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

[Spiritual Israelite]

We can do that. But since I don't have any disputes involving the first part, that the Messiah fulfills the midst of the week, I would rather spend more time focusing on how that verse ends, and if the vision and prophecy can stop, meaning the 70 weeks are fulfilled in it's entirety, before that part is even fulfilled first. In my mind consummation equals the 70 weeks concluding. And no way do I think that happened in 70 AD. Yes I realize, those who are arguing for no gaps, are not proposing the 70 weeks finished in 70 AD. They are proposing they finished 40 years earlier. But even so, if the 70 weeks can't finish until the last half of verse 27 is fulfilled first, thus a gap is implied, it makes far more sense for this gap to lead to the final days of this age, then end the vision and prophecy there, than it does for it to lead to 70 AD, then end the vision and prophecy there instead.

What you need to do is prove that a determined deadline of 70 weeks (490 years) of time for a prophecy to be fulfilled from beginning to end can be paused. Like other futurists, you are not understanding what it means for the 70 weeks to be determined. That means that 70 continuous weeks (490 years) were determined by God to be a continuous time period during which the prophecy would be fulfilled by the time that time period finished. So far, you have provided zero evidence to indicate that there could be a gap or pause in any of the 70 weeks. The text itself in Daniel 9:24-27 definitely does not give any such indication.

 

[CTK]

We can do that. But since I don't have any disputes involving the first part, that the Messiah fulfills the midst of the week, I would rather spend more time focusing on how that verse ends, and if the vision and prophecy can stop, meaning the 70 weeks are fulfilled in it's entirety, before that part is even fulfilled first. In my mind consummation equals the 70 weeks concluding. And no way do I think that happened in 70 AD. Yes I realize, those who are arguing for no gaps, are not proposing the 70 weeks finished in 70 AD. They are proposing they finished 40 years earlier. But even so, if the 70 weeks can't finish until the last half of verse 27 is fulfilled first, thus a gap is implied, it makes far more sense for this gap to lead to the final days of this age, then end the vision and prophecy there, than it does for it to lead to 70 AD, then end the vision and prophecy there instead.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I believe I have talked about the completion / unfinished business relating to the 70 weeks in #250 above. Let me know if that is what you are talking about and if that answers your concern. Thanks.

 

[William Barton]

The Jews rebelled in 70 A.D. The Romans put down the rebellion and literally tore down every stone of the temple (Matthew 24:2). The temple is gone, no trace it was ever there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course I believe the 70 weeks of years prophecy has been fulfilled - completely by the Messiah. All of 9:24 was fulfilled at His coming. The 4th and final Great Jubilee cycle, which from a time perspective, runs parallel to the prophecy is unfinished because of their rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah. Same exact timeline but two separate elements to be fulfilled - the prophecy and the 4th Great Jubilee.

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you're saying here. The prophecy can't be both fulfilled and unfulfilled. Either the 70 weeks are fully completed or they are not.

I certainly agree with you that Paul clearly teaches that some Jews in his own day were coming out of blindness. That’s why he says he hopes to “save some of them” and provoke them to jealousy. So I don’t think Romans 11 can be read as only future. At the same time, Paul doesn’t stop there. A few verses later he says that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25). That word “until” suggests something ongoing in his time that has not yet reached its conclusion.

Sure. The process of Gentile believers provoking unbelieving Israelites to jealousy began in Paul's time and continues until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, which I believe is when Jesus will return.

He also speaks about a future “full inclusion” (v.12) and contrasts “some” being saved now with something greater still to come. So it seems like he’s describing a pattern:

• In his own time: some Jews are coming to faith
• Over time: this continues as Gentiles come in
• And ultimately: there is a larger turning or restoration still ahead

I don't agree with that last point. Why do you think there would be a larger turning or restoration still ahead?

So I don’t see it as either present or future—it looks like both, howecver, to me, there is a greater emphasis or focus on the end times.

I disagree. If there is a greater emphasis in Romans 11, it would be on Paul's time, but it's not just about Paul's time only.

The blindness is not total, and it is not permanent, but it is also not fully removed yet in Paul’s day.

It will never be fully removed. Paul never said that.

That’s why I think Romans 11 works well as a bridge. It explains what was already happening in Paul’s time, while also pointing forward to a more complete resolution that had not yet taken place.

What do you mean by "a more complete resolution"?

 

[CTK]

The Jews rebelled in 70 A.D. The Romans put down the rebellion and literally tore down every stone of the temple (Matthew 24:2). The temple is gone, no trace it was ever there.

I certainly agree with you, but the complete destruction of the Temple and everything else in Jerusalem was the consquence of the Jews rejecting and crucifying their Messiah - that was the abominable act that would CAUSE the desolation with His people for the next 2000 years. The destruction of the Temple was indeed terrible but the cross was.... beyond anything man could possibly do on this earth - crucify God! What do you think? Thanks.

 

[CTK]

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you're saying here. The prophecy can't be both fulfilled and unfulfilled. Either the 70 weeks are fully completed or they are not.

Okay, I am going to ask if you would please tell me why you made this statement. If we are to have a productive back and forth / give and take discussion on these difficult matters in Daniel, I am going to need to understand why you have no idea what I was saying.

Please tell me at least what you think I was saying and if possible, what your interpretations or thoughts are....thanks.

Sure. The process of Gentile believers provoking unbelieving Israelites to jealousy began in Paul's time and continues until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, which I believe is when Jesus will return.


I don't agree with that last point. Why do you think there would be a larger turning or restoration still ahead?


