The Temple Destroyed in AD 70

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Brother Bob.

I have added my comments in the following in purple.

I agree with you Roy that the words “aioon”, meaning “age” or “ages” and the word “aioonios” meaning "age-lasting" and is not to be taken as some indefinite period of time.

However the following verses indicate to me that we live in a current age which will be followed by another age “the millennium” or the Kingdom of Heaven expected by the children of Jacob.

EPHESIANS 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age [tou aioonos], against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (NKJV)

Will we be burden by these rulers of darkness during the millennium?

YES! We WILL be "burdened" by principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness during the Millennium because Yeshua` must subdue His enemies! By the way, most versions of the Greek NT do not contain these words. Only the Stephens 1550 and the Elzevir 1624 (together known as the Textus Receptus) have these words added. The other editions of the Majority Text - the Griesbach 1805, the Lachmann 1842-1850, the Tischendorf 8th Ed. 1865-1872, the Tregelles 1857-1872, the Alford vol. i. 1868, the Alford vol. ii. 1871, the Alford vol. iii. 1865, the Alford vol. iv. 1862, 1870, and the Wordsworth 1870 - do NOT have the words included! Most other versions do not even bother to recognize the inclusion of them. If they are missing, the translation is "of this darkness."

HEBREWS 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages [toon aioonoon], he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (NKJV)

Yeshua appears at the end of the ages, not in the middle of the current age.

Yes, but as far as the author of Hebrews knew he WAS at the end of the age. Remember: Even Yeshua` did not know (during the Olivet Discourse) when He would return! And, the current age has been going on since the Flood of Noach's day, which may have been in 2348 B.C. and possibly earlier than that! Even to Yeshua`s day until Hebrews was written in 63 to 64 A.D. That's at least 2,412 years! Furthermore, remember that Yeshua` had introduced an unexpected GAP in the timeline as Isra'el was blinded during the Times of the Goyim. Besides, it's possible that sunteleia toon aioonoon could be referring to the "completion or satisfaction of the age," not necessarily its end. After all, Yeshua` capped the work necessary with a single sacrifice of His own body!

I TIMOTHY 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present age [aioni] not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. (NKJV)

EPHESIANS 2:1 You were dead in your transgressions and sins 2 in which you once lived following the age [aiona] of this world [kosmou], following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. (NAB)

Once again do we follow the rulers of the power of the air during the millennium?

EPHESIANS 1:20 Which He worked in Christ when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age [aioni] but also in that which is to come. (NKJV)

Yeshua is seated at the right hand during this age and the age to come.

GALATIANS 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age [aionos], according to the will of our God and Father, (NKJV)

What are the evils during the Kingdom age?

II CORINTHIANS 4:4 Whose minds the god of this age [aionos] has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (NKJV)

Will the god of this age blind us during the millennium?

Now regarding “aionios” age-lasting…

JOHN 6:47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me now has age-lasting life [zoen aionion]. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live into the age [eis ton aiona]; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 Then Yeshua said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood now has age-lasting life [zoen aionion], and I will raise him up at the last day. . . . 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven — not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live into the age [eis ton aiona]." (literal)

Here Yeshua states that if they ate (figuratively) of him, they would not suffer a similar fate, but instead would live "into the age" of the Messiah's reign. They would enter that future Kingdom age and not suffer the same fate as their ancestors. Even physical death would not bar their entry into the Messianic kingdom, because Yeshua vowed that he would raise them up from the dead "at the last day."

Something to consider!

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

That's all I can do tonight. Good. At least you're thinking! Do you have access to a good Greek grammar book? Here's why: Sometimes the things that you've quoted are PLURAL while others are singular. According to Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dr. William Hersey Davis, M.A., Th.D. (Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene OR, 1999, ISBN: 1-87910-260-3), page 107) here is the word's declension: (Remember, I'm using "o" for omicron, "oo" for omega, "e" for epsilon, and "ee" for eta.)

Singular:
Nominative case: ho aioon = the age (subj.)
Genitive case: tou aioonos = of the age
Ablative case: tou aioonos = from the age
Locative case: too aiooni = in the age OR at the age
Instrumental case: too aiooni = with the age OR by the age
Dative case: too aiooni = to the age OR for the age
Accusative case: aioona = the-age (obj.)

Plural:
Nominative case: hoi aioones = the age (subj.)
Genitive case: toon aioonoon = of the age
Ablative case: toon aioonoon = from the age
Locative case: tois aioosi = in the age OR at the age
Instrumental case: tois aioosi = with the age OR by the age
Dative case: tois aioosi = to the age OR for the age
Accusative case: tous aioonas = the-age (obj.)

And, the adjective form of the word is aioonios, aioonion. It's usually translated as "eternal."

I'll give you more, but I've got to wrap it up for now. By the way, do you have a Greek NT available? Just curious.

 

[veteran]

Well, here's my address, and I hope it's not too longer either brother.

I'm going to address several comments posted in this thread. I hope it's not too long.



The Wailing Wall has nothing to do with the prophecy about the stones of the Temple that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24:2.

I'm in total agreement with Retrobyter.

