The End of the Mosaic Age

[Randy Kluth]

Except Christ does not mention the temple one single time in any accounts of the OD. How does one "center" on something never mentioned?

I've questioned this before with you, I believe? If you don't find the "temple" mentioned in the OD, then it is because you deny that the "Abomination of Desolation" refers to the temple. My claim is that the AoD is identified as the desolation of both Jerusalem and the temple in Dan 9.26-27.

Dan 9. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

At the temple Christ speaks about the destruction of the temple but does not say the entire city would be destroyed. On the mount (the actual OD) he doesn't mention the temple at all.

By comparing the different accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we can see that Jesus was pairing the destruction of the city of Jerusalem with the destruction of the temple itself.

Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”...
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near... Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

As you can see, Luke presents the Disciples' questions about the "temple" in connection with the remarks about how beautiful the temple was. And it is in this context, ie in regard to the beauty of the temple, that Jesus consigns it to destruction. What sense is there in the Disciples asking about when something would happen if it isn't in regard to what they had just been talking about?

Just prior Jesus had already been talking about the destruction of Jerusalem as well.

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

So here we see the same words used, the coming down of every stone upon another, which Jesus would later apply to the temple. And here he is using it in the context of the city of Jerusalem. And so, his address on the Mt. of Olives, was in reference to the questions asked Jesus about when the temple and the city would come down.

You have the temple stones and the city of Jerusalem coming down in the same language, which Jesus had mentioned as he left Jerusalem. And it was these matters that Jesus' Disciples inquired about on the Mt. of Olives. That's why every account of the Mt. of Olives Discourse has these questions directly precede the Olivet Discourse.

In corresponding passages of same timeframe in Rev, there is no destruction of temple or city. The only destruction of Jerusalem is partial and from an earthquake.

History records that the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple was substantial, and brought about by the Romans. Further damage to Jerusalem was done later on, but the 70 AD judgment is what Jesus apparently referred to. Its significance was heightened by the end of temple worship in Jerusalem. That put it on a scale with the Babylonian judgment, and it would hardly be excluded from Scriptures.

Then of course the fact that building remained standing after 70AD, and some stones still stand upon another to this day means 70AD was not what Jesus spoke about that day not before the OD, not during the OD, not after the OD.

You apparently argue that the Wailing Wall is part of the temple structure. I've said repeatedly that it is *not!* It is part of the retaining wall system for the temple area, and not part of the temple structure itself. The temple itself was obliterated, just as Jesus said.

 

[ewq1938]

You apparently argue that the Wailing Wall is part of the temple structure.

No, it is one of the buildings of the temple complex. It was not the only building not torn down in 70AD.

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


Multiple buildings plural. The wall was one of those buildings.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, it is one of the buildings of the temple complex. It was not the only building not torn down in 70AD.

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


Multiple buildings plural. The wall was one of those buildings.

We've had this discussion before. I've been there--you apparently haven't? The Western Wall is a very large support for the plaza upon which the buildings were built--a retaining wall. It's more like the rim of a saucer than the cup the saucer holds. All of the buildings were built upon the plaza, it would seem? So, your theory is dead on arrival.

Everybody calls the Wailing Wall a retaining wall. But if you don't know what that means, I will understand your error. I don't mean to be rude--this is just the reality, and you're wasting too much time on an absurd theory.

 

[ewq1938]

We've had this discussion before. I've been there--you apparently haven't? The Western Wall is a very large support for the plaza upon which the buildings were built--a retaining wall. It's more like the rim of a saucer than the cup the saucer holds. All of the buildings were built upon the plaza, it would seem? So, your theory is dead on arrival.

It's still a building because it was built. It cannot be excluded,

Everybody calls the Wailing Wall a retaining wall.

Call it Wally the wall if you want, it doesn't change the fact that it is a building of the temple complex.

But if you don't know what that means, I will understand your error. I don't mean to be rude--this is just the reality, and you're wasting too much time on an absurd theory.

This is just an Ad-hominem. Stop insulting the other party in the discussion. Doing this just shows a lack of credibility on your part.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's still a building because it was built. It cannot be excluded,

Call it Wally the wall if you want, it doesn't change the fact that it is a building of the temple complex.

This is just an Ad-hominem. Stop insulting the other party in the discussion. Doing this just shows a lack of credibility on your part.

Alright, I apologize. Let me just say this, in case you're completely sincere. Something isn't a specific building just because it is built. A wall isn't a temple building just because it is built.

