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

[covenantee]

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[covenantee]

PERSECUTION AGAINST THE DISCIPLES

Matthew: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.., And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (24:9-12).

Mark: "They shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony.., whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost... And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (13:9-13).

Luke: "They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony...I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist...and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (21:12-17).

The book of Acts gives a complete account of how the disciples were persecuted in the very ways Jesus had predicted. Let us take, for example, Acts 4: "And they laid hands on them [Peter and John], and put them in prison" (verse 3). They were brought before "rulers" (verses 5-7). And it turned into an opportunity to testify. Peter explained that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (verse 12). They were given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay, for the men of the council "marveled" (verse 13). They were then commanded "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (verse 18). As Jesus had said, they were hated for his name's sake.

The same things are seen in Acts 5. Certain authorities "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (verse 18). Later they were brought "before the council" (verse 27) and told to answer for continuing to teach in the name of Jesus (verse 28). Again they had opportunity to testify (verses 29-32). They were "beaten" (verse 40). As they departed from the "council", they rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer for his name"(verse 41).

Or take Acts 6. There arose certain ones of the "synagogue" that disputed with Steven. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke" (verses 9,10). Persecution resulted and he was brought into the "council " and questioned (verse 12). Again there was the opportunity to testify, the words of that testimony being given in Acts 7. Stephen was killed for his stand (verses 54-60). Jesus had said that some of them would be killed.

Notice Acts 8. "There was a great persecution against the church." Christians were put in "prison", but the result was that the word was preached (verses 1-4).

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were beaten and cast into "prison." But it turned into an opportunity to testify and the Philippian jailor and his family were converted as a result (verses 22-34). In Acts 21, persecution resulted in Paul being beaten, brought before rulers, before whom he testified (Acts 22). In Acts 22:19 we read that Christians were "imprisoned and beat in every Synagogue."

In Acts 24, Paul was brought before Felix, the governor, and testified. He was given a mouth of wisdom which his adversaries could not gainsay—though they obtained an orator to speak against him. Paul's words even made Felix to "tremble." In Acts 25 and 26, Paul was brought before king Agrippa, the chief captains, and the principal men of the city. He was given a mouth of wisdom, for Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (verse 28).

Jesus said the disciples would be afflicted, beaten, imprisoned; they would be hated for his name's sake and some would be killed; they would be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, for a testimony; they would be given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay. Surely these things came to pass in those years—unmistakably fulfilled in every detail.

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many ...but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt. 24:11,13). Peter, who was present when Jesus gave this prophecy (Mk. 13:3), later wrote about "false prophets" that had risen and of "many" that followed their pernicious ways (2 Peter 2). John, who also heard Jesus give this prophecy, recorded the fulfillment: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (l John 4:1). "Many deceivers are entered into the world" (2 John 7).

Paul also spoke of "false apostles, deceitful workers" (2 Cor. 11:13). He mentioned Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught false doctrines and overthrew the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). By the time of his epistle to Titus, there were "many...deceivers ...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not" (Titus 1:10, 11).

The waters of truth were muddied by betrayals, false prophets, iniquity, and the love of many waxing cold.

Source: "Great Prophecies of the Bible" by Ralph Woodrow

 

[covenantee]

GOSPEL TO BE PREACHED TO THE NATIONS

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then [not until then] shall the end come" (Mt. 24:14). Unless we take this verse clear out of its setting, "the end" in view here is the end or destruction which was to come upon Jerusalem and the temple. This was the question that Jesus was answering in the verses before, and the verses that follow are still speaking about Jerusalem and Judea. Jerusalem would be destroyed, but "first" the gospel would be preached unto all nations (Mk. 13:10).

It was a tremendous prophecy. Picture the scene. Here on the mount of Olives, Jesus was speaking these words to seemingly insignificant men. Who would have supposed that the names of these humble men would become known around the world and that even in our day—almost 2,000 years later—the seeds of truth that they planted would still be producing fruit? Who would have supposed that this unpopular gospel that Christ committed to these men would ever spread beyond that immediate area? Such a vast preaching program unto all nations seemed almost impossible of fulfillment. But it was fulfilled, and in a very real sense the gospel did go to all nations before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D..