2 Pet 3:10-11
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(KJV)

The Western Wall is included in the destruction on that "day of the Lord", and anything else that man builds in Jerusalem prior to Christ's second coming in our near future. That's the actual timing Jesus was talking about in His Olivet Discourse while upon the Mount of Olives with His disciples. It's part of the last sign He gave in that discourse, the final sign of His coming. And that's how His disciples there understood Him, which is shown in Matt.24 and Mark 13 with their asking Him about the sign of His coming.

Mark 13:2-4
2 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."
3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately,
4 "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"
(KJV)

Matt 24:2-3
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."
3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
(KJV)

Problem: Christ's disciples asked Him regarding that not one stone on top of another prophecy in relation to the sign of His coming and the end of the world. No brainer; it's for the end of this present world when He returns on "the day of The Lord" as written. Arguing of whether the Western Wall was part of the 2nd temple complex (or 3rd if you count Herod's remodeling), is meaningless.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Brother Bob.

I have added my comments in the following in purple.



That's all I can do tonight. Good. At least you're thinking! Do you have access to a good Greek grammar book? Here's why: Sometimes the things that you've quoted are PLURAL while others are singular. According to Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dr. William Hersey Davis, M.A., Th.D. (Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene OR, 1999, ISBN: 1-87910-260-3), page 107) here is the word's declension: (Remember, I'm using "o" for omicron, "oo" for omega, "e" for epsilon, and "ee" for eta.)

Singular:
Nominative case: ho aioon = the age (subj.)
Genitive case: tou aioonos = of the age
Ablative case: tou aioonos = from the age
Locative case: too aiooni = in the age OR at the age
Instrumental case: too aiooni = with the age OR by the age
Dative case: too aiooni = to the age OR for the age
Accusative case: aioona = the-age (obj.)

Plural:
Nominative case: hoi aioones = the age (subj.)
Genitive case: toon aioonoon = of the age
Ablative case: toon aioonoon = from the age
Locative case: tois aioosi = in the age OR at the age
Instrumental case: tois aioosi = with the age OR by the age
Dative case: tois aioosi = to the age OR for the age
Accusative case: tous aioonas = the-age (obj.)

And, the adjective form of the word is aioonios, aioonion. It's usually translated as "eternal."

I'll give you more, but I've got to wrap it up for now. By the way, do you have a Greek NT available? Just curious.

Fooey. I'm usually more careful than this. I guess I was more tired than I thought, and now it's too late to edit. The second half of the declension should have been translated in plural. I did a copy and past from the first half to make the second half and I changed the Greek without changing the English! It should be...

Singular:
Nominative case: ho aioon = the age (subj.)
Genitive case: tou aioonos = of the age
Ablative case: tou aioonos = from the age
Locative case: too aiooni = in the age OR at the age
Instrumental case: too aiooni = with the age OR by the age
Dative case: too aiooni = to the age OR for the age
Accusative case: aioona = the-age (obj.)

Plural:
Nominative case: hoi aioones = the ages (subj.)
Genitive case: toon aioonoon = of the ages
Ablative case: toon aioonoon = from the ages
Locative case: tois aioosi = in the ages OR at the ages
Instrumental case: tois aioosi = with the ages OR by the ages
Dative case: tois aioosi = to the ages OR for the ages
Accusative case: tous aioonas = the-ages (obj.)

 

[Interceptor]

The ages in Scripture are three: the Antediluvian Age (the world before the Flood), the Present Age (the world from the Flood to the Fire), and the Age to Come (the world after the Fire). These are given to us in 2 Peter 3:3-13:

...

The proof of this is to go through all the passages in Scripture that use the words translated as "age" or "ages" and look up by hand all of the references found. I did this back between 2002 and 2004. When you summarize the results, you will see that "ages" in Scripture are not arbitrary or open to interpretation; they are DEFINITE periods of time that have DEFINITE beginning and ending points! I could show you those results here, but it would be very time (and webpage space) consuming. However, I don't know of just one or two verses that could prove it to you, otherwise. 2 Peter 3:3-13 is the closest thing I found.

I'd like for you to send me your study notes about those 3 ages you mention. Really, I want to see ALL the uses of age/ages in 3 columns, since you claim that there are only 3 ages mentioned in Scripture.

And also, do you think it's possible that there was an Age that ended prior to Genesis 1?

Therefore, the correct answers to the questions are...
"What age ended with the distruction of the temple?
The temple was destroyed before so what age ended then?
What is so different in Israel today then 2000 years ago?"
1) No age ended with the destruction of the Second Temple.
...

I think you are meaning the Temple that was destroyed in A.D. 70 as the "Second Temple" here, if not do let me know. If you are, then you are mistaken because Jesus placed His coming side by side with the end of the age and the destruction of the Temple.

It's wonderful that you can see the destruction of the Temple as being fulfilled prophecy from Matthew 24:3 (and parallel passages), but you're going to have to also swallow the full verse. The End of the Age and Jesus' Parousia also having happened along with the Temple's destruction. That is why many futurist eschatologies require a rebuilt Temple of some kind, because they understand what Jesus meant even if they get the timing way wrong.

I agree with you that 2 Peter 3 is linked to the Olivet Discourse in that "heaven and earth shall pass away"; however, the agreement stops there. Yeshua`s words in Matthew 24:35 do not dictate when 2 Peter 3:7-12 occurs, but rather 2 Peter 3:7-12 serves to explain when Yeshua`s words WILL happen in the future!

Are you looking at this cosmologically or covenantally? What do you understand "heaven and earth" to be from 2 Peter 3 and other passages in the Old Testament?