And a retaining wall is not the temple building just because it is part of the complex upon which the temple buildings stood. See where I'm going with this?

You are calling a retaining wall a "building" associated with one of the "temple buildings" simply because it is built and is associated with the temple complex. But a retaining wall is not one of the temple buildings. It is a wall built to contain the ground upon which the temple buildings were built.

If you don't want to see this, I'm not interested anymore...

 

[ewq1938]

Alright, I apologize. Let me just say this, in case you're completely sincere. Something isn't a specific building just because it is built. A wall isn't a temple building just because it is built.

That is wrong. The impressiveness of the temple complex including it's walls, which partially were the foundation of the entire complex. This still stands, and it goes far beneath the ground area where some human worked stones are some of the largest known. These stones remain upon each other. One day they will not.

And a retaining wall is not the temple building just because it is part of the complex upon which the temple buildings stood. See where I'm going with this?

Yes, denial that these stones were part of what Christ said would not stand upon each other. I believe you are wrong.

You are calling a retaining wall a "building" associated with one of the "temple buildings" simply because it is built and is associated with the temple complex. But a retaining wall is not one of the temple buildings. It is a wall built to contain the ground upon which the temple buildings were built.

This is similar to arguing the foundation stones of the great pyramid are not part of the pyramid.

Of course, you argue that not only the temple complex was destroyed, but all of Jerusalem in 70AD which of course is not true. There was a lot of destruction but not everything was destroyed including a building the Roman's used.

Luk 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 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.
Luk 19:43 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,
Luk 19:44 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.

This didn't happen in 70 AD and still has not happened.

Christ said the city would be even with the ground with no stone upon another. This is not limited to just the temple or some other close buildings but this applies to the entire city. That any walls still stand means this prophecy has not been fulfilled.


Wiki:

On Tisha B'Av, 4 August 70 CE[10][11] or 30 August 70 CE,[12] forces finally overwhelmed the defenders and set fire to the Second Temple.[13] Resistance continued for another month, but eventually the upper city was taken as well, and the city was burned to the ground. Titus spared only the three towers of the Herodian citadel as a testimony to the city's former might.

The fact that these buildings were not taken down further proves the prophecy was not fulfilled in 70 AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, you argue that not only the temple complex was destroyed, but all of Jerusalem in 70AD which of course is not true. There was a lot of destruction but not everything was destroyed including a building the Roman's used.

No, that was not and is not my argument. All of the temple was destroyed--not all of Jerusalem. Every stone of the temple came down--not every building in Jerusalem was destroyed.

My argument was that Dan 9.26-27 prophesied that the Roman Army would come against both Jerusalem and the temple, obliterating the temple. That was the implication Christ himself drew from this prophecy, and that's why I interpret it the way I do.

The reference in Daniel is in the context of the past destruction of Jerusalem, in which the temple had been destroyed. This was a replay of the same. Only this time Jesus said it would never be like the old temple again. Jeremiah confirmed that in Jer 31.

The ground beneath the temple was not the foundation. The retaining wall was not the foundation. Therefore, the retaining wall was not in any sense part of the temple building.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is wrong. The impressiveness of the temple complex including it's walls, which partially were the foundation of the entire complex.

With all due respect I think you're very confused about the difference between a building and something built. A wall is built, but it is not a building.

And I think you're confused about building foundations. You may build a house on a slab foundation, or on a perimeter foundation, or on post and piers. But the ground is not the foundation of a building.

A retaining wall just keeps the dirt intact so that it does not erode away, whether under a building or on a terrace. The retaining wall retains dirt. It is not part of any building unless it is actually part of the building foundation.

The Western Wall was *not* a part of the temple buildings' foundations. But I can see you're not willing to consider this.

 

[ewq1938]

The ground beneath the temple was not the foundation.

Yes it was.

 

[ewq1938]

With all due respect I think you're very confused about the difference between a building and something built. A wall is built, but it is not a building.

Which means it is a building. Did you know the temple also had walls?? Not all buildings have roofs.

The Western Wall was *not* a part of the temple buildings' foundations. But I can see you're not willing to consider this.

It's part of the foundation and it is a building itself.

 

[face2face]

Luk 19:44 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.

This didn't happen in 70 AD and still has not happened.

Yes for the most it did...but you are right its complete removal is still yet future!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes it was.

The dirt is not a building.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Which means it is a building. Did you know the temple also had walls?? Not all buildings have roofs.

A "building" is an erected structure, to house people or workers. A retaining wall is not this kind of "building." Just because somebody "builds" a wall does not make it a "building."