I disagree. If there is a greater emphasis in Romans 11, it would be on Paul's time, but it's not just about Paul's time only.


It will never be fully removed. Paul never said that.


What do you mean by "a more complete resolution"?

 

[CTK]

Some insist that Daniel's 70 weeks consist of 10 jubilee cycles. So I then submitted the following argument of mine to a reasoning AI, but not meaning Chatgpt.

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



Therefore:
* 1 Jubilee cycle = 50 years.
* 10 Jubilee cycles = 500 years.

Daniel's 70 weeks (490 years) falls exactly 10 years short of being 10 Jubilee cycles. Anyone claiming Daniel's 70 weeks are "10 Jubilee cycles" is imposing an outside mathematical theory onto the text that directly contradicts the agricultural and chronological rules laid out in Leviticus 25:8-22.

​

David, here is a cut / paste from the Daniel chapter 9 narrative. When one studies the 70 weeks of prophecy and attempts to establish the correct starting date (457BC) from the other 3 available starting dates, it demands that the study must not simply accept one of the 4 dates but confirm it with other verses or time elements in the scripture. Nothing stands alone. This not only produced a confirming date at the beginning of the prophecy but it also contributed to understanding, or at least allow one to ask questions why there is still a 3.5 year period after the Messiah was crucified in the final 7 years of the prophecy. This lead to a finding that the 3.5 years were NOT a time element that had to be fulfilled by the Messiah, as so many contend, but it speaks to the 3.5 year time element that must be fulfilled at the end of time - BY HIS PEOPLE. This complete study -both before and after the prophecy addresses whether there is truly a 3.5 year or even as many claim the entire 7 years time element that must be completed at the end of time. As I have mentioned many times, Daniel is THE most complicated book in scripture to unpack --- and get it right. Daniel connects both back to the Tanakh, to the Gospels and certainly to Revelation -and they must fit like a glove. Most of "today's accepted interpretations" of Daniel, regardless of which scholar generated them have not looked both ways when crossing the street and most simply look for events and actors within our history books to confirm their interpretations. God is not giving us a history book - but THE most complex set of prophecies anyone can imagine.

Reflective Narrative:
The Final Week, the Remaining 3.5 Years, and the Pattern of Sevens

​

THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL - ITS FOUR GREAT JUBILEE CYCLES

These 490-year cycles are indeed confirmed in the history of Israel. Israel had a national Jubilee every 490 years. The outpouring of grace at these times demonstrated God’s forgiveness of the past and His blessing for the future. Thus, God has marked the very structure of time with the revelation of the Jubilee: Forgiveness and full Salvation through the Blood of the Atoning Sacrifice (Leviticus 25). God set apart 4 distinct units of 490 years, and determined these four Great Jubilee cycles to form the backbone for Israel’s history. He fulfilled His purpose through these cycles:

1. Abraham to Exodus,​

​

2. Exodus to Dedication of Solomon’s Temple,​

​

3. From the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple to Artaxerxes decree to restore and build Jerusalem in 457 BC,​

​

4. And finally, the fourth and last Great Jubilee from Artaxerxes decree to the last week in Daniel’s 70 weeks of years prophecy totaling 490 years.​

​

When we view the seventy weeks in Book of Daniel 9 through the lens of the sabbatical pattern, a consistent structure begins to emerge—one that is built entirely on sevens.

The prophecy unfolds as 70 × 7 years (490 years), aligning with the same foundational pattern found in Leviticus—cycles of seven leading toward restoration. This is why the 490-year framework can be understood as a “Great Jubilee” pattern—not as a series of 50-year cycles, but as an extended structure of sevens. In this approach, the focus remains on the counted sequence of sevens themselves (7×7, and ultimately 70×7), which means the additional 50th year described in the Jubilee legislation does not need to be factored into the prophetic structure being followed here.

This connection also becomes important when identifying the correct starting point of the seventy weeks. Scripture records several decrees related to the restoration of Jerusalem, but not all of them fully meet the criteria described in Daniel 9:25. In this view, determining the proper starting point involves more than selecting a decree—it also requires recognizing the transition between covenant cycles. Specifically, the beginning of the seventy weeks aligns with the close of a prior 490-year cycle and the start of a fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle. This framework helps explain why the decree associated with 457 BC fits so precisely: it marks not only a historical restoration, but the opening of a new covenantal phase.

Within this structure, the final week of the seventy becomes especially significant. The last “week” is seven years—again reinforcing that God is working within a 7-based structure, not a 50-based system. In the middle of that week, after 3.5 years, the Messiah is “cut off.” His work is complete. The sacrificial system reaches its fulfillment, and the covenant is established through Him. But from the perspective of the people— “your people and your holy city”—the cycle is not yet complete. Their rejection of the Messiah interrupts their participation in the covenant timeline. As a result, the final 3.5 years of that seven-year period remain unfulfilled on their side.

This is where the consistency of God’s pattern becomes especially clear. The remaining half of the final week—3.5 years—appears again in prophetic form as 1,260 days in Book of Revelation. This is not a new or separate time structure, but the completion of the same final segment of the original 7-year period. So the pattern holds:

7 years - the final week​

​

3.5 years - the Messiah’s completed work​

​

3.5 years - the remaining portion for His people​

​

1,260 days - the same final half, expressed prophetically​

At every stage, the structure is governed by sevens and halves of seven—not by 50-year calculations. This leads to a central observation:

God is consistent in how He measures covenant time. He uses sevens—7 years, 70×7 years, and even the final 3.5 years. The completion of the cycle is not determined by Jubilee math (50s), but by the fulfillment of the pattern of sevens.​

​

In this framework, the final 3.5 years represent the completion of Israel’s role within the fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle. When that final segment is fulfilled—when they recognize the Messiah and bear witness—the full 490-year pattern reaches completion.