On the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, there were present in Jerusalem "devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). They heard the gospel preached by Peter and 3,000 were converted that day. Many of these, no doubt, returned to their various countries and preached the gospel.

Later when persecution came against the church, the believers at Jerusalem were scattered and "went every where preaching the word", throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1,4). Philip took the message to the city of Samaria with great results (verses 5-8). Later he was directed to a high ranking government official from Ethiopia who was gloriously converted (verses 26-40). It is believed that this man took the message to the continent of Africa and many were converted because of his influential testimony.

Peter took the message to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, an event that was a turning point in the missionary activities of the church (Acts 10, 11). The book of Acts gives a sketch of the mighty missionary work that advanced rapidly.

The message spread to Rome. By the time of Nero, the Christians had grown so numerous that they aroused the jealousy of the government. The story of the great fire in Rome in 64 A. D. —for which the Christians were falsely blamed—is well known. In writing to the Christians at Rome, Paul opens his epistle by saying, "Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8), and his closing words talk about the gospel as having been "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (16:26).

Concerning even far away England, Newton says: "There is absolute certainty that Christianity was planted in this country in the days of the apostles, before the destruction of Jerusalem." Eusebius and also Theodoret inform us that the apostles preached the gospel in all the world and some of them "passed beyond the ocean to the Britannic isles."

By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians, he could say: 'The gospel...is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:6). Likewise, in verse 23, he mentions '"the gospel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."

By 70 A. D., the gospel had gone forth to the world for a witness. No longer was God's message to man confined to one nation or race.


Source: "Great Prophecies of the Bible" by Ralph Woodrow

 

[Zao is life]

All generations of Christians who have ears to hear the words of Jesus and the apostles' doctrine understand that Jesus answered the disciples' question on the Mount of Olives only by talking to them about the tribulation that the living stones of the New Covenant Temple would experience in the first century, BEFORE the birth-pain signs would begin to occur (Luke 21:12-24 - a prophecy which all the first century history written in Post # 162 attests to);

and again at the end of the age FOLLOWING the time the birth pain signs had begun to occur (Matthew 24:6 & ff)

- and (as other statements Jesus made at other times and as the letters of the apostles confirm), the disciples of Jesus could expect in any century in-between

- and by telling them about a coming time when the holy place (the New Covenant Temple) would be defiled by the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel

- which Jesus spoke about in the context of talking about the tribulation His disciples would experience at the end of the age and time of His return.

Following the Day of Pentecost, the apostles and all generations of Christians taught by the apostles' doctrine (those who have ears to hear the words of Jesus and the apostles' doctrine) understand that the holy place (the Holy sanctuary of God) ceased having anything to do with the city of Jerusalem and the temple of stones in it - from the moment Christ died on the cross and the veil in that temple of stones it was torn in two.

And despite the fact that there are many who claim to be believers in the gospel - and yet hate facts that negate the bones created in their own heads while they spit out the fish of the Word of God, the following encyclopedic definition of the phrase "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is what Jesus' first century Jewish audience would have immediately understood by those words:

============================================================​

'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."

============================================================​

It's written about in Daniel 8:11; and Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12.

Those who hate facts ignore the fact that (unlike the abominations spoken of in Daniel 9:27), the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel had nothing to do with the destruction of either Jerusalem or the 2nd temple

- but it had everything to do with an idol in the 2nd temple and the temporary suspension of its Godly and God-given sacrifices.

The only way such a thing can occur in the New Covenant Temple is if an idol in it begins to be worshiped, and communion be made in honor of the idol, instead of Christ - which is what Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2 suggests is going to happen.

As can be seen by @covenantee 's latest confused monologues, those who hate facts and prefer the bones they have created in their own minds while they spit out the fish of the Word of God also ignore the fact that Matthew recorded Jesus using the exact same phrases that Luke recorded Jesus using

- also in the context of speaking about the end of the age and the time of His return:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." (Matthew 24:15-18).

Luke had recorded Jesus saying the same thing using the same phrases when talking about the end of the age and time of His return while Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem:

"For just like the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day."

"Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed.";

"On that day, anyone who is on the roof, with his goods in the house, must not come down to take them away, and likewise the person in the field must not turn back.

Remember Lot's wife!" (Luke 17:24 & 28-37).