The dirt underneath a building, or its gravel, is not part of the building structure. It is necessary, perhaps, to build the structure in terms of support. But it is not part of the erected building. When footings and walls are used to support the building directly underneath it, as part of the structure, then it is part of the building. But a retaining wall is often not that. And the Western Wall certainly was not that.

It's part of the foundation and it is a building itself.

You are sadly mistaken. I would use a dozer to level the ground, and perhaps a roller to compact the earth. But to build the building itself, I would put in forms and pour concrete, and that would be part of the building structure--not the ground beneath it.

The retaining wall just holds in place the earth so that it does not erode out the side. It is *not* part of the building in most cases, except perhaps on the uphill side, to keep dirt above stable, and not a threat to the stability of the house, or building.

 

[ewq1938]

The dirt is not a building.

This is known as a strawman fallacy.

 

[ewq1938]

A "building" is an erected structure, to house people or workers.

A building is something built, it doesn't have to house anything or anyone. That is modern English rather than biblical Greek. Walls are buildings just as the walls of the temple were buildings forming a larger building with a roof.

A retaining wall is not this kind of "building." Just because somebody "builds" a wall does not make it a "building."

False.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is known as a strawman fallacy.

No, this is called not knowing construction terms. A retaining wall is *not* part of a building unless it is part of the actual foundation of the building. The ground is *not* the foundation for a building--at least not the "built" part of the foundation.

The role the Western Wall played in the foundation of the building were not at all linked to the buildings, nor was it part of the actual foundation. They held the dirt into a stable position, making it a plaza upon which buildings could be built. They prevented erosion and allowed for a leveling of the plaza.

You also don't seem to understand that a "strawman fallacy" plays no role in defining a "retaining wall" in this regard. You have a problem with definitions.

 

[ewq1938]

No, this is called not knowing construction terms. A retaining wall is *not* part of a building unless it is part of the actual foundation of the building.

A retaining wall is a building itself and it was used to create a foundation for the temple. The peophecy is that it would be level with the ground and that has never happened. 70 AD did not fulfill the prophecy. It was merely a shadow of what is to come.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A retaining wall is a building itself and it was used to create a foundation for the temple. The peophecy is that it would be level with the ground and that has never happened. 70 AD did not fulfill the prophecy. It was merely a shadow of what is to come.

As I said, just because you "build" a wall does not make it a "building!"

Jesus said, in my understanding, that the temple would be leveled in his generation. That took place in 70 AD.

I do understand you have a different interpretation, and that's fine. What isn't fine is your attempt to explain that the retaining wall, called the "Western Wall," is part of the temple building.

It most certainly was and is not! Nor was it one of the buildings of the temple. The retaining wall was not a building, even though one does "build" a wall! If the wall was not actually attached to and part of the buildings of the temple, then it was *not* one of the buildings of the temple.

 

[ewq1938]

As I said, just because you "build" a wall does not make it a "building!"

That's wrong and will always be wrong.

Jesus said, in my understanding, that the temple would be leveled in his generation. That took place in 70 AD.

The discussion was about building plural, and he said everuy6thijhg would be leveled to the ground. That has not happened.

I do understand you have a different interpretation, and that's fine. What isn't fine is your attempt to explain that the retaining wall, called the "Western Wall," is part of the temple building.

It is part of the temple complex, multiple buildings. I never said it was part of the "temple building".

It most certainly was and is not! Nor was it one of the buildings of the temple. The retaining wall was not a building, even though one does "build" a wall! If the wall was not actually attached to and part of the buildings of the temple, then it was *not* one of the buildings of the temple.

Yes it was and still is.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The discussion was about building plural, and he said everuy6thijhg would be leveled to the ground. That has not happened.

I have mentioned buildings plural. The main focus was on the temple singular, which likely encompassed buildings plural. Those buildings did not consist of the retaining wall nor of any structures not connected to the temple singular.

The "temple" refers to the entire complex of buildings directly associated with the temple, but not with any buildings not directly associated with the temple. For example, simply being a building of some sort in the vicinity of the temple did not make it a part of the temple complex.

Again, the wall is not a "building" simple because the wall was built. You may build a wall, but that does not make it a "building."

Unless the wall is an actual foundation of the temple building, it is not part of the temple. The Western Wall was a retaining wall that in no way was part of the temple buildings. Any connection of the retaining wall with the mesa upon which the temple buildings were built does not make it part of the temple buildings.