But, here, I must EMPHATICALLY disagree because now you've lost the truth of God's Word! You must understand that there are pronoun differences in the Greek, translated into English, within the Olivet Discourse recorded in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. All three of these accounts are in agreement on the usage of these different pronouns.

This is why I am such an advocate for the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. In the big push to bring in new versions that TAKE OUT the "thee's and thou's," they LOST some of the meaning of the words! See, "thee's and thou's" are singular, while "ye's and you's" are plural. Furthermore, they lost much of the case structure of Old and Middle English. The difference between "ye" and "you" is that "ye" is the subjective case while "you" is the objective case. On the flip side, "thou" is the subjective case while "thee" is the objective case. Here are some usages of these four: "Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars." "Verily I say unto you,..." "Thou shalt not steal." "I will love thee, O LORD, my strength."

The same is true for the words "thy," "thine," "your," and "yours." All are possessive, but the "thy" and "thine" are singular while the "your" and "yours" are plural. Furthermore, the "thy" and "your" are adjective forms, while the "thine" and "yours" will replace the noun or pronoun they modify. "Pray to thy Father which is in secret..." "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." "Why reason ye these things in your hearts?" "If they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (This is not strictly true because sometimes "thine" and "yours" are used like adjectives, as well.)

Today, out of all EIGHT of these forms, we have kept THREE: "you," "your," and "yours." So, instead of thinking singular when we read "thou shalt not kill," we read "you shall not kill" and He could be talking to one or many people at once!

Now, in Greek there are also many words that translate to forms of the word "you":

In singular, the forms are...

Nominative case: su = thou
Genitive case: sou = of thee
Ablative case: sou = from thee
Locative case: soi = in thee or at thee
Instrumental case: soi = with thee or by thee
Dative case: soi = to thee or for thee
Accusative case: se = thee

In plural, the forms are...

Nominative case: humeis = ye
Genitive case: humoon = of you
Ablative case: humoon = from you
Locative case: humin = in you or at you
Instrumental case: humin = with you or by you
Dative case: humin = to you or for you
Accusative case: humas = you

The possessives are the genitive-case forms above.

The words "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" are not used at all in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, or Luke 21. The only times they are used in the Olivet Discourse are when the lord is talking individually to his servants in Matthew 25. All other occurrences of "ye," "you," or "your" are plural, and that is consistent with the Greek. So, He is ALWAYS talking to more than one person - the people right in front of Him on that mountain. However, not everything is ADDRESSED to them! Sometimes, He will address them and then as He is talking about the future and gets farther and farther away from His present, the pronouns CHANGE! They become less about the people in front of Him and address a group of people not there, yet! Or, He will make the pronouns more "nebulous" and not directed to any specific group of people.

Before making rash statements that you will have to retract in the future after you have learned the truth, study it out with an open mind!

I'll take a look at my Biblical Greek book by Bill Mounce when I can get it out of storage in a few days when I move into my new apartment. Then I'll take a closer look at the pronouns in the Olivet Discourse.

Yes, there are pronouns EVERYWHERE in the Scriptures, but you really need to pay attention to which are singular and which are plural! Furthermore, you should also check out to whom they are written! For instance, all the verses that you quoted from Revelation above were from the chapters in which Yeshua` is having Yochanan (John) write directly to seven, individual "called-out" congregations in Asia Minor, which is today known as Turkey. They are not generically written to all generations, nor are they written for specific "time periods in the Church age." They were each written specifically to the LEADER of the congregation in those seven towns. You will find that the words are "thee" and "thou" in the KJV, and Yochanan was to write to the "angel" (Greek: "aggelos" = "messenger") in each congregation.

In Revelation, in chapter 1 and chapter 22, the opening and the ending have time brackets for the fulfillment of the book.

Retrobyter

1. When do you place the dating of the book of Revelation?

2. Why are there two sets of time brackets in the beginning and the end of the book

a. "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1) and "things which must shortly be done." (Rev 22:6)
b. "for the time is at hand." (Rev 1:3) and "for the time is at hand." (Rev 22:10)

3. What is this verse referring to?
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Thanks,

-Interceptor

 

[us2are1]

Why did Jesus' disciples connect the destruction of the Temple with 1) the sign of Jesus coming (parousia) and 2) the end of the age?

Mat 24:2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Furthermore, why did Stephen in Acts 6-7 make the same connections as the disciples?


Acts 6:13 and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,
Acts 6:14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."

Acts 6 Key

"this holy place" = the Temple
"Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place" = destruction of the Temple at Jesus coming (parousia)
"will change the customs that Moses delivered to us" = end of the age

This "change in the customs" of Moses is certainly tied to the Law and it's passing away along with the Temple.

?
?
?

The answer is very simply that the destruction of Jerusalem and ultimately, the Temple in A.D. 70 was exactly what the disciples connected it to....1) the sign of Jesus coming (parousia) and 2) the end of the age.

P.S. I may want to add that Jesus never corrects the disciples understanding of these events.

But what is the point? The only apostle still alive was Saint John and He was a Prisoner on the Island of Patmos. All of the rest of the apostles were martyred long before 70 AD.
Doesn't that make that assuption wrong? Coupled with all the other scriptures that say everyone will see Christ return? Plus the fact that Christ hasn't returned Yet?

