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

[claninja]

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.

So is it your position, that Christ simply ignored the first question posed by the disciples and only answered the 2nd question in Matthew 24?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

LOL. Good one, buddy. Keep up the good work of being a comedian. You are a comedian, right?

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.

Verses 23 to 26 talk about things that happen after Matthew 24:15-22 is over. So, Jesus will come after the tribulation of those days when the level of deception is so high that it can deceive even the elect, if possible.

Matthew 24:23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.

Notice Jesus talks about a time during which false Christs and false prophets show great signs and wonders to deceive people. That lines up with the time period that Paul wrote about here...

2 Thessalonians 2:8 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There is a time of spiritual tribulation that will occur before Jesus returns. It is after the tribulation of those days when Satan and wickedness are no longer restrained and "all power, signs, and lying wonders" are taking place that Jesus will return. Matthew 24:15-22 is talking about physical tribulation. Based on the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24a, you can see that Jesus was talking about God's wrath upon the unbelieving Jews. That is not the tribulation that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24:29. You make the same mistake as the preterist that you are complimenting for supposedly being consistent like you are. You fail to see that Jesus spoke both of a time of local tribulation in the form of God's wrath as well as global spiritual tribulation in the Olivet Discourse. Actually, you don't fail to see that, but you somehow only see it in Luke 21 and not Matthew 24 and Mark 13. You are not consistent in the way you interpret Matthew 24 and Mark 13 compared to how you interpret Luke 21.

The way some try and get around that, they employ eisegesis rather than exegesis,

LOL. You have proven MANY times that you don't know the difference between those 2 things. This is very ironic.

by insisting that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 are not meaning the tribulation of those days involving verses 15-21.

Why do you act as if verses 23 to 26 don't exist? Why do you not conclude that Luke 21:25-28 is related to the tribulation described in Luke 21:20-24? If you were consistent, you would conclude that the same way you conclude that Matthew 24:29-31 occurs after what is described in Matthew 24:15-21. But, you don't do that because you see the description of the times of the Gentiles occurring after what is described in Luke 21:20-24a is fulfilled. But, somehow, you skip straight from the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21 all the way to Matthew 24:29 as if nothing is described in between those verses. Where is the consistency in that?

But are meaning another tribulation of days the texts in question know nothing about.

So, you think a time during which the level of deception is so high that even the elect can be deceived, if possible, is not a time of tribulation? You don't think that the time period Paul refers to in 2 Thess 2 when wickedness is no longer restrained and all power, signs and lying wonders after the working of Satan are let loose is a time of tribulation?

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.

So am I. But, you're not required to believe that in verse 29 Jesus was referring to the tribulation described in verses 15 to 21 in order to come to the conclusion that the coming of the Son of man referenced in verse 30 is referring to the future second coming of Christ at 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

We need to talk about this. How are you concluding that what is described in verses 23 to 26 occurs at the same time as what is described in verses 15 to 22 rather than after that time? In verses 23 to 26 it talks about false Christs and false prophets deceiving people with great signs and wonders, including even the elect, if possible. Paul talks about a time when the working of Satan with all power, signs and lying wonders would occur before Jesus comes (2 Thess 2:1-12). That's global spiritual tribulation. Matthew 24:15-22 refers to local tribulation in the form of God's wrath in Jerusalem. Those are two different types of tribulation with two different scopes.

, I have no choice but to reject that verses 15-21 involved 70 AD.

Despite the fact that you believe Luke 21:20-24a involved 70 AD. You are forced to deny that Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24a are parallel passages in order to come to that conclusion even though they are clearly parallel passages. But, do you care about that? Obviously not.

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.

To have a different interpretation of the text than you is not a case of being dishonest with the text. If either of us are being dishonest, it would have to e you. How else to explain you denying that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21, when it so clearly is?

Assuming someone is correct, whether that be you or me, obviously we both can't be correct.

Why are you so naive? As if the preterist view of the futurist view are the only valid options? Nonsense. Neither of you are correct. You're both too extreme with how you interpret Matthew 24. Somehow, by some miracle, you can discern that the Luke 21 account of the Olivet Discourse covers things related to both the local event of 70 AD and the global event of Christ's future return, but you can't discern the same when it comes to Matthew 24 and Mark 13. You think it's valid to conclude that Matthew and Mark decided not to record Jesus's answer to the first question the disciples asked Him. It's not. It's ridiculous to think that. There is no basis for thinking that.