The Messiah fulfilled His part in the first half.​

​

His people complete their response in the second half.​

And the entire structure—from beginning to end—remains anchored in the pattern of sevens.

 

[Davidpt]

​

David, here is a cut / paste from the Daniel chapter 9 narrative. When one studies the 70 weeks of prophecy and attempts to establish the correct starting date (457BC) from the other 3 available starting dates, it demands that the study must not simply accept one of the 4 dates but confirm it with other verses or time elements in the scripture. Nothing stands alone. This not only produced a confirming date at the beginning of the prophecy but it also contributed to understanding, or at least allow one to ask questions why there is still a 3.5 year period after the Messiah was crucified in the final 7 years of the prophecy. This lead to a finding that the 3.5 years were NOT a time element that had to be fulfilled by the Messiah, as so many contend, but it speaks to the 3.5 year time element that must be fulfilled at the end of time - BY HIS PEOPLE. This complete study -both before and after the prophecy addresses whether there is truly a 3.5 year or even as many claim the entire 7 years time element that must be completed at the end of time. As I have mentioned many times, Daniel is THE most complicated book in scripture to unpack --- and get it right. Daniel connects both back to the Tanakh, to the Gospels and certainly to Revelation -and they must fit like a glove. Most of "today's accepted interpretations" of Daniel, regardless of which scholar generated them have not looked both ways when crossing the street and most simply look for events and actors within our history books to confirm their interpretations. God is not giving us a history book - but THE most complex set of prophecies anyone can imagine.

Reflective Narrative:
The Final Week, the Remaining 3.5 Years, and the Pattern of Sevens

​

THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL - ITS FOUR GREAT JUBILEE CYCLES

These 490-year cycles are indeed confirmed in the history of Israel. Israel had a national Jubilee every 490 years. The outpouring of grace at these times demonstrated God’s forgiveness of the past and His blessing for the future. Thus, God has marked the very structure of time with the revelation of the Jubilee: Forgiveness and full Salvation through the Blood of the Atoning Sacrifice (Leviticus 25). God set apart 4 distinct units of 490 years, and determined these four Great Jubilee cycles to form the backbone for Israel’s history. He fulfilled His purpose through these cycles:

1. Abraham to Exodus,​

​

2. Exodus to Dedication of Solomon’s Temple,​

​

3. From the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple to Artaxerxes decree to restore and build Jerusalem in 457 BC,​

​

4. And finally, the fourth and last Great Jubilee from Artaxerxes decree to the last week in Daniel’s 70 weeks of years prophecy totaling 490 years.​

​

When we view the seventy weeks in Book of Daniel 9 through the lens of the sabbatical pattern, a consistent structure begins to emerge—one that is built entirely on sevens.

The prophecy unfolds as 70 × 7 years (490 years), aligning with the same foundational pattern found in Leviticus—cycles of seven leading toward restoration. This is why the 490-year framework can be understood as a “Great Jubilee” pattern—not as a series of 50-year cycles, but as an extended structure of sevens. In this approach, the focus remains on the counted sequence of sevens themselves (7×7, and ultimately 70×7), which means the additional 50th year described in the Jubilee legislation does not need to be factored into the prophetic structure being followed here.

This connection also becomes important when identifying the correct starting point of the seventy weeks. Scripture records several decrees related to the restoration of Jerusalem, but not all of them fully meet the criteria described in Daniel 9:25. In this view, determining the proper starting point involves more than selecting a decree—it also requires recognizing the transition between covenant cycles. Specifically, the beginning of the seventy weeks aligns with the close of a prior 490-year cycle and the start of a fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle. This framework helps explain why the decree associated with 457 BC fits so precisely: it marks not only a historical restoration, but the opening of a new covenantal phase.

Within this structure, the final week of the seventy becomes especially significant. The last “week” is seven years—again reinforcing that God is working within a 7-based structure, not a 50-based system. In the middle of that week, after 3.5 years, the Messiah is “cut off.” His work is complete. The sacrificial system reaches its fulfillment, and the covenant is established through Him. But from the perspective of the people— “your people and your holy city”—the cycle is not yet complete. Their rejection of the Messiah interrupts their participation in the covenant timeline. As a result, the final 3.5 years of that seven-year period remain unfulfilled on their side.

This is where the consistency of God’s pattern becomes especially clear. The remaining half of the final week—3.5 years—appears again in prophetic form as 1,260 days in Book of Revelation. This is not a new or separate time structure, but the completion of the same final segment of the original 7-year period. So the pattern holds:

7 years - the final week​

​

3.5 years - the Messiah’s completed work​

​

3.5 years - the remaining portion for His people​

​

1,260 days - the same final half, expressed prophetically​

At every stage, the structure is governed by sevens and halves of seven—not by 50-year calculations. This leads to a central observation:

God is consistent in how He measures covenant time. He uses sevens—7 years, 70×7 years, and even the final 3.5 years. The completion of the cycle is not determined by Jubilee math (50s), but by the fulfillment of the pattern of sevens.​

​

In this framework, the final 3.5 years represent the completion of Israel’s role within the fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle. When that final segment is fulfilled—when they recognize the Messiah and bear witness—the full 490-year pattern reaches completion.

The Messiah fulfilled His part in the first half.​

​

His people complete their response in the second half.​

And the entire structure—from beginning to end—remains anchored in the pattern of sevens.