If Christ made a secret apearence in 70 Ad why did He leave Saint John behind to be beheaded in 75 AD?







.

 

[Saint]

What if Revelation was written prior to 70AD and one can present a very good argument that this is the case. Actually the only strong evidence that Revelation was written later that 70AD is provided by Irenaeus in a statement he made regarding Polycarp who supposedly seen the Apostle John after that date but Irenaeus also claimed the Yeshua lived to be fifty years old so much of his writings in "Against Heresies" is suspect.

Also what if the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 was actually the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law and had nothing to do with the destruction of the temple? It was after this the Yeshus appeared to Saul and his conversion took place.

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

 

[shilohsfoal]

What if Revelation was written prior to 70AD and one can present a very good argument that this is the case. Actually the only strong evidence that Revelation was written later that 70AD is provided by Irenaeus in a statement he made regarding Polycarp who supposedly seen the Apostle John after that date but Irenaeus also claimed the Yeshua lived to be fifty years old so much of his writings in "Against Heresies" is suspect.

Also what if the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 was actually the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law and had nothing to do with the destruction of the temple? It was after this the Yeshus appeared to Saul and his conversion took place.

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

The fact that the beast did not exist when John wrote revelations is proof it was written after 70 ad.

Rev 17;8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

 

[Saint]

Ever hear of Nero (AD 54-68)? Nero was the sixth Roman Emperor; before you object emperors were also call kings; remember Caesar whom the chief priest said "we have no king but Caesar".?

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

 

[shilohsfoal]

Ever hear of Nero (AD 54-68)? Nero was the sixth Roman Emperor; before you object emperors were also call kings; remember Caesar whom the chief priest said "we have no king but Caesar".?

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

So you tryng to say Nero once existed before 70 ad and then was not but he will be resurected and then he will go to his destruction?Who do you claim will resurrect Nero?

 

[Saint]

I’m not here to argue the point but I did present the possibility and made the statement that there is evidence to support it. As an example; Nero said before his death that he would be resurrected and many of that time claim he in fact was.

Galba was the 7[sup]th[/sup] emperor and his reign was for only a little while of which Revelation says “the 7[sup]th[/sup] king must remain a little”. Otho was the 8[sup]th[/sup] emperor and in fact claimed to be the resurrected Nero.

After Nero it was said that the Roman Empire was dead and in fact was said to have been resurrected under Vespasian who was every bit as evil as Nero was. So there a lot of possibilities of which history seems to lend some support, so there is a possibility that Rome is the beast.

My self I tend to think that the Eastern Beast Kingdoms fulfill the prophecy of Rev 17 of which Islam and the Madhi are the finial fulfillment; unlike you who sees Israel in that role which I see as being irrational according to scripture.

All of that being said there is still the possibility that Revelation was written prior to 70AD and I could list the reasons this is possibly but I really don’t have to time to get that detailed.

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

 

[shilohsfoal]

:There is no posibility the book of revelation w written before 70 ad because the beast did not exist when it was written proving the fact it was written after 70 ad.

Rev 17;8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.



The saints who are marterd by the beast dont die in Rome.
They die in Israel by the beast which once was before 100 ad,and is not in 100 ad and yet is today..

mathew 23;34
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city

 

[us2are1]

What if Revelation was written prior to 70AD and one can present a very good argument that this is the case. Actually the only strong evidence that Revelation was written later that 70AD is provided by Irenaeus in a statement he made regarding Polycarp who supposedly seen the Apostle John after that date but Irenaeus also claimed the Yeshua lived to be fifty years old so much of his writings in "Against Heresies" is suspect.

Also what if the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 was actually the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law and had nothing to do with the destruction of the temple? It was after this the Yeshus appeared to Saul and his conversion took place.

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

It wasn't. There is as much asurity that John wrote revelation in 75 AD as the Jewish temple being destroyed in 70 AD.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, Interceptor.

I'd like for you to send me your study notes about those 3 ages you mention. Really, I want to see ALL the uses of age/ages in 3 columns, since you claim that there are only 3 ages mentioned in Scripture.

Okay. I'm pulling out my collection of notes, but it's not small. My notes were 24 typewritten single-spaced pages just for the NT; I'm still locating my OT notes. You've gotta understand: This was an EXTENSIVE study covering several years! There are 125 occurrences of aioon and 72 occurrences of aioonios, and I looked them all up! Furthermore, there are 438 occurrences of `owlaam in the Tanakh (the OT), and that's just for starters! (I'm a bit of a bulldog when it comes to projects like that.)

And also, do you think it's possible that there was an Age that ended prior to Genesis 1?

No, I don't think so, but then I was always taught to say that anything's possible. The real key is to ask, "Is it probable?" or "Is it plausible?" That's another matter! No, Evolution-influenced people try to insert a gap SOMEWHERE - ANYWHERE - to accommodate the theory of Evolution. Most try to stick it between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but the Hebrew words "tohuw v'bohuw," translated as "without form and void" in the KJV, don't lend themselves to some kind of destruction occurring between the verses. "Tohuw" simply means that it hadn't been given definite shape, yet, and "bohuw" simply means that it was empty of living inhabitants, because they hadn't been created yet!

I think you are meaning the Temple that was destroyed in A.D. 70 as the "Second Temple" here, if not do let me know. If you are, then you are mistaken because Jesus placed His coming side by side with the end of the age and the destruction of the Temple.