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.

LOL. Says the guy who is completely inconsistent with how he interprets the Luke 21 account compared to the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts.

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?

LOL at you trying to get support from a preterist for your false futurist view of Matthew 24:15-21. Hilarious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

But, somehow, for some unknown reason, you think that Matthew and Mark did not record His answer to that question at all and only Luke did. How can you think anyone should take that seriously?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So is it your position, that Christ simply ignored the first question posed by the disciples and only answered the 2nd question in Matthew 24?

No, his position, which is utterly ridiculous and laughable, is that only Luke recorded Christ's answer to the first question in Luke 21:20-24 while Matthew and Mark, for some reason, did not find it important enough to record His answer to the first question in their versions of the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As long as it is answered, why does it matter?

Come on. Please get serious for once. You believe that the second question was answered in all 3 accounts, right? Should Matthew and Mark have not written down Jesus's answer to the second question, either, since Luke did so? That's obviously ridiculous, right? The same is true regarding you thinking that Matthew and Mark didn't record His answer to the first question.

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.

You have no explanation whatsoever for why Matthew and Mark would not include Christ's answer to the first question. As if they thought it wasn't important enough to include that? Give me a break. Saying that it's recorded in Luke 21, so that's good enough, is not an acceptable response. Did Matthew and Mark both know that Luke was going to record Jesus's answer to that question, leading them to think there was no need for them to do so? Absolutely not. They wouldn't have known that. So, if Luke didn't record His answer to that question, then none of them would have. Do you think that makes any sense? It surely does not. There is no reason whatsoever that neither Matthew nor Mark would not have recorded His answer to that question. You have no way around that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Then tell me what it means in a figurative sense. Or at least make a guess. Something. I can't take that seriously if you can't even venture a guess as to what it would mean in a figurative sense that it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women in Judea to flee to the mountains. Or what it would mean in a figurative sense for it to be particularly difficult for those in Judea to flee to the mountains during the winter or on the Sabbath. Can you even make a guess as to what those things would mean figuratively?

Nor is it meaning in a literal sense in the future involving a rebuilt temple in that region.

Well, that is obvious. And I obviously don't believe that.

I tend to think the point is this. It is in order to flee apostasy.

Why would Jesus only warn Christians in Judea to flee apostasy? Or do you see the reference to Judea as being figurative, also? If so, what od you think Judea figuratively represents? Also, why would Jesus describe fleeing apostasy in terms of fleeing to the mountains?

I have no choice but to take it in a figurative sense

That's not true, but you force that upon yourself by limiting the options of what Jesus could have been saying there.

, 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?

LOL. I've already told you the other choice you have many times. And you still ask this question? You have chosen to think that Matthew and Mark inexplicably decided not to record Jesus's answer to the first question that the disciples asked. You need to give a viable explanation for why that would have been the case. To this point, you never have.

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.

You need to learn what the word "undeniably" means. Your view is your opinion. Opinions can be denied, but facts can't. Your opinions are not facts.

And that verse 30 is undeniably meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

We agree on that. And I'd even agree that it's undeniable even though preterists try to deny it.

Therefore, it is absurd that verse 21 can be meaning 70 AD, the fact verse 30 never immediately followed 70 AD.

It is absurd for preterists to conclude that Jesus came in 70 AD after the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21 was over. I agree with that.

And that there is no other tribulation of days mentioned after verse 21 but prior to verse 29.

Except there is. A time of great deception with signs and wonders to the point where even the elect could be deceived, if possible, is described in between. Paul described a time like that before Jesus returns, also, in 2 Thessalonians 2.

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.

Yes, I obviously agree with you that Jesus could not have come in 70 AD. If you read Matthew 22:1-13 you can see that the wrath that occurred in 70 AD was from God the Father, not Jesus. Preterists ignore that. But, the biggest problem you have that you don't even seem willing to deal with is that you think Matthew and Mark didn't think it was important to record Jesus's answer to the first question that the disciples asked. That is a huge weakness in your view.

 

[Davidpt]

So is it your position, that Christ simply ignored the first question posed by the disciples and only answered the 2nd question in Matthew 24?