I'm going to delete my previous post since I see your view of these things a bit more clearly now. Doesn't mean I'm agreeing with your view or not agreeing with it. It just means my previous post is moot, in light of what you just submitted here.

Edited to add:

But then again, maybe it wasn't moot the more I think about it. For your view to end at the end of a literal jubilee where 10 jubilees are involved, it would require 500 years, not 490 years. There is no such thing as a 10th jubilee at the end of a 490 year period. That is literally impossible.

 

[Davidpt]

The following is an exchange I had with a Reasoning AI(not Chatgpt though) pertaining to Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21, all of which are connected to the topic of this thread. Guess who's logic it didn't side with since I had that person's logic in mind vs mine, in regards to these 2 verses? I'm meaning @Spiritual Israelite logic. Will likely have to post this over a cpl of posts since it exceeds the 10000 character limit. It wouldn't exceed it if I omitted it's thought process. But I wanted to show that as well as to how it was arriving at what it ended up concluding.
--------------------------


Me:

A) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world(kosmos) to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


B) and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

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

My view is, A) and B) are involving the same era of time.

There are some other interpreters that disagree. Their view is, A) happens earlier in history, followed by a gap after A) is fulfilled. Then B) happens later in history. IOW, A) involves 70 AD. B) involves the final days of this age, or at least anything later than 70 AD.

Based on what the text tells us though, any theological debate aside, does the text allow for their interpretation, that A) is fulfilled earlier, B) is fulfilled later? What I'm looking for is your analysis as to whether that is even logical or not, based on that the text says, things like such---such as was not since(A)---such as never was since(B)---where A) goes one step further and says--- no, nor ever shall be. And that they have A) meaning before B).
-----------------------

AI's thought process:


Analyze the User's Request:
Passage A: Matthew 24:21 ("For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world [kosmos] to this time, no, nor ever shall be.")
Passage B: Daniel 12:1 ("and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time")
User's View: A and B refer to the same era.
Opposing View: A happens earlier (70 AD), followed by a gap, then B happens later (end of the age). Therefore, A =
B chronologically.
Core Question: Based strictly on the text (setting aside theological systems), does the text logically allow for the opposing view? Specifically, focusing on the comparative language ("such as was not since... no, nor ever shall be" vs. "such as never was since...").


Deconstruct the Texts (Linguistic & Logical Analysis):
Passage A (Matthew 24:21):
"Such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" -> Maximizes the past. Nothing in all of human history compares to it up to the point it happens.
"No, nor ever shall be" -> Maximizes the future. Nothing in the rest of human history will ever compare to it.
Logical conclusion of A: Event A is the absolute, unparalleled zenith of tribulation for the entirety of human history (past and future).

Passage B (Daniel 12:1):
"Such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" -> Maximizes the past. Nothing in the history of the nation (Israel) compares to it up to the point it happens.
Note: B does not contain the future maximization ("nor ever shall be").



Evaluate the Opposing View (A = 70 AD, then Gap, then B = End Times):
Premise 1: Event A (70 AD) is the greatest tribulation in all of history past, and no future event will ever equal or surpass it ("no, nor ever shall be").
Premise 2: Event B (End Times) happens after Event A.
Contradiction check: If Event A is the absolute greatest tribulation that will ever happen, then Event B (which happens later) cannot be a tribulation equal to or greater than Event A.
But wait, look at B's language: B says it is a trouble "such as never was since there was a nation." If B happens after A, and A was the absolute greatest ever, B would have to be lesser than A. But if B is lesser than A, B cannot be described as "such as never was since there was a nation" if A already happened and set the historical ceiling.
Alternative Contradiction: If the interpreter claims A and B are equal in intensity, then Event B violates the explicit text of Event A ("nor ever shall be").
Another Alternative: If the interpreter claims B is greater than A, then Event B violates the explicit text of Event A ("nor ever shall be").


Formulate the Logical Argument against the Opposing View:
The "Absolute Ceiling" Problem: Text A establishes an absolute, unbreakable ceiling for tribulation. Nothing before it, nothing after it.
The Chronological Sequence Problem: If A happens first, the ceiling is set. Any subsequent event (B) is logically barred from being equal to or greater than A by the phrase "nor ever shall be."
The Description of B Problem: Text B describes its event as unmatched in history ("such as never was since there was a nation"). If A happened before B, and A was the greatest ever (by A's own definition), then B's description is logically false unless B is equal to A. But B cannot be equal to A without violating A's "nor ever shall be" clause.


Address Potential Counter-Arguments (Anticipating the Opposing View's defense):
Counter-argument 1: "Kosmos" (world) in A vs. "Nation" in B. Maybe A is the greatest tribulation for the world (70 AD impact on the Roman world/centering on Jerusalem), and B is the greatest tribulation for the nation of Israel.
Rebuttal: Even if we grant a scope difference (world vs. nation), the logic of sequence remains flawed. If A is the worst thing to ever happen to the world/nation, B cannot be the worst thing to happen to the nation if it occurs after A. The phrase "such as never was since..." inherently looks backward to all preceding history. If A is in that preceding history, A is the benchmark. B cannot claim the benchmark if it follows A (unless B > A, which violates A).
Counter-argument 2: "Nor ever shall be" only applies to the local context of Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse).
Rebuttal: The text says "since the beginning of the world (kosmos)..." It explicitly globalizes the comparison. You can't limit the "nor ever shall be" without arbitrarily ignoring "beginning of the world."