But Preterists - and those who say they are not Preterists yet agree with their theology regarding Jesus' Mount of Olives discourse - hear and believe only in the words of the disciples of Jesus - which were asked in ignorance of the New Covenant which was soon to come

- but they do not hear or believe in the words of Jesus and the gospel of the New Covenant in Jesus' reply.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

Exactly. If the temple they were calling the holy place was still the holy place till it was destroyed (as Preterists claim), then the beef of the unbelieving Jews with Stephen and later with Paul regarding what Stephen and Paul said about God not dwelling in a sanctuary made with human hands, would have been legit.

 

[claninja]

I already explained it. Read my previous post again.

you’ve never explained “how you know” they misunderstood in Matthew 24.

you have explained how “you know” they misunderstood in other contexts by providing several fantastic examples with clear textual indicators where either the audience is corrected by Jesus or the the misunderstanding is explained the narrative. Effectively demonstrating that the gospels consistently provide correction or explanation when the audience misunderstood.

But as to Matthew 24, you’ve never explained “how you know”. You argue there is a pattern of the disciples misunderstanding, but then you seem to ignore the very pattern from your own examples, where each and everyone one of them contains clear and consistent textual indicators of misunderstanding and correction.

Right now, it seems you understand the disciples often misunderstood because the Bible tells us so, consistently and often, but then in Matthew 24 you claim they misunderstood, not because the Bible tells us so, but because you say so.

As to your other questions, I’ll continue to ignore those deflections until you can address how “you know”. If you don’t actually know, but must insert that upon the passage so as to fit your theological framework, then just say so, and I’ll move on.

 

[Davidpt]

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

You are making a straw man argument. For example, Matthew 24:30. @claninja clearly does not take that verse in the literal sense, nor does he take verse 29 in the literal sense. As to me, I do take verse 30 in the literal sense, but I don't take verse 29 in the literal sense. All of us take some things in the literal sense, and take some things in another sense, including you. Unless you want to deny that the coming in verse 30, for example, is a literal bodily coming of Christ in the end of this age.

 

[Davidpt]

Exactly. If the temple they were calling the holy place was still the holy place till it was destroyed (as Preterists claim), then the beef of the unbelieving Jews with Stephen and later with Paul regarding what Stephen and Paul said about God not dwelling in a sanctuary made with human hands, would have been legit.

Some argue, that because the temple was still the holy place when Christ spoke His words pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that this proves the 2nd temple is meant. Except these interpreters don't fully comprehend how prophecy works. What counts is this. When the prophecy is fulfilled, is the temple still the holy place? IOW, from the time Christ spoke those words until the time the prophecy is fulfilled, is there anything that would have rendered the 2nd temple no longer the holy place in the meantime?

Even if verse 15 involved 70 AD, though I adamantly disagree it did, so what? It still wouldn't be the holy place because the 3rd temple is the holy place once Christ died and rose. And since the 3rd temple is the holy place, and continues to be the holy place even now, but not as of the 2nd temple's destruction, but as of Christ's death and resurrection, this tells any objective person that the first century involving 70 AD can't be meant.

Some of these interpreters want the 2nd temple to no longer be the holy place once Christ died and rose. And that they want the 2nd temple to contiunue being the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. How can they not see that that is blatantly contradictory? How can both be true at the same time?

 

[covenantee]

Even if verse 15 involved 70 AD

Verse 16 involved 70 AD and was predicated upon verse 15, thus verse 15 involved 70 AD.

 

[Davidpt]

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 look where I place the gap. I place it after this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Since it is absurd, and borders on blasphemy to apply the next part to what Christ accomplished on the cross---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


IOW, after Christ goes to the cross the remainder of the 70th week is put on hold until the final days of this age and is involving the 42 month reign of the beast. Therefore, the gap I place is legit. The gap @Spiritual Israelite places in Matthew 24 is not legit. And you and I both know it. But, since @Spiritual Israelite agrees with you about verses 15-21, and that I don't, you are likely going to side with him on this issue, regardless you know he is wrong.

