal temple.

One might then argue, what about all the fleeing involved? How does one flee from an AOD involving a temple that is not even literal?

Probably the same way one flees from some of the following, for example.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Or this...

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


Do either of these examples involve literally fleeing from one geographic location to aother geographic location? Obviously, no. IMO anyway.

But we also have to factor in this. Once Christ died and rose, was the 2nd temple still the holy place up until it was destroyed some years later? Not per the perspective of unbelieving Jews, but per the perspective of God Himself. The text plainly says that an AOD stands in the holy place, not in an unholy place instead. Obviously, once Christ died and rose, the 2nd temple became an unholy place, and not this instead, continued to be a holy place until it was destroyed. The third temple is the holy place meant, not the 2nd temple. Except the third temple is not a literal temple. As if Jesus can return without 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves being fulfilled first.

And since the Discourse records Christ's 2nd coming in the end of this age, though I realize you disagree that it does, therefore it is not unreasonable for Jesus to bring up the subject pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, in the Discourse as well. It would be pretty pathetic of Him if He didn't, the fact 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves is greater than what all 70 AD involved. The former involves global, the latter involved local.

The problem still remains. The gospel of Matthew is consistent at explaining when the audience misunderstood Jesus. HOWEVER, there is no clear textual indicator in Matthew 24, that the disciples misunderstood, or that Christ corrected them.

 

[Davidpt]

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.

Which brings up this point. If the temple is still the holy place, that seems to imply their beef with them defaming the temple would be legit.

 

[Davidpt]

So, tell me how fleeing being particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers and being particularly difficult during the winter and on the Sabbath can be explained in a figurative sense. That's what you need to do if you want to be taken seriously about this. Along with explaining why Jesus's answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed would only be recorded in Luke 21 and not in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

The evidence shows it has to be meant in a figurative sense because, Daniel 12, for example, undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving 70 AD. Nor is it meaning in a literal sense in the future involving a rebuilt temple in that region. I tend to think the point is this. It is in order to flee apostasy. I have no choice but to take it in a figurative sense, since I reject that it will be involving a rebuilt temple in the future, yet take this to be involving the future still, and not the past. What other choice do I have, regardless I can't explain what these things might look like if not meaning in a literal sense?

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

In my view, verse 29 is undeniably meaning the trib of those days pertaining to verse 21. And that verse 30 is undeniably meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. Therefore, it is absurd that verse 21 can be meaning 70 AD, the fact verse 30 never immediately followed 70 AD. And that there is no other tribulation of days mentioned after verse 21 but prior to verse 29. Which then means 70 AD can't be meant. It can only be meant if the coming in verse 30 is not meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. Neither you nor me agrees that the coming in verse 30 is not meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

 

[Davidpt]

The problem still remains. The gospel of Matthew is consistent at explaining when the audience misunderstood Jesus. HOWEVER, there is no clear textual indicator in Matthew 24, that the disciples misunderstood, or that Christ corrected them.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the disciples misunderstood or that Christ corrected them. After all, it's possible that they had better insight and discernment about some of these things than we tend to give them credit for at times. After all, one of their questions was in regard to the end of the world. And clearly, Christ answered that question throughout the Discourse.