 

[Davidpt]

The Reasoning AI's thought process continued:


Synthesize the Conclusion:
Based strictly on textual logic and syntax, the opposing view (A first, gap, B later) creates an inescapable logical contradiction.
It forces the interpreter to make Event A a lie (if B is equal/greater) or Event B a lie (if B is lesser than A but claims to be unmatched).
Therefore, the text does not allow for their interpretation if read logically and literally. The texts must either refer to the exact same event (User's view) or B happens first and A happens later (which no one argues, but is the only other logically sound chronological option).


Draft the Response (Iterative refinement for tone and clarity):
Tone: Objective, analytical, focused strictly on grammar and logic as requested ("any theological debate aside").
Structure:
Direct answer (No, the text does not logically allow it).
Breakdown of Text A (The Absolute Ceiling).
Breakdown of Text B (The Historical Unmatched).
The Logical Trap (Applying the sequence A -> B).
Addressing the "World vs. Nation" nuance.
Final conclusion on why the texts demand synchrony.


Final Review against User Prompt: Did I answer if it's logical? Yes. Did I focus on the "such as" and "nor ever shall be" phrases? Yes. Did I avoid getting bogged down in eschatological systems (Preterism vs. Futurism)? Yes. (Self-correction: Ensure I don't accidentally argue for Preterism or Futurism, just analyze the relationship between the two verses as presented). The resulting output matches the drafted logic.



Based strictly on the text, grammar, and logic—setting aside all theological debates and systemic assumptions—the interpretation that A happens earlier and B happens later is not logically allowed by the text. In fact, the text creates an inescapable logical trap for that view.

Here is the analytical breakdown of why their view contradicts the specific wording of the texts:
1. The "Absolute Ceiling" Established by Text A

Text A (Matthew 24:21) makes a two-part, absolute superlative statement:

Past: "such as was not since the beginning of the world [kosmos] to this time" (Nothing in all of human history has matched this).
Future: "no, nor ever shall be." (Nothing in all of future human history will ever match this).


Grammatically, Text A establishes an absolute, unbreakable ceiling for tribulation. It is the ultimate "worst it will ever get."
2. The Historical Claim of Text B

Text B (Daniel 12:1) makes a one-part superlative statement:

Past: "such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" (Nothing in the history of the nation has matched this).


Text B looks backward and claims a level of trouble unprecedented in the history of the nation.
3. The Logical Contradiction of the "Gap" View

If interpreters claim A happens first (70 AD), followed by a gap, and then B happens later (the final days), they run into a brick wall of logic regarding the phrase "such as never was."

If Event A is the absolute worst thing to ever happen in the history of the world, and it happens in 70 AD...
Then Event B happens thousands of years later.
Event B claims to be a trouble "such as never was since there was a nation."


Here is the trap: If A already happened, B cannot logically claim to be "such as never was."
Why? Because Event A already set the historical precedent. If Event B is equal to Event A, then Event B is not "such as never was," because Event A already happened. If Event B is worse than Event A, then Event B directly violates Event A's promise that nothing "nor ever shall be" surpass it.
4. The "World vs. Nation" Counter-Argument Examined

The only potential loophole an interpreter might try to use to justify A first, B later is the difference in scope: A says "since the beginning of the world (kosmos)" while B says "since there was a nation."

They might argue: "A was the worst tribulation in the whole world (70 AD). Later, B is the worst tribulation for the nation, but not worse than A."

However, this still fails basic logic for two reasons:

Chronological Inflation: If 70 AD was the worst tribulation in the entire world, it stands to reason it was also the worst tribulation for the nation (since the nation is part of the world). Therefore, B still cannot claim to be "such as never was since there was a nation" if A already happened to that nation.
The Nature of "Such as": When Text B says "such as never was," it is using a comparison. If the interpreters make A and B two different events, they are forcing Text B to ignore the existence of Text A's event in its backward-looking comparison.

 

[Davidpt]

After the AI's thinking through process:

For the interpreters' view to work, they have to arbitrarily silence the implications of the comparative phrases.

The text only allows for two logically coherent scenarios:

A and B describe the exact same era/event. (Your view). This perfectly resolves the logic. The ultimate tribulation happens, it is the worst in the history of the nation (fulfilling B) and the worst in the history of the world with nothing ever surpassing it (fulfilling A).
B happens first, and A happens later. (No interpreter holds this view, but it is the only other way the grammar works). If B happens first, it is the worst the nation has seen. Then A happens later, superseding B, becoming the worst the world has ever seen, and guaranteeing nothing will ever surpass it.

To place A first and B second is to force the text to say that an event with a lesser scope (B) somehow achieved a historical "never was" status, even though an event with a greater scope (A) had already happened and permanently closed the door on anything ever being that bad again. Therefore, based purely on the logic of the words provided, their interpretation is not allowed.

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

That concludes that session with the AI. And I forgot to bring Revelation 7 into it. Like I have been saying all along, it is absurd that if Matthew 24:21 equals 70 AD, that not even great tribulation pertaining to what Revelation 7 records can match it nor surpass it in greatness. That a local event cannot be equaled to nor surpassed by a global event. Is one going to argue that great tribulation pertaining to Revelation 7 is no not global in scale? Is one going to argue that a local flood, for example, can surpass a global flood in the destruction left behind? That's the nonsense we end up with if Matthew 24:21 is 70 AD, thus local. And that Daniel 12:1 is end time, thus global. And that the former precedes the latter, rather that the former equals the latter. It would mean something local can't be equaled to nor surpassed by something global. If that is not backwards, then what is?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I am back from short camping trip and I can see that many of you still don't get it regarding the stones of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and others.