No it's not my position. That first question obviously pertained to what Christ said in Matthew 24:2. My view is that Luke 21, not Matthew 24 nor Mark 13, answered this. The way I look at it, as long as it got answered, that is what counts. Luke's account focused on that particular answer, Matthew and Mark's account didn't.


I realize you don't agree that the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse. But let's assume it is, regardless. Therefore, the following assumes the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse.

In Luke 21, in my view, there is a gap of at least 2000 years between verse 20 and the coming recorded in verse 27. Assuming one agrees with that, but not you of course, where do we even remotely see this same 2000 year gap in Matthew 24 between verse 15 and 30, and in Mark 13 between verse 14 and verse 26?

In Luke 21 this gap is explained per the following--And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


In my view that is meaning from 70 AD up until the 2nd coming in the end of this age. In Luke 21 there is zero mention of anything immediately following something prior. Those of us who are not Preterists nor are aligned with Preterist thinking, would insist the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled immediately followed the fall of Jerusalem.

IMO, the times of the Gentiles began with the fall of Jerusalem and end with the ending of the 42 month reign of that beast. IOW, per the Luke 21 account, we are at the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. Per the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts we are at the end of the times of the Gentiles, Matthew 24:15-26 representing the final 42 months of it.

And that Luke 21:25-26, Matthew 24:29, and Mark 13:24-25 are all meaning the 6th seal recorded in Revelation 6. And that the 2nd coming soon follows. Right or wrong, this is basically how I tend to see some of this. Maybe I'm correct about some of it but not all of it. Or maybe I'm correct about all of it. Or maybe I'm correct about none of it. Whichever it might be, once again, it's how I tend to see and reason some of these things. I will say this, though. The chance of me not being correct about any of it is zero. Since it is absurd that I'm not at least correct that there is a gap of at least 2000 years between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27. That assuming Christ returns sometime soon.

 

[claninja]

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.



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.

Then I would say that your eschatological framework overrides the natural context and the grammar of the Olivet discourse.

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?

If you believe you can insert gaps into the 70 weeks prophecy, then you don’t really have a leg to stand wondering how @Spiritual Israelite can insert a gap into the OD. It’s a little ironic, imo.

But for hypothetical sake:
I would look for a grammatical/lexical clue that would allow me to insert a gap, without trying to completely destroy how grammar actually works. I would likely not insert the gap at 29. The Greek word for immediately, doesn’t really allow for that. I would probably put it at vs 30, as “and then” could potentially allow for a time gap, and this is also when Christs switches from consistently using “you” to “they”.

And yes, I would hold vs 15-21 to have occurred in the first century - which is consistent, grammatically and contextually.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If you believe you can insert gaps into the 70 weeks prophecy, then you don’t really have a leg to stand wondering how @Spiritual Israelite can insert a gap into the OD. It’s a little ironic, imo.

Good point. It's very ironic, imo. Except that I don't just randomly insert a gap into the OD the way he randomly inserts a gap into the 70 weeks prophecy despite there being nothing in the text of Daniel 9:24-27 itself to support doing that. In terms of a gap between what happened in 70 AD and the future return of Christ, I believe Jesus describes "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) as occurring between the time when the tribulation ended in 70 AD and the time when Jesus comes in the future at the end of this temporal age. I know that you, as a preterist, don't agree with that (and I'm not wanting to discuss that here), but at least there's something in the text that I base my view on, unlike his view of there being a gap in the 70 weeks. He can't point to any text anywhere within Daniel 9:24-27 to support that view.

 

[Zao is life]

Christian Jews still followed the law of Moses zealously and worshipped in the physical temple.

You always prove how you take what you want to see in scripture, then swallow the bones produced in your own mind and spit out the fish given in the Word of God.

Those same Jewish believers despised Paul's teaching about the law and the temple of stones - see Acts 21:21 & ff.

It's the reason Paul - at the request of the elders of the church in Jerusalem, and in order to appease those same law-abiding Jewish believers - went into the temple of stones to complete a purification ritual required by the law.

In the process Paul was seen in the temple by other Jews from Asia, who then stirred up the crowd against Paul - again accusing him of "defiling" that 'holy' place, and Paul was almost killed because of it.