And speaking of gaps. I insist there is at least a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27. And guess what? I would bet that @Spiritual Israelite agrees. Clearly then, there are gaps at times. But even so, there obviously isn't one after verse 21 in Matthew 24 though, involving at least 2000 years. If there was, the text would plainly and clearly make mention of another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days meant in verse 21, except we all know, including @Spiritual Israelite, the text never inserts another tribulation of days following the tribulation of days meant in verse 21.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Where in any of this is there a mention of another tribulation of days? Why should anyone think that none of these verses belong with verses 15-21? These verses are giving us a glimpse into what it will be like during the days involving verses 15-21. Which includes, for example---and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Where anyone that has read the NT would be connecting with 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, for instance. IOW, verses 15-21 symbolize the 42 month reign of the beast. And that the 42 month reign of the beast equals great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

There is no way that these verses are involving 2000 years, since it is absurd, for example, that the past 2000 years have been involving this--and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.. Therefore, these verses require a short period of time, not a lengthy period of time, such as 2 thousand years. And besides, if these verses are connected with 2 Thessalonian 2, and clearly they are, there is no one that I know of that takes anything in 2 Thessalonians 2 to be involving 2000 years. Most interpreters except for Preterists, place 2 Thessalonians 2 in the final days of this age. Even Amils do.

Edited to add the following:

The Greek word behind 'then' (tote) is typically sequential, not something that signals a long, undefined gap. In a narrative like this, it usually means---'at that time / during that same period'

So when you read---Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ....

the most straightforward reading is----during that same time of tribulation just described in verses 15–21, these deceptions will occur.

And one is to believe that if verses 23-28 are involving verses 15-21, and that verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD, but that verses 23-28 are involving 2 Thessalonians 2, this means 2 Thessalonians 2 is not future still, it was fulfilled during the days leading up to 70 AD? Granted, Preterists likely believe that. But why would anybody that takes the coming in verse 30 to be meaning the 2nd coming, believe it as well? Oh, I almost forgot, some of these insist verses 23-28 are not meaning during verses 15-21. But if they are, there you go then, since it would undeniably mean 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled during the days leading up to 70 AD if verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

Since it is absurd, and borders on blasphemy to apply the next part to what Christ accomplished on the cross---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The grammatical referent of "he" resolves to "Messiah the Prince".

"He" did indeed make "it" desolate, "it" resolving to the "city" or the "sanctuary" and ultimately both.

"Messiah the Prince" was the Commander and Controller of the "people of the prince", the Romans and Jews, who desolated the and destroyed "the city and the sanctuary.

Nothing absurd at all.

 

[Davidpt]

The grammatical referent of "he" resolves to "Messiah the Prince".

"He" did indeed make "it" desolate, "it" resolving to the "city" or the "sanctuary" and ultimately both.

"Messiah the Prince" was the commander and controller of the "people of the prince", the Romans and Jews, who desolated the and destroyed "the city and the sanctuary.

Nothing absurd at all.

Are you then saying that the last half of verse 27 was fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross? Because if you are not, that obviously implies a gap. A gap is a gap regardless of the length of time involved. Clearly, verse 27, every single word of it is pertaining to the 70th week. None of it is pertaining to anything outside of the 70th week. When Christ went to the cross that only covers the 1st half. But what about the 2nd half? Why would the text be silent about that?

 

[Davidpt]

Verse 16 involved 70 AD and was predicated upon verse 15, thus verse 15 involved 70 AD.

That would be true if the only sense that verse 16 can be understood in is the literal sense. Except I'm not convinced of that.

 

[covenantee]

Are you then saying that the last half of verse 27 was fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross? Because if you are not, that obviously implies a gap. A gap is a gap regardless of the length of time involved. Clearly, verse 27, every single word of it is pertaining to the 70th week. None of it is pertaining to anything outside of the 70th week. When Christ went to the cross that only covers the 1st half. But what about the 2nd half? Why would the text be silent about that?

Yes, there's a gap, which corresponds to the gap in Matthew 24 between when Jesus, in 30 AD, prophesied the desolation of Jerusalem, and when, in 70 AD, that desolation occurred.

Why is that a problem?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

LOL! Have you never read your own posts that are filled with insults and "lack of the Spirit and lack of spiritual discernment produced by fleshly talk"? What a total hypocrite you are. No self awareness whatsoever.

 

[covenantee]

That would be true if the only sense that verse 16 can be understood in is the literal sense. Except I'm not convinced of that.