I would ask you again, what part of the Gospel is concerned with literal or physical stones falling and being laid even with the ground. That's not the message of good news or judgment that God is putting forth at all. The gospel is all about the spiritual connotation of the stones of the Temple (Lamentations 4:1-2; Luke 3:8, 19:40; 1st Corinthians 3:12; 1st Peter 2:5) and city (Isaiah 41:1-2; Luke 19:44) of God. It is PEOPLE, not buildings. Do you not understand that the prophecy spoke of all the stones of the whole city, not just the Temple? Do you not understand athat prophecy was never literally fulfilled? Do you not know that there are stones left standing "one upon another" in the city to this very day? So how then is this to be taken literally and claimed it took place in AD 70? Ridiculous. Listen to what Christ said carefully:

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

This is when Christ said, "Destroy THIS Temple and in three days I will raise it up." The context matters! It was here that Scripture says it was the priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him. Do you realize that Jesus was the spiritual Temple they would destroy? Not the literal temple, and not the literal city. Spiritually, Christ was the Holy Temple, and the congregation was the Holy City. Period! Do you realize that the Old Covenant Jerusalem, which was still in bondage because it didn't recognize the time of Christ's visitation. Not literally, but allegorically! A physical city CANNOT recognize anything, but spiritually it can, and it can fall because it's speaking of people, not physical stones.

Galatians 4:24-26

• "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
• For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
• But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

The stones of Old Covenant Jerusalem, versus those of New Covenant Jerusalem. Those still in bondage vs those who were set free from bondage in Spiritual Jerusalem. What we read in Luke 19:41-46 of the time of their visitation is the divinely appointed superintendence of the Lord when God offered up Christ for their sins to bring salvation, grace, and redemption, and judgment to Israel. Do you not understand the "context" of Luke chapter 19, as Christ told them the city would be laid even with the ground and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, and then threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple? How then is it to be taken literal when it was then that Christ said, "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up" speaking allegorically about His body! Inconsistency is the hallmark of error! Typical Preterists' mistake.

Luke 19:43-46

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Surely you should know, despite your denials, that there are physical stones still standing one upon another in the city to this very day. How is that possible if it was meant to be taken literally, and it supposedly already occurred in AD 70? It does not make sense because inconsistency is the hallmark of error. Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Those coming with blind and false doctrine of 70AD who insisted on physical temple falling saying it is not even debatable. LOL!!!!! Boy, you have got it twisted. The debate is not over whether the physical temple was destroyed, because it obviously was, since it's not there anymore. The actual debate is over whether Christ was talking about the Temple's physical destruction when He spoke, or if He was speaking about His body and the stones of the city allegorically, signaling the destruction of the Old Covenant with Israel in His death, and the rising of the New Covenant with Israel in His resurrection...in three days. Selah.

Again...

Luke 19:43-46

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Was the city of Jerusalem laid flat with not one physical stone left standing one upon another in AD 70? If not, then clearly and without ambiguity Christ was not speaking about a physical city in the Middle East. PERIOD!

Moreover, right there in the context, we can see this as Christ is talking to a city (the Old Covenant congregation of Israel) and saying that "her" (Jerusalem's) children would be laid even with the ground within her. Did you read that carefully? Do you realize that Christ was speaking of the city as a woman, and the people of her as her children. vissa'vis, it's an allegory about Old Covenant Israel! How the kingdom would be taken from her because she didn't know the time of her visitation. Hello?! Look at the parable carefully Christ told the Jewish people about the husbandmen of the vineyard (people of national Israel) and their son Christ, and how they would kill him, and how the vineyard would be given to others. It is in this context that Christ says:

Matthew 21:42-45

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
• And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
• And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them."

Christ is not talking about him being a literal cornerstone of a physical building, nor of a physical stone falling on another to grind it to powder. NOT AT ALL! He's speaking allegorically about the fall of the people of Israel as stones! And the grinding to powder is them being laid even with the ground, not one stone left standing upon another. Nor is Christ talking about a physical kingdom of Israel being taken from these Jewish people. NO! He's talking allegorically, explaining how the Old Covenant Israel congregation would no longer be the nation representing the children of God, because that representation is given to the New Covenant with the nation of Israel, which is the church. Hello? Because of Christ, this nation would bring forth the fruits thereof. Once again, proving biblically that Israel and its people fell at the time of the cross, NOT 37 to 40 years later in AD 70, as further explained in 1st Peter:

1st Peter 2:7-10

• "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
• And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
• But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
• Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

This church is NOW God's Holy Nation, God's chosen people, and Christ is that stone that the builders rejected, and now we, in the form of the New Covenant church, build the Temple, and indeed are the stones of that rebuilding in Christ Jesus. God is not interested in the fall of physical stones of Old; He was talking about unfaithful Old Covenant people, He is fulfilling the prophecy spiritually. Not based on eyewitness accounts by historian Flavius Josephus or contemporary Roman historians. Selah!

 

[claninja]

I am back from short camping trip and I can see that many of you still don't get it regarding the stones of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and others.