Paul lost his freedom that very same day and remained under arrest for the rest of his life - all because he agreed to go into that temple to undergo a purification ritual in order to appease the law-abiding Jewish believers who despised Paul's teaching regarding the law and the temple of stones.

That temple was not considered holy by God following the death of Christ, and the daily sacrifices for sin being performed in it after Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sins, were abominations.

(STAFF EDITED)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No it's not my position. That first question obviously pertained to what Christ said in Matthew 24:2. My view is that Luke 21, not Matthew 24 nor Mark 13, answered this. The way I look at it, as long as it got answered, that is what counts. Luke's account focused on that particular answer, Matthew and Mark's account didn't.

I would consider what you are saying here to be viable only if Matthew and Mark both knew that Luke would record Jesus's answer to the first question. But, that is not something they would have known. So, the idea that Matthew and Mark did not bother to record Jesus's answer to that question because they knew Luke would do so, is not a valid explanation for them supposedly not recording Christ's answer to that question. So, try again. What would be their reason for not recording His answer to the disciples' first question?

In Luke 21, in my view, there is a gap of at least 2000 years between verse 20 and the coming recorded in verse 27. Assuming one agrees with that, but not you of course, where do we even remotely see this same 2000 year gap in Matthew 24 between verse 15 and 30, and in Mark 13 between verse 14 and verse 26?

Obviously, not all 3 accounts of the Olivet Discourse have all of the same details. If you understood that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20, then it would be easy to understand that the times of the Gentiles occur between what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 and the future coming of Christ at the end of the age. But, you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage for no good reason. Just like you deny that Matthew and Mark recorded Jesus's answer to the disciples first question for no good reason.

 

[TribulationSigns]

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?

Ahem… so let me get this straight.


You’re absolutely confident that Matthew 24:1–2 must be taken strictly literal just because Christ did not correct his disciples… and somehow that same rigid literalism conveniently carries through the entire chapter?


Interesting.


So tell me—are we still talking about ethnic Jews and a tiny patch of real estate called Judea between the Cross and 70 AD? Or did Christ at some point shift to speaking about His New Covenant people? Or is that transition just… invisible?


Let’s test your consistency.

1. “Wars and rumors of wars”—which specific wars? Which nations? Which kingdoms? And the famines, pestilences, earthquakes—care to list the exact fulfillments? Or are we just nodding confidently and moving on?
2. The “false prophets”—who exactly were they? And who, precisely, did they deceive?
3. “Iniquity shall abound”—how? Why does the love of many grow cold? Or is that just poetic filler?
4. The Gospel preached in all the world as a witness to all nations—before the end comes.
   All nations… by 70 AD? Really?
5. The “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Book of Daniel—what is it? And what is this “holy place”?
   (And yes, “let the reader understand”… which suggests this might require more than surface-level literalism like you!)
6. Which “Judaea” are we talking about—geographical only, or something deeper?
7. What “mountains” are people fleeing to?
8. The “housetop”—literal rooftop logistics, or something else?
9. The “field,” the “clothes”—are we still in strictly physical terms here?
10. Those “with child”—why such urgency? What exactly makes those days uniquely unbearable?
11. “Pray your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath”—why? What’s the actual limitation here?
12. A “great tribulation” unlike anything before or after—
    Are we seriously saying 70 AD tops all human history? Nothing worse before… nothing worse after?
13. “Days shortened for the elect’s sake”—what “flesh” is being preserved here?
14. “Lo, here is Christ”—who’s saying this? Where?
15. False Christs and prophets performing signs and wonders capable of deceiving the elect—
    Before 70 AD? Really?
16. “Desert” and “secret chambers”—what are these? Why the warning?
17. Lightning from east to west—
    If you’re claiming this is fulfilled in 70 AD, that explanation collapses pretty fast, doesn’t it?
18. Sun darkened, moon not giving light, stars falling, powers of heaven shaken—
    Are we saying this already happened? Or are we quietly redefining everything as metaphor now?

So here’s the real question:

If you insist that the disciples’ misunderstanding in verse 1–2 didn’t need correction—and that everything must be read literally—are you prepared to apply that same standard consistently to the rest of the chapter?

Or does “literal” only apply when it’s convenient?”

 

[Zao is life]

When Jesus spoke those words 2 Thessalonians 2:4 hadn't even been written yet.