It's wonderful that you can see the destruction of the Temple as being fulfilled prophecy from Matthew 24:3 (and parallel passages), but you're going to have to also swallow the full verse. The End of the Age and Jesus' Parousia also having happened along with the Temple's destruction. That is why many futurist eschatologies require a rebuilt Temple of some kind, because they understand what Jesus meant even if they get the timing way wrong.

No, I don't. The questions they asked Yeshua` were not necessarily linked together. They asked,...

Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
KJV

Mark 13:3-4
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
KJV

Luke 21:7
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
KJV

The Greek of these verses is...

Matthew 24:3 Katheemenou de autou epi tou Orous toon Elaioon proseelthon autoo hoi matheetai kat’ idian legontes, “Eipe heemin pote tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion tees sees parousias kai sunteleias tou aioonos?”

Mark 13:2 “Eipon heemin pote tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion hotan mellee tauta sunteleisthai panta?”


Luke 21:7 Epeerooteesan de auton legontes, “Didaskale, pote oun tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion hotan mellee tauta ginesthai?”That makes at least two questions, if not three, in the Greek! See, one should really put the pieces of the three versions together FIRST BEFORE translating them into English! The "kai"s, like the Hebrew "v-"s, both meaning "and," are the beginnings of new sentences in Hebrew thinking!
So, that makes two questions,
"When shall these things be?"
"What shall be the sign of thy coming (and of the end of the age)?"

Besides, no matter how they asked the questions, His response didn't link them any more than THEY did!

Are you looking at this cosmologically or covenantally? What do you understand "heaven and earth" to be from 2 Peter 3 and other passages in the Old Testament?

Neither one. I'm looking at it agronomically! Theirs was an agrarian society and their language was agricultural in nature. I understand "heaven" to be the air we breathe and where the birds fly, and the "earth" to be the dirt under our feet and the land in which they planted their crops. The First heavens and earth were destroyed by the waters of the Flood. The Second heavens and earth are the environment in which we currently live, which is slated to be destroyed by the Fire. The Third heavens and earth will be the environment that is recreated after the Fire, "wherein dwelleth righteousness." (K.I.S.S.)

I'll take a look at my Biblical Greek book by Bill Mounce when I can get it out of storage in a few days when I move into my new apartment. Then I'll take a closer look at the pronouns in the Olivet Discourse.



In Revelation, in chapter 1 and chapter 22, the opening and the ending have time brackets for the fulfillment of the book.

Retrobyter

1. When do you place the dating of the book of Revelation?

2. Why are there two sets of time brackets in the beginning and the end of the book

a. "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1) and "things which must shortly be done." (Rev 22:6)
b. "for the time is at hand." (Rev 1:3) and "for the time is at hand." (Rev 22:10)

3. What is this verse referring to?
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Thanks,

-Interceptor

Good. I'm glad you're digging out your Greek NT. It's important to check what anyone says! Again, "Let GOD be true, and EVERY man a liar!"

For question 1, I suppose that you mean when was/will be Revelation fulfilled as opposed to when was it written? I believe that most of it MUST be fulfilled in the future. It's simple, really. When's the last time you've seen locusts with stingers in their abdomens and are large enough to sound like horses and chariots running to battle? When's the last time you've seen a meteorite large enough to destroy 1/3 of all life in a sea? When's the last time you've seen a sputtering meteor that poisons all the fresh-water drinking sources? These are FUTURE events! They are NOT "figurative" and subjective to the whim of the interpreter! I DO, however, recognize that the seven congregations to which Yeshua` had Yochanan write in chapters 2 and 3 were literal, local congregations that existed at the time of the book's writing. They were extant in Yochanan's day, and the messages were for their leaders - their messengers - their pastors.

For question 2, your "brackets" are bent. The Greek word "tachu" means "suddenly" and "en tachei" means "in haste." They are not about WHEN as in "soon"; they are talking about HOW He comes, as in "SUDDENLY; WITHOUT WARNING!" The phrase "ho gar kairos eggus," translated in some versions as "for the time is at hand," means "for the occasion/opportunity is within one's grasp!" If you can't see that, then I can understand why you or anyone would go the route of preterism. It's either that or your faith would be damaged. But, when one understands the nuances of the Greek words and phrases, then one no longer sees these as "unkept promises" that one has to explain away with a position like preterism, but as "UNREALIZED OPPORTUNITIES," things to get excited about, things to anticipate with joy!

For question 3, it's simply that Dani'el is not privy to the full revelation of what the prophecy meant. It's BEYOND him! Dani'el was just being told that the information within the prophecy was "classified"; that is, it was on a "need to know" basis, and Dani'el didn't "need to know!"

*************************************************
Shalom, Bob.

What if Revelation was written prior to 70AD and one can present a very good argument that this is the case. Actually the only strong evidence that Revelation was written later than 70AD is provided by Irenaeus in a statement he made regarding Polycarp who supposedly had seen the Apostle John after that date, but Irenaeus also claimed the Yeshua lived to be fifty years old so much of his writings in "Against Heresies" is suspect.

Also what if the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 was actually the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law and had nothing to do with the destruction of the temple? It was after this that Yeshua appeared to Saul and his conversion took place.