I would ask you again, what part of the Gospel is concerned with literal or physical stones falling and being laid even with the ground. That's not the message of good news or judgment that God is putting forth at all. The gospel is all about the spiritual connotation of the stones of the Temple (Lamentations 4:1-2; Luke 3:8, 19:40; 1st Corinthians 3:12; 1st Peter 2:5) and city (Isaiah 41:1-2; Luke 19:44) of God. It is PEOPLE, not buildings. Do you not understand that the prophecy spoke of all the stones of the whole city, not just the Temple? Do you not understand athat prophecy was never literally fulfilled? Do you not know that there are stones left standing "one upon another" in the city to this very day? So how then is this to be taken literally and claimed it took place in AD 70? Ridiculous. Listen to what Christ said carefully:

Luke 19:41-46

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

This is when Christ said, "Destroy THIS Temple and in three days I will raise it up." The context matters! It was here that Scripture says it was the priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him. Do you realize that Jesus was the spiritual Temple they would destroy? Not the literal temple, and not the literal city. Spiritually, Christ was the Holy Temple, and the congregation was the Holy City. Period! Do you realize that the Old Covenant Jerusalem, which was still in bondage because it didn't recognize the time of Christ's visitation. Not literally, but allegorically! A physical city CANNOT recognize anything, but spiritually it can, and it can fall because it's speaking of people, not physical stones.

Galatians 4:24-26

• "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
• For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
• But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

The stones of Old Covenant Jerusalem, versus those of New Covenant Jerusalem. Those still in bondage vs those who were set free from bondage in Spiritual Jerusalem. What we read in Luke 19:41-46 of the time of their visitation is the divinely appointed superintendence of the Lord when God offered up Christ for their sins to bring salvation, grace, and redemption, and judgment to Israel. Do you not understand the "context" of Luke chapter 19, as Christ told them the city would be laid even with the ground and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, and then threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple? How then is it to be taken literal when it was then that Christ said, "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up" speaking allegorically about His body! Inconsistency is the hallmark of error! Typical Preterists' mistake.

Luke 19:43-46

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Surely you should know, despite your denials, that there are physical stones still standing one upon another in the city to this very day. How is that possible if it was meant to be taken literally, and it supposedly already occurred in AD 70? It does not make sense because inconsistency is the hallmark of error. Selah!

Where is any of this taught in Matthew 24?

 

[William Barton]

WHAT WAS JESUS TALKING ABOUT?

Location: On the Temple Mount:​

Luke 21:5-11:
And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,

"As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Mark 13:1-2:
And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" And Jesus answering said unto him, "Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Matthew 24:1-2:
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

What was Jesus talking about in the above passages?​

The temple of stones on the Temple Mount (which Jesus said would be left not on stone upon another):

When the temple of stones on the Temple Mount would be destroyed:

.. continued in next post

The Romans tore down the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. I visited there once, it is gone, not one stone left.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Where is any of this taught in Matthew 24?

Like I predicted, I knew you still would not get it because of your DENIAL or spiritual blindness.

I can see where you get your view from, but I don’t agree with limiting Matthew 24:1–2 to a strictly physical prediction about the temple buildings.

Scripture repeatedly uses temple and stone imagery to represent people and God’s covenant community. People are called ‘living stones,’ and the New Testament church is described as the body of Christ. So symbolic meaning is not something added later—it is already built into how God uses this language.

From that standpoint, when Jesus says ‘not one stone will be left upon another,’ he clearly referring to the removal the kingdom representative from the people of the old covenant (Israel), not merely the physical structure itself. This is the judgment upon THIS PEOPLE. Not physical stones in 70AD. Have you already forgotten that based on Christ's prophecy, the temple must destroyed and in three days he will rebuilt it. Clearly this did not take place in 70AD because you got the wrong stones of the temple to begin with! The Scribes and Pharisees did not understand it. AND Christ's disciples did not understand this either! No wondered they were still thought about beautiful stones of the buildings. You also should know that the disciples did not fully grasp this at the time, but later revelation through the Holy Spirit clarifies the deeper meaning. That’s why I read Matthew 24 in connection with passages like Luke 19 and the broader New Testament teaching on the true temple being God’s people.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The Romans tore down the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. I visited there once, it is gone, not one stone left.

Sigh... Read carefully:

Luk 19:41-44
(41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(43) For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
(44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

In verse 41, Christ was talking about City, not just the temple within. The subject is "thee" which is the city of Jerusalem, not just the temple buildings. Therefore yes, there are still massive stones of the city still stand upon others. Not the temple area only. Your 70AD theory is false. Christ was talking about his people of the congregation which the stones of the city and the temple represents - people within the body of Christ.

Dan 9:26
(26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The "Messiah the prince" (v. 25) and “the prince that shall come,” (v.26) per context are speaking of SAME prince - Jesus Christ! The people of that prince were the Jews! It is them whom Christ give a sign that they will come and destroy the "city and the sanctuary." They were the one who had Christ cutoff! Not Romans.

Because they rejected Christ and put Him to death, the authority to represent God’s Kingdom was taken from them at the cross—the very moment Christ died. This was the end of old testament covenant.

In three days, Christ rose again and established the true Temple—not built with physical stones, but with living stones. The Kingdom representation was no longer tied to the old covenant system, but given to those who are in Him under the New Covenant that Christ confirmed in Daniel 9:27.

You need to understand that under the old covenant, the people themselves functioned as God’s house as "stones", just as believers do now. So when Jesus spoke of the stones of the Temple being cast down (Matthew 24:1–2), it points beyond physical destruction to a deeper judgment: The fall of Old Covenant who no longer represented God’s Kingdom.

From that point forward, after Pentecost, the New Testament Church had already begun its mission into the nations long before the later (ahem) physical destruction of Jerusalem, showing that the transition was rooted in the cross and resurrection—not dependent on a future physical event. Selah!