When Jesus spoke those words the apostles:-

- still did not know about Jesus' 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' 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 anything about the New Testament Temple yet.

But 'little annoying facts' are not going to change @claninja 's mind because he has chosen his false Preterist doctrine above scripture and above facts and above what the entire New Testament teaches us about the Old Covenant temple of stone vs the New Covenant Temple following the day of Pentecost,

so I won't keep repeating it to him - because then he just keeps repeating his same arguments that have already been proved completely flawed.

Jesus had not told the apostles anything about the New Testament Temple yet and it's completely obvious in scripture that the apostles did not understand anything that day yet about just how meaningless and devoid of significance the temple of stones had already just become

- because Christ's words in the temple of stone on the Temple Mount to the scribes and Pharisees were already an announcement issued by decree - which was confirmed when the veil in that temple of stone was torn in two. It's part of the gospel message.

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.

In the Bible there is no such thing as an abomination of desolation in the holy place in the case of a building containing a sanctuary that is not the sanctuary of God, and is not holy.

@Spiritual Israelite cannot even talk to you or anyone else about it without a list of insults - written about in scripture as the opposite of the fruit of the Spirit - coming out of his mouth almost every time - words that betray an opinion produced in a fleshly mind. No point in attempting to get him to understand spiritual things that are way beyond his shallow understanding of scripture, either

He just gets louder and louder with arguments worded in a way in which he tries to show his lack of the Spirit and lack of spiritual discernment produced by fleshly talk

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.

Good points. I've notice that myself - especially because Luke records Jesus using those same phrases speaking about the end of the age and time of His return - but when He was on His way to Jerusalem, not on the Mount of Olives.

Despite the fact that it flies against the gospel and the rest of scripture, in their ignorance they think they have 'biblical' evidence that the temple of stone was holy in 70 AD and there was an abomination of desolation in "the holy place" in 70 AD just because no one can say for sure why it was specifically the believers in Judea who were told to flee to the mountains when they see it. They don't even realize just how cringe-worthy that sort of logic is.

Jesus wasn't going to tell those in New Jersey to flee to the mountains because there was no New Jersey, and He wasn't speaking to anyone at the time except His Jewish disciples who were in Judea with Him - where He was. I don't know what words He was supposed to use. Imagine their confusion if He'd said the believers in Chicago and Sydney and Taipei must flee to the mountains when they see the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

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.

Of course Jesus knew about what Paul would only be given the knowledge of much later.

But these Preterists hear and believe only in the words of the disciples of Jesus asked in ignorance - but they do not hear or believe in the words of Jesus' when He replies - so they interpret everything He says in His replies to be talking about things created by the bones in their own heads while they spit out the fish of the Word of God.

Copy @TribulationSigns

 

[grafted branch]

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. I would say a place can’t be both holy and unholy at the same time. Which to me means the AOD stands in an unholy place that was once holy.

If someone were to say the dirt is standing in the clean room, we would know the room is not clean. If that room has always been referred to as “the clean room” then that sentence makes sense, else it should’ve been stated as the dirt is standing in the room which is now dirty. It’s the dirt itself that makes the room dirty.

It seems reasonable to say that the AOD stands in a place that has always been referred to as “the holy place”. As you point out Matthew 24:15 doesn’t say the AOD stands in the unholy place.

Do you see the AOD standing in a place that continues to remain holy while the AOD stands in it?

 

[claninja]

No it's not my position. That first question obviously pertained to what Christ said in Matthew 24:2. My view is that Luke 21, not Matthew 24 nor Mark 13, answered this. The way I look at it, as long as it got answered, that is what counts. Luke's account focused on that particular answer, Matthew and Mark's account didn't.


I realize you don't agree that the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse. But let's assume it is, regardless. Therefore, the following assumes the 2nd coming is recorded in the Discourse.

In Luke 21, in my view, there is a gap of at least 2000 years between verse 20 and the coming recorded in verse 27. Assuming one agrees with that, but not you of course, where do we even remotely see this same 2000 year gap in Matthew 24 between verse 15 and 30, and in Mark 13 between verse 14 and verse 26?

In Luke 21 this gap is explained per the following--And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


In my view that is meaning from 70 AD up until the 2nd coming in the end of this age. In Luke 21 there is zero mention of anything immediately following something prior. Those of us who are not Preterists nor are aligned with Preterist thinking, would insist the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled immediately followed the fall of Jerusalem.