In Yeshua Messiah,

Bob

Ahem! Yeshua` IS alive after all; so, He DID live to be fifty years old! In fact, if Yeshua` was born in 5 B.C., He has currently lived to be 2,016 years old! Something to consider; Irenaeus may have been talking about something that happened when Yeshua` was indeed fifty! Who but God knows at this point?

Regarding Stephen's stoning, it was a tragedy; however, God doesn't REPLACE a person with another person! God deals with each individual individually! In other words, He was dealing with Sha'uwl Paulos INDEPENDENT of Stephen! In fact, the two were linked solely by the fact that Sha'uwl was guarding the cloaks of those who did the stoning, Sha'uwl being too young to participate in the stoning. Thus, Paul (Sha'uwl) had a PART in the death of Stephen. He was an accomplice to his murder. Moreover, Paul admitted to consenting to his death and the deaths of many others out of his misguided zeal for God.

You're right in one sense. It was verification of Yeshua`s parable of the vineyard and the heir of the owner, and it showed that the leaders of Isra'el had not yet repented within the 40 years given to them after Yeshua`s rejection. They were still being made desolate. Therefore, they remained blinded in part, and it was the beginning of the times of the Goyim - the Gentiles. BUT, it was certainly NOT "the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law!" First, the Mosaic Law - YHWH'S Law given to Mosheh - never changes! Second, YHWH'S faithfulness - His chesed - His fidelity and loyalty - to HIS people Isra'el never changes! He is CONSISTENT and He is FAITHFUL to love His people, whether Isra'elites or believers! If He could "give up" on Isra'el, then what makes us think that He couldn't "give up" on us?! NO! I REFUSE to believe that! Therefore, the end of WHAT "age?"

Shabbat shalom, Son of Man.

It wasn't. There is as much asurity that John wrote revelation in 75 AD as the Jewish temple being destroyed in 70 AD.

Actually, I've heard that Yochanan wrote Revelation in 96 A.D. but it really doesn't matter for Shilohsfoal because that is STILL TOO EARLY for what he is suggesting.

***********

Shabbat shalom, shilohsfoal.

:There is no posibility the book of revelation w written before 70 ad because the beast did not exist when it was written proving the fact it was written after 70 ad.

Rev 17;8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.



The saints who are marterd by the beast dont die in Rome.
They die in Israel by the beast which once was before 100 ad,and is not in 100 ad and yet is today..

mathew 23;34
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city

I know that you are - once again - trying to equate Isra'el with the Beast, but this argument will not help your premise at all. Isra'el was still in existence after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and wasn't completely dispersed and scattered among the nations until after the Romans put down the Bar Kokhba' Revolt (the Mered bar Kokhba') of 135 A.D.

 

[shilohsfoal]

Shabbat shalom, Interceptor.



Okay. I'm pulling out my collection of notes, but it's not small. My notes were 24 typewritten single-spaced pages just for the NT; I'm still locating my OT notes. You've gotta understand: This was an EXTENSIVE study covering several years! There are 125 occurrences of aioon and 72 occurrences of aioonios, and I looked them all up! Furthermore, there are 438 occurrences of `owlaam in the Tanakh (the OT), and that's just for starters! (I'm a bit of a bulldog when it comes to projects like that.)




No, I don't think so, but then I was always taught to say that anything's possible. The real key is to ask, "Is it probable?" or "Is it plausible?" That's another matter! No, Evolution-influenced people try to insert a gap SOMEWHERE - ANYWHERE - to accommodate the theory of Evolution. Most try to stick it between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but the Hebrew words "tohuw v'bohuw," translated as "without form and void" in the KJV, don't lend themselves to some kind of destruction occurring between the verses. "Tohuw" simply means that it hadn't been given definite shape, yet, and "bohuw" simply means that it was empty of living inhabitants, because they hadn't been created yet!



No, I don't. The questions they asked Yeshua` were not necessarily linked together. They asked,...

Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
KJV

Mark 13:3-4
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
KJV

Luke 21:7
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
KJV

The Greek of these verses is...

Matthew 24:3 Katheemenou de autou epi tou Orous toon Elaioon proseelthon autoo hoi matheetai kat’ idian legontes, “Eipe heemin pote tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion tees sees parousias kai sunteleias tou aioonos?”

Mark 13:2 “Eipon heemin pote tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion hotan mellee tauta sunteleisthai panta?”


Luke 21:7 Epeerooteesan de auton legontes, “Didaskale, pote oun tauta estai? Kai ti to seemeion hotan mellee tauta ginesthai?”That makes at least two questions, if not three, in the Greek! See, one should really put the pieces of the three versions together FIRST BEFORE translating them into English! The "kai"s, like the Hebrew "v-"s, both meaning "and," are the beginnings of new sentences in Hebrew thinking!
So, that makes two questions,
"When shall these things be?"
"What shall be the sign of thy coming (and of the end of the age)?"

Besides, no matter how they asked the questions, His response didn't link them any more than THEY did!



Neither one. I'm looking at it agronomically! Theirs was an agrarian society and their language was agricultural in nature. I understand "heaven" to be the air we breathe and where the birds fly, and the "earth" to be the dirt under our feet and the land in which they planted their crops. The First heavens and earth were destroyed by the waters of the Flood. The Second heavens and earth are the environment in which we currently live, which is slated to be destroyed by the Fire. The Third heavens and earth will be the environment that is recreated after the Fire, "wherein dwelleth righteousness." (K.I.S.S.)