 

[CTK]

Those coming with blind and false doctrine of 70AD who insisted on physical temple falling saying it is not even debatable. LOL!!!!! Boy, you have got it twisted. The debate is not over whether the physical temple was destroyed, because it obviously was, since it's not there anymore. The actual debate is over whether Christ was talking about the Temple's physical destruction when He spoke, or if He was speaking about His body and the stones of the city allegorically, signaling the destruction of the Old Covenant with Israel in His death, and the rising of the New Covenant with Israel in His resurrection...in three days. Selah.

Again...

Luke 19:43-46

• "For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;
• Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Was the city of Jerusalem laid flat with not one physical stone left standing one upon another in AD 70? If not, then clearly and without ambiguity Christ was not speaking about a physical city in the Middle East. PERIOD!

Moreover, right there in the context, we can see this as Christ is talking to a city (the Old Covenant congregation of Israel) and saying that "her" (Jerusalem's) children would be laid even with the ground within her. Did you read that carefully? Do you realize that Christ was speaking of the city as a woman, and the people of her as her children. vissa'vis, it's an allegory about Old Covenant Israel! How the kingdom would be taken from her because she didn't know the time of her visitation. Hello?! Look at the parable carefully Christ told the Jewish people about the husbandmen of the vineyard (people of national Israel) and their son Christ, and how they would kill him, and how the vineyard would be given to others. It is in this context that Christ says:

Matthew 21:42-45

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
• And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
• And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them."

Christ is not talking about him being a literal cornerstone of a physical building, nor of a physical stone falling on another to grind it to powder. NOT AT ALL! He's speaking allegorically about the fall of the people of Israel as stones! And the grinding to powder is them being laid even with the ground, not one stone left standing upon another. Nor is Christ talking about a physical kingdom of Israel being taken from these Jewish people. NO! He's talking allegorically, explaining how the Old Covenant Israel congregation would no longer be the nation representing the children of God, because that representation is given to the New Covenant with the nation of Israel, which is the church. Hello? Because of Christ, this nation would bring forth the fruits thereof. Once again, proving biblically that Israel and its people fell at the time of the cross, NOT 37 to 40 years later in AD 70, as further explained in 1st Peter:

1st Peter 2:7-10

• "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
• And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
• But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
• Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

This church is NOW God's Holy Nation, God's chosen people, and Christ is that stone that the builders rejected, and now we, in the form of the New Covenant church, build the Temple, and indeed are the stones of that rebuilding in Christ Jesus. God is not interested in the fall of physical stones of Old; He was talking about unfaithful Old Covenant people, He is fulfilling the prophecy spiritually. Not based on eyewitness accounts by historian Flavius Josephus or contemporary Roman historians. Selah!

I think part of the issue here is you maybe treating “symbolic” and “literal” as if they cancel each other out, when Scripture often presents both at the same time.

For example, in Daniel 9 we see this very clearly. In verses 24–25, the prophecy includes both spiritual and physical restoration—spiritual in the sense of dealing with sin and bringing in righteousness through the Messiah, and physical in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, its streets, and its walls. Then in verses 26–27, we again see both elements side by side—the Messiah is “cut off” (a spiritual and covenantal event), and the city and sanctuary are destroyed (a physical event). So within the same prophecy, both dimensions are clearly present.

I think the same principle applies in Luke 19. I agree that the New Testament speaks of people as “living stones,” and that Jesus Himself is the true Temple. That spiritual meaning is absolutely there. But that does not remove the physical aspect. In Luke 19, Jesus describes very specific events—enemies surrounding the city, a siege, and the people being brought down. That naturally points to a real historical event, not only a symbolic one.

The fact that some stones still exist today doesn’t overturn that. “Not one stone upon another” is a common prophetic way of describing total destruction, not a technical statement that every individual stone must disappear without exception. So I don’t see this as either/or. The cross is the turning point—the rejection of the Messiah and the end of the Old Covenant system. But the destruction of Jerusalem then becomes the visible, historical consequence of that rejection. In that sense, the spiritual and the physical are working together, not against each other.

There’s also an interesting detail in how Jesus speaks about the Temple itself. At one point He calls it “My house,” but later He refers to it as “your house.” He’s speaking about the same physical Temple, but the language changes based on the spiritual condition of the people. It moves from being God’s house to something they have effectively taken ownership of, and ultimately something left desolate. That shift only makes sense if both the physical structure and the spiritual reality are in view at the same time. The building remains, but its meaning changes—and that’s exactly the kind of layered language we’re seeing in these passages.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The following is an exchange I had with a Reasoning AI(not Chatgpt though)

LOL. AI is not capable of reason. What is your excuse for being so ignorant about AI? Why do you act as if AI bots are human? Why do you use AI for discernment instead of the Holy Spirit? I just can't take you seriously.

pertaining to Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21, all of which are connected to the topic of this thread. Guess who's logic it didn't side with since I had that person's logic in mind vs mine, in regards to these 2 verses?

LOL. Who cares? Do you think I care if you are able to maniuplate AI to agree with you? Not at all! I can do the same. Do you recall when you showed me something from ChatGPT that supported your opinion and then I used ChatGPT to support my opinion on the same topic? I'm not going to waste my time reading this AI nonsense. If you ever decide to discuss these things like a human adult, let me know.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am back from short camping trip and I can see that many of you still don't get it regarding the stones of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and others.

LOL. Looks like your camping trip didn't change your false understanding of that passage. Why do you make simple things complicated? Are you just hoping to show your supposed spiritual superiority or something? It's pathetic. It's very clear that Matthew 24:1-2 is about the physical temple buildings standing at that time and Jesus said they would be destroyed with no stone left upon another and that is what happened in 70 AD. Very simple. Too simple for you, apparently. Sad.