Verse 16 occurred in the literal sense when the Judaean Christians fled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Some argue, that because the temple was still the holy place when Christ spoke His words pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that this proves the 2nd temple is meant. Except these interpreters don't fully comprehend how prophecy works. What counts is this. When the prophecy is fulfilled, is the temple still the holy place? IOW, from the time Christ spoke those words until the time the prophecy is fulfilled, is there anything that would have rendered the 2nd temple no longer the holy place in the meantime?

Show me anything in scripture which supports your claim here about how prophecy is supposedly supposed to work. Where does scripture itself demand that when a certain place is referenced in relation to a prophecy, it must still be known by the same name as it was when the prophecy was given? Nowhere. That is just a rule that you made up. Why should any of us care about your man-made rules for interpreting prophecies in scripture? I sure don't. Jesus was saying when they saw the abomination of desolation stand in what was the holy place at that time He was speaking, then those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains. There is nothing that Jesus said which would demand that what was considered the holy place while He was giving the prophecy would still have to be called the holy place when the prophecy was fulfilled.

Let's say there was a church in your city called The Holy Place Church. If I told you that it was prophesied that someone was going to destroy The Holy Place Church some time before the end of the year. Let's say the church then changed its name to The Unholy Place Church and the church was later destroyed before the end of the year just as was prophesied, does that mean the prophecy wasn't fulfilled because the church was no longer called The Holy Place Church when it was destroyed?

 

[Zao is life]

The grammatical referent of "he" resolves to "Messiah the Prince".

"He" did indeed make "it" desolate, "it" resolving to the "city" or the "sanctuary" and ultimately both.

"Messiah the Prince" was the Commander and Controller of the "people of the prince", the Romans and Jews, who desolated the and destroyed "the city and the sanctuary.

Nothing absurd at all.

Your English and your understanding of biblical prophecy and how it is written is very poor, and as a result you talk complete nonsense.

The grammatical referent of "he" in the words ""in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" resolves to the Messiah mentioned in verse 26 as being cut off.

The grammatical referent of "he" in the words "he shall make it desolate" resolves to the prince mentioned in verse 26 who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Christ was not the Commander of the Roman armies. He did not need to be. Without God's protection of the Jews the Roman armies were more than capable, equipped and well-trained enough to do the job all by themselves - and their commander was Titus, not Christ.

The theological college you get your material from is giving you very inferior material.

The only army Christ is the Commander of, is His army of believers sharing the gospel.

70 AD was not the days of Joshua.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL! Have you never read your own posts that are filled with insults and "lack of the Spirit and lack of spiritual discernment produced by fleshly talk"? What a total hypocrite you are. No self awareness whatsoever.

That red light you called to come and get me arrived and arrested you instead of me because of your multitude of repeated offenses. I only got a warning and encouragement in my expose of your false doctrine.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You are making a straw man argument.

Not at all. I am getting to the point.

For example, Matthew 24:30. @claninja clearly does not take that verse in the literal sense, nor does he take verse 29 in the literal sense. As to me, I do take verse 30 in the literal sense, but I don't take verse 29 in the literal sense. All of us take some things in the literal sense, and take some things in another sense, including you. Unless you want to deny that the coming in verse 30, for example, is a literal bodily coming of Christ in the end of this age.

The issue isn’t about which verses you feel like taking literally or symbolically. The real question is whether the disciples misunderstood Christ in the Olivet Discourse—and there’s zero evidence that they did.

They wrote exactly what Christ said. No confusion. No correction. No rewrite later. So let’s be clear: the problem isn’t with the disciples—it’s with the assumption that their immediate, surface-level understanding equals the full meaning of the prophecy.

Yes, they likely perceived it in a literal, physical sense at the time. But Scripture repeatedly shows that prophets and apostles recorded truths they didn’t fully grasp in the moment. The revelation was accurate—even if the depth of its meaning wasn’t yet fully unfolded.

So the choice is this: either claim the disciples misunderstood and Christ never corrected them—which creates a bigger problem—or accept that they recorded the prophecy faithfully while its fuller, spiritual meaning was reserved for those with discernment closer to its fulfillment.

That means this isn’t about first-century Judea or 70 AD. It’s about Christ speaking beyond their immediate frame of reference—pointing to the condition and future of His New Testament congregation, understood only when the time of fulfillment draws near.

In short: the disciples didn’t get it wrong—you’re just limiting what Christ meant to what they could immediately perceive.