Good. I'm glad you're digging out your Greek NT. It's important to check what anyone says! Again, "Let GOD be true, and EVERY man a liar!"

For question 1, I suppose that you mean when was/will be Revelation fulfilled as opposed to when was it written? I believe that most of it MUST be fulfilled in the future. It's simple, really. When's the last time you've seen locusts with stingers in their abdomens and are large enough to sound like horses and chariots running to battle? When's the last time you've seen a meteorite large enough to destroy 1/3 of all life in a sea? When's the last time you've seen a sputtering meteor that poisons all the fresh-water drinking sources? These are FUTURE events! They are NOT "figurative" and subjective to the whim of the interpreter! I DO, however, recognize that the seven congregations to which Yeshua` had Yochanan write in chapters 2 and 3 were literal, local congregations that existed at the time of the book's writing. They were extant in Yochanan's day, and the messages were for their leaders - their messengers - their pastors.

For question 2, your "brackets" are bent. The Greek word "tachu" means "suddenly" and "en tachei" means "in haste." They are not about WHEN as in "soon"; they are talking about HOW He comes, as in "SUDDENLY; WITHOUT WARNING!" The phrase "ho gar kairos eggus," translated in some versions as "for the time is at hand," means "for the occasion/opportunity is within one's grasp!" If you can't see that, then I can understand why you or anyone would go the route of preterism. It's either that or your faith would be damaged. But, when one understands the nuances of the Greek words and phrases, then one no longer sees these as "unkept promises" that one has to explain away with a position like preterism, but as "UNREALIZED OPPORTUNITIES," things to get excited about, things to anticipate with joy!

For question 3, it's simply that Dani'el is not privy to the full revelation of what the prophecy meant. It's BEYOND him! Dani'el was just being told that the information within the prophecy was "classified"; that is, it was on a "need to know" basis, and Dani'el didn't "need to know!"

*************************************************
Shalom, Bob.



Ahem! Yeshua` IS alive after all; so, He DID live to be fifty years old! In fact, if Yeshua` was born in 5 B.C., He has currently lived to be 2,016 years old! Something to consider; Irenaeus may have been talking about something that happened when Yeshua` was indeed fifty! Who but God knows at this point?

Regarding Stephen's stoning, it was a tragedy; however, God doesn't REPLACE a person with another person! God deals with each individual individually! In other words, He was dealing with Sha'uwl Paulos INDEPENDENT of Stephen! In fact, the two were linked solely by the fact that Sha'uwl was guarding the cloaks of those who did the stoning, Sha'uwl being too young to participate in the stoning. Thus, Paul (Sha'uwl) had a PART in the death of Stephen. He was an accomplice to his murder. Moreover, Paul admitted to consenting to his death and the deaths of many others out of his misguided zeal for God.

You're right in one sense. It was verification of Yeshua`s parable of the vineyard and the heir of the owner, and it showed that the leaders of Isra'el had not yet repented within the 40 years given to them after Yeshua`s rejection. They were still being made desolate. Therefore, they remained blinded in part, and it was the beginning of the times of the Goyim - the Gentiles. BUT, it was certainly NOT "the end of the Age of Israel under the Mosaic Law!" First, the Mosaic Law - YHWH'S Law given to Mosheh - never changes! Second, YHWH'S faithfulness - His chesed - His fidelity and loyalty - to HIS people Isra'el never changes! He is CONSISTENT and He is FAITHFUL to love His people, whether Isra'elites or believers! If He could "give up" on Isra'el, then what makes us think that He couldn't "give up" on us?! NO! I REFUSE to believe that! Therefore, the end of WHAT "age?"

Shabbat shalom, Son of Man.



Actually, I've heard that Yochanan wrote Revelation in 96 A.D. but it really doesn't matter for Shilohsfoal because that is STILL TOO EARLY for what he is suggesting.

***********

Shabbat shalom, shilohsfoal.



I know that you are - once again - trying to equate Isra'el with the Beast, but this argument will not help your premise at all. Isra'el was still in existence after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and wasn't completely dispersed and scattered among the nations until after the Romans put down the Bar Kokhba' Revolt (the Mered bar Kokhba') of 135 A.D.

So what king did Israel have after 70 ad ?
Who sat on the the throne of Isael after 70 ad?

Maqybe you still dont understand what Im saying.
The Israeli goverment is the beast which the unbelieving jews of judaism from all nations peoples and tongues the world over have followed into the promised land.And no .They had no goverment in 100 ad as Ive said .They had no king.

 

[veteran]

One cannot just say these Scripture events Jesus gave in answer to His Apostles on the Mount of Olives have no connection.


Matt 24:2-3
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.
3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(KJV)

Matt 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
(KJV)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, shilohsfoal.

So what king did Israel have after 70 ad ?
Who sat on the the throne of Isael after 70 ad?

Maqybe you still dont understand what Im saying.
The Israeli goverment is the beast which the unbelieving jews of judaism from all nations peoples and tongues the world over have followed into the promised land.And no .They had no goverment in 100 ad as Ive said .They had no king.

They didn't have a king BEFORE 70 A.D.! They have no king today! They have a "prime minister" - a "chief steward." One who is merely supposed to act on behalf of the absentee King until the King comes. The Isra'eli government CAN'T be the "beast" because it has NO KING at all!