IMO, the times of the Gentiles began with the fall of Jerusalem and end with the ending of the 42 month reign of that beast. IOW, per the Luke 21 account, we are at the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. Per the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts we are at the end of the times of the Gentiles, Matthew 24:15-26 representing the final 42 months of it.

And that Luke 21:25-26, Matthew 24:29, and Mark 13:24-25 are all meaning the 6th seal recorded in Revelation 6. And that the 2nd coming soon follows. Right or wrong, this is basically how I tend to see some of this. Maybe I'm correct about some of it but not all of it. Or maybe I'm correct about all of it. Or maybe I'm correct about none of it. Whichever it might be, once again, it's how I tend to see and reason some of these things. I will say this, though. The chance of me not being correct about any of it is zero. Since it is absurd that I'm not at least correct that there is a gap of at least 2000 years between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27. That assuming Christ returns sometime soon.

So your position is not that Jesus ignored it, but that Matthew ignored it?

 

[claninja]

Ahem… so let me get this straight.


You’re absolutely confident that Matthew 24:1–2 must be taken strictly literal just because Christ did not correct his disciples… and somehow that same rigid literalism conveniently carries through the entire chapter?


Interesting.


So tell me—are we still talking about ethnic Jews and a tiny patch of real estate called Judea between the Cross and 70 AD? Or did Christ at some point shift to speaking about His New Covenant people? Or is that transition just… invisible?


Let’s test your consistency.

1. “Wars and rumors of wars”—which specific wars? Which nations? Which kingdoms? And the famines, pestilences, earthquakes—care to list the exact fulfillments? Or are we just nodding confidently and moving on?
2. The “false prophets”—who exactly were they? And who, precisely, did they deceive?
3. “Iniquity shall abound”—how? Why does the love of many grow cold? Or is that just poetic filler?
4. The Gospel preached in all the world as a witness to all nations—before the end comes.
   All nations… by 70 AD? Really?
5. The “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Book of Daniel—what is it? And what is this “holy place”?
   (And yes, “let the reader understand”… which suggests this might require more than surface-level literalism like you!)
6. Which “Judaea” are we talking about—geographical only, or something deeper?
7. What “mountains” are people fleeing to?
8. The “housetop”—literal rooftop logistics, or something else?
9. The “field,” the “clothes”—are we still in strictly physical terms here?
10. Those “with child”—why such urgency? What exactly makes those days uniquely unbearable?
11. “Pray your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath”—why? What’s the actual limitation here?
12. A “great tribulation” unlike anything before or after—
    Are we seriously saying 70 AD tops all human history? Nothing worse before… nothing worse after?
13. “Days shortened for the elect’s sake”—what “flesh” is being preserved here?
14. “Lo, here is Christ”—who’s saying this? Where?
15. False Christs and prophets performing signs and wonders capable of deceiving the elect—
    Before 70 AD? Really?
16. “Desert” and “secret chambers”—what are these? Why the warning?
17. Lightning from east to west—
    If you’re claiming this is fulfilled in 70 AD, that explanation collapses pretty fast, doesn’t it?
18. Sun darkened, moon not giving light, stars falling, powers of heaven shaken—
    Are we saying this already happened? Or are we quietly redefining everything as metaphor now?

So here’s the real question:

If you insist that the disciples’ misunderstanding in verse 1–2 didn’t need correction—and that everything must be read literally—are you prepared to apply that same standard consistently to the rest of the chapter?

Or does “literal” only apply when it’s convenient?”

Nice attempt to shift the discussion, but this still doesn’t address the central issue YOU brought up

I never argued that everything in Matthew 24 must be interpreted with rigid literalism. That’s a position you introduced, not me.

YOUR claim is that the disciples misunderstood Jesus in Matthew 24.

So the question is simple:
Where does the text indicate that? Because when you previously argued that the disciples often misunderstood Jesus, every example you gave included clear textual indicators, either: 1.) Jesus correcting them directly, or 2.) The narrative clarifying the misunderstanding

That pattern is consistent across the Gospels. But in Matthew 24: There is no correction, there is no clarification, and There is no indication of confusion

So on what textual basis are you asserting misunderstanding here?