 

[shilohsfoal]

Shabbat shalom, shilohsfoal.



They didn't have a king BEFORE 70 A.D.! They have no king today! They have a "prime minister" - a "chief steward." One who is merely supposed to act on behalf of the absentee King until the King comes. The Isra'eli government CAN'T be the "beast" because it has NO KING at all!

You just dont get it.
Do you really expect John to write down the words prime minister when there was no such words?
They compassed sea and land in order to serve thier goverment.The goverment that makes thier laws and passes judgement.The same goverment that declares war and taxes the people.The same govement which directs its army and declares that land belongs to it.

 

[whitestone]

Why did Jesus' disciples connect the destruction of the Temple with 1) the sign of Jesus coming (parousia) and 2) the end of the age?

Mat 24:2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Furthermore, why did Stephen in Acts 6-7 make the same connections as the disciples?


Acts 6:13 and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,
Acts 6:14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."

Acts 6 Key

"this holy place" = the Temple
"Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place" = destruction of the Temple at Jesus coming (parousia)
"will change the customs that Moses delivered to us" = end of the age

This "change in the customs" of Moses is certainly tied to the Law and it's passing away along with the Temple.

?
?
?

The answer is very simply that the destruction of Jerusalem and ultimately, the Temple in A.D. 70 was exactly what the disciples connected it to....1) the sign of Jesus coming (parousia) and 2) the end of the age.

P.S. I may want to add that Jesus never corrects the disciples understanding of these events.

Yes, of course, all that Jesus warned His disciples of concerning the destruction, happened in AD 70. As recorded in the Gospels, as recorded in the Revelastion. It all happened exactly as He said it would.

All that He said concerning sending His messengers into the four corners of the earth to gather together His elect in the Gospel, has been happening for 2000 years, starting at Jerusalem, just exactly as He said.

Yet we still see people standing around with their heads tipped back still gazing up into heaven looking for something "else" to "happen" lol. What a way to get a "stiff neck" hehe. What do the 'futurists' call that? Eschatology?

"take no thought for tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself sufficient to it's own evil". ~ Jesus (matt 6:34)

So what king did Israel have after 70 ad ?
Who sat on the the throne of Isael after 70 ad?

Maqybe you still dont understand what Im saying.
The Israeli goverment is the beast which the unbelieving jews of judaism from all nations peoples and tongues the world over have followed into the promised land.And no .They had no goverment in 100 ad as Ive said .They had no king.

TRUE Israel's King has reigned since Christ came. Jesus is Israel's King Forever.

I'm surprised to see some actual comprehension of these truths on this forum. I salute you Interceptor. You also have some truth, shilohsfoal, in your statements concerning the harlot/beast jewish devil. (However the book of Rev was most assuredly written and delivered to James in Jerusalem prior to AD70 for obvious reasons. (i.e. same message as Matt 24 easily seen) This fact is verifiable and is in all but one historical records. NOT Origen's, which is no surprise...).
Most folk have bought the "dispensational" theology of the devil that the "jews" are somehow "God's chosen" (being raised a jew, I thought this also at one time of course hehe).
But we who are in Christ and know His Word recognize that only the Church is Israel, and that those who call themselves "Israel" over in the middle east are simply as Esau or Ishmael with no birthright or inheritance whatsoever.
We only get the Birthright of Abraham through Christ Jesus, the Only Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16).
The entire N.T. New Covenant Gospel.
Praise your Husband Jesus O True Israel Bride of Christ!


(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
(Gal 4:23) Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
(Gal 4:24) Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
(Gal 4:25) Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
(Gal 4:26) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
(Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the husband.
(Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
(Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(Gal 4:30) Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
(Gal 4:31) Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.

Only the Church is Israel, the "Freewoman" Bride of Christ

(Rev 12:1) And a great sign was seen in heaven; a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars;

(Rev 21:2) And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

(Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely.

Praise Jesus!

 

[veteran]

Yes, of course, all that Jesus warned His disciples of concerning the destruction, happened in AD 70. As recorded in the Gospels, as recorded in the Revelastion. It all happened exactly as He said it would.

More hogwash from the Biblically Illiterate that is. Revelation does NOT account for the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Instead, in Rev.11, it shows a temple standing in Jerusalem!

 

[whitestone]

More hogwash from the Biblically Illiterate that is. Revelation does NOT account for the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Instead, in Rev.11, it shows a temple standing in Jerusalem!

Yes, Rev is about AD 70 and everything thereafter, forever. All Sons of God know this. You need to have a relationship with scriptures and the Holy Spirit, then this will become evident to you also. Just have some patience and a little bit of intelligence. Then that which you call 'pagan' above, you will realize is the only Truth.

I AM the Temple standing in New Jerusalem. Along with my brethren, we are that everlasting building made without hands, the Body of Jesus raised up, His Temple. Have you never read of these things? Evidently not. That is what you read about in Rev 11. It is the N.T. message.
Of course, satan tries to force the ignorant into worshipping pagan "futurism" that leads to death. Your own private false teaching just confirms yourself outside of the Temple. Outside of the Spirit. Outside of Salvation. Your testimony places you outside of the Temple. How sad but true it is for you. I can only confirm your position you place yourself if you continue to insist your position outside of the Temple of the living God. I can't force you to be part of it. It is a choice based on Love and understanding. I will pray for you.