You’re asking me to accept a misunderstanding that the text itself never identifies, while your own examples elsewhere depend on the presence of explicit indicators. That’s inconsistent

 

[claninja]

You always prove how you take what you want to see in scripture, then swallow the bones produced in your own mind and spit out the fish given in the Word of God.

Those same Jewish believers despised Paul's teaching about the law and the temple of stones - see Acts 21:21 & ff.

It's the reason Paul - at the request of the elders of the church in Jerusalem, and in order to appease those same law-abiding Jewish believers - went into the temple of stones to complete a purification ritual required by the law.

In the process Paul was seen in the temple by other Jews from Asia, who then stirred up the crowd against Paul - again accusing him of "defiling" that 'holy' place, and Paul was almost killed because of it.

Paul lost his freedom that very same day and remained under arrest for the rest of his life - all because he agreed to go into that temple to undergo a purification ritual in order to appease the law-abiding Jewish believers who despised Paul's teaching regarding the law and the temple of stones.

That temple was not considered holy by God following the death of Christ, and the daily sacrifices for sin being performed in it after Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sins, were abominations.

You're an unbeliever of the one and only true gospel.

Would the temple have been called the holy place prior to the death of Christ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Nice attempt to shift the discussion, but this still doesn’t address the central issue YOU brought up

Yes. It does. It all related.

I never argued that everything in Matthew 24 must be interpreted with rigid literalism.

Really, tell us, which part of Matthew 24 you think cannot be interpreted rigid literal? Look at questions again.

That’s a position you introduced, not me.

And...?

YOUR claim is that the disciples misunderstood Jesus in Matthew 24.

Yes. They did.

So the question is simple:
Where does the text indicate that? Because when you previously argued that the disciples often misunderstood Jesus, every example you gave included clear textual indicators, either: 1.) Jesus correcting them directly, or 2.) The narrative clarifying the misunderstanding

I already explained it. Read my previous post again.

That pattern is consistent across the Gospels. But in Matthew 24: There is no correction, there is no clarification, and There is no indication of confusion

I already explained it.

So on what textual basis are you asserting misunderstanding here?

I already explained it.

You’re asking me to accept a misunderstanding that the text itself never identifies, while your own examples elsewhere depend on the presence of explicit indicators. That’s inconsistent

It is part of the same chapter, Matthew 24. Let’s test your consistency.

1. “Wars and rumors of wars”—which specific wars? Which nations? Which kingdoms? And the famines, pestilences, earthquakes—care to list the exact fulfillments? Or are we just nodding confidently and moving on?
2. The “false prophets”—who exactly were they? And who, precisely, did they deceive?
3. “Iniquity shall abound”—how? Why does the love of many grow cold? Or is that just poetic filler?
4. The Gospel preached in all the world as a witness to all nations—before the end comes.
   All nations… by 70 AD? Really?
5. The “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Book of Daniel—what is it? And what is this “holy place”?
   (And yes, “let the reader understand”… which suggests this might require more than surface-level literalism like you!)
6. Which “Judaea” are we talking about—geographical only, or something deeper?
7. What “mountains” are people fleeing to?
8. The “housetop”—literal rooftop logistics, or something else?
9. The “field,” the “clothes”—are we still in strictly physical terms here?
10. Those “with child”—why such urgency? What exactly makes those days uniquely unbearable?
11. “Pray your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath”—why? What’s the actual limitation here?
12. A “great tribulation” unlike anything before or after—
    Are we seriously saying 70 AD tops all human history? Nothing worse before… nothing worse after?
13. “Days shortened for the elect’s sake”—what “flesh” is being preserved here?
14. “Lo, here is Christ”—who’s saying this? Where?
15. False Christs and prophets performing signs and wonders capable of deceiving the elect—
    Before 70 AD? Really?
16. “Desert” and “secret chambers”—what are these? Why the warning?
17. Lightning from east to west—
    If you’re claiming this is fulfilled in 70 AD, that explanation collapses pretty fast, doesn’t it?
18. Sun darkened, moon not giving light, stars falling, powers of heaven shaken—
    Are we saying this already happened? Or are we quietly redefining everything as metaphor now?

 

[covenantee]

Yes. It does. It all related.



Really, tell us, which part of Matthew 24 you think cannot be interpreted rigid literal? Look at questions again.



And...?



Yes. They did.



I already explained it. Read my previous post again.



I already explained it.



I already explained it.



It is part of the same chapter, Matthew 24. Let’s test your consistency.

1. “Wars and rumors of wars”—which specific wars? Which nations? Which kingdoms? And the famines, pestilences, earthquakes—care to list the exact fulfillments? Or are we just nodding confidently and moving on?
2. The “false prophets”—who exactly were they? And who, precisely, did they deceive?
3. “Iniquity shall abound”—how? Why does the love of many grow cold? Or is that just poetic filler?
4. The Gospel preached in all the world as a witness to all nations—before the end comes.
   All nations… by 70 AD? Really?
5. The “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Book of Daniel—what is it? And what is this “holy place”?
   (And yes, “let the reader understand”… which suggests this might require more than surface-level literalism like you!)
6. Which “Judaea” are we talking about—geographical only, or something deeper?
7. What “mountains” are people fleeing to?
8. The “housetop”—literal rooftop logistics, or something else?
9. The “field,” the “clothes”—are we still in strictly physical terms here?
10. Those “with child”—why such urgency? What exactly makes those days uniquely unbearable?
11. “Pray your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath”—why? What’s the actual limitation here?
12. A “great tribulation” unlike anything before or after—
    Are we seriously saying 70 AD tops all human history? Nothing worse before… nothing worse after?
13. “Days shortened for the elect’s sake”—what “flesh” is being preserved here?
14. “Lo, here is Christ”—who’s saying this? Where?
15. False Christs and prophets performing signs and wonders capable of deceiving the elect—
    Before 70 AD? Really?
16. “Desert” and “secret chambers”—what are these? Why the warning?
17. Lightning from east to west—
    If you’re claiming this is fulfilled in 70 AD, that explanation collapses pretty fast, doesn’t it?
18. Sun darkened, moon not giving light, stars falling, powers of heaven shaken—
    Are we saying this already happened? Or are we quietly redefining everything as metaphor now?

DECEIVERS

Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them” (21:8).

We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.

Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.

According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.

An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”

Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.

Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.

These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[covenantee]

FAMINES, PESTILENCES, EARTHQUAKES

Matthew: “And there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (24:7, 8).
Mark: “And there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles. These are the beginning of sorrows” (13:8).
Luke: “And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pestilences, and fearful sights” (21:11).

The Bible records that there was famine “throughout all the world. . . in the days of Claudius Caesar” (Acts 11:28). Judea was especially hard hit by famine. “The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethern which dwelt in Judaea” (verse 29). Paul’s instructions concerning this “collection [of fruit] for the saints” is recorded in First Corinthians 16:1-5; Rom. 15:25-28.

Historians such as Suetonius and others mention famine during those years. Tacitus speaks of a “Failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon.” Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Home, Judea, and Greece. Yes, there were famines in those years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Along with famines, Jesus mentioned pestilences; that is plagues, the spread of disease, epidemics. Famine and pestilence, of course, go hand in hand. When people do not have proper food or insufficient food, pestilence results. Suetonius wrote of “pestilence” at Home in the days of Nero which was so severe that “within the space of one autumn there died no less than 30,000 persons.” Josephus records that pestilences raged in Babylonia in A.D. 40. Tacitus tells of pestilences in Italy in A. D. 66. Yes, there were pestilences in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this period, Jesus said there would also be earthquakes in many places. Tacitus mentions earthquakes at Rome. He wrote that “frequent earthquakes occured, by which many houses were thrown down” and that “twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake.”

Seneca, writing in the year 58 A. D., said: “How often have cities of Asia and Achaea fallen with one fatal shock! how many cities have been swallowed up in Syria! how many in Macedonia! how often has Cyprus been wasted by this calamity! how often has Paphos become a ruin! News has often been brought us of the demolition of whole cities at once.” He mentions the earthquake at Campania during the reign of Nero. In 60 A. D., Hierapous, Colosse, and Laodicea were overthrown — Laodocia being so self-sufficient that it recovered without the Imperial aid furnished other cities. In 63 A. D., the city of Pompeii was greatly damaged by earthquake. There were earthquakes in Crete, Apamea, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, and Judea. Earthquakes in divers places.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow