Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

It's a fact the temple Christ spoke of could not exist without the retaining walls. Earlier temples didn't because they were lower and were smaller. *rolls my eyes*

I admit I don't know all of the construction involved in the building of these temples. But understanding how retaining walls work today, they are not a part of a building unless they are part of the building's own foundation. And as I said, my understanding of these ancient temples precludes any sense that these retaining walls were part of the building foundation. They appear to have just been typical retaining walls, holding up the level of the area around the temple buildings. Nothing you've said indicates to me you have any working knowledge of such things.

Regardless, as I've said repeatedly, Jesus' use of the term for "buildings" indicates the part of the building that is above ground, because he is talking about the stones of the building *coming down!* Below ground level foundations don't "come down!" This wall is largely "above ground" from the viewpoint of its being built down to a lower area below the temple mount plaza.

And I'm not even convinced the retaining walls were the foundation of these buildings, since they appear to have been not underneath the buildings but on the periphery of the area they were holding up. If they were really a foundation for the temple buildings, they would be directly below those buildings, and not out on the periphery raising the level of the plaza upon which the buildings stood.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Stone is still upon stone there to this day. Even in 70 AD not every "building" was destroyed so no fulfillment then.

That's still a ludicrous argument you're trying to make.
1) A "stone built upon a stone" to make a wall is a kind of "building," yes. But it doesn't make that kind of "building" the kind of "building" Jesus was talking about, which would *come down!* Jesus was talking about the kind of "building" that people live and work in--they don't live in and work in *walls!* Nor do retaining walls "come down" in the same way actual "buildings" do. I've built retaining walls, and I've demolished buildings. Have you?
2) The Romans literally took down these "buildings" of the temple in 70 AD. I should think nearly all respectable scholars will admit this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm going by the meaning of the Greek word, you are going by the English meaning of a building. I'm the one who is correct here. Anything that was built out of stone was an architectural building, whether a wall or a temple or any other stone architectural part of the complex.

LOL. I'm going by the buildings that the disciples were actually marveling at which I'm sure were the same buildings that they had just been inside of prior to that. They were not marveling at any outer walls. LOL. The buildings that they were inside of are the buildings they were marveling at and the buildings that Jesus said would be destroyed. And they were.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I admit I don't know all of the construction involved in the building of these temples. But understanding how retaining walls work today, they are not a part of a building unless they are part of the building's own foundation. And as I said, my understanding of these ancient temples precludes any sense that these retaining walls were part of the building foundation. They appear to have just been typical retaining walls, holding up the level of the area around the temple buildings. Nothing you've said indicates to me you have any working knowledge of such things.

Regardless, as I've said repeatedly, Jesus' use of the term for "buildings" indicates the part of the building that is above ground, because he is talking about the stones of the building *coming down!* Below ground level foundations don't "come down!" This wall is largely "above ground" from the viewpoint of its being built down to a lower area below the temple mount plaza.

Great points that I'm sure he will just ignore.

And I'm not even convinced the retaining walls were the foundation of these buildings, since they appear to have been not underneath the buildings but on the periphery of the area they were holding up. If they were really a foundation for the temple buildings, they would be directly below those buildings, and not out on the periphery raising the level of the plaza upon which the buildings stood.

Agree.

 

[ewq1938]

LOL. I'm going by the buildings that the disciples were actually marveling at which I'm sure were the same buildings that they had just been inside of prior to that. They were not marveling at any outer walls. LOL. The buildings that they were inside of are the buildings they were marveling at and the buildings that Jesus said would be destroyed. And they were.

Jesus said "all these things" not "some of these things". Even the stones they walked on were to be destroyed, so too the walls.

 

[ewq1938]

Regardless, as I've said repeatedly, Jesus' use of the term for "buildings" indicates the part of the building that is above ground, because he is talking about the stones of the building *coming down!* Below ground level foundations don't "come down!"

Of course they can. They were stacked UP, they can be unstacked and thrown down. He is talking about unbuilding things that were built.

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.

 

[ewq1938]

That's still a ludicrous argument you're trying to make.
1) A "stone built upon a stone" to make a wall is a kind of "building," yes. But it doesn't make that kind of "building" the kind of "building" Jesus was talking about, which would *come down!* Jesus was talking about the kind of "building" that people live and work in--they don't live in and work in *walls!* Nor do retaining walls "come down" in the same way actual "buildings" do. I've built retaining walls, and I've demolished buildings. Have you?
2) The Romans literally took down these "buildings" of the temple in 70 AD. I should think nearly all respectable scholars will admit this?

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.

 

[ewq1938]

Great points that I'm sure he will just ignore.

Agree.

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.

 

[ewq1938]

Let us all marvel at the same walls the disciples did!

 

[ewq1938]

Most of the temple complex is made of WALLS!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course they can. They were stacked UP, they can be unstacked and thrown down. He is talking about unbuilding things that were built.

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

Not at all, Jesus was referring to the temple in Jerusalem being thrown down with its associated buildings--not separate tower structures that had nothing to do with the temple.

A retaining wall can be taken down, but it in effect becomes part of the ground. As such, it is not a building that can be taken down, as in demolishing a building.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Great points that I'm sure he will just ignore.

Agree.

True, often I post arguments without expecting any change of opinion. I'm posting for others who still have not made up their minds. It's great to be on the same page with you!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Most of the temple complex is made of WALLS!

With all due respect, the *plaza* was contained by retaining walls. The temple buildings were not.

It's a nice picture though. It appears that buildings were built over the retaining walls, as well. In that case, you might argue that the retaining walls form part of the foundation of those peripheral buildings.

However, this is not the usual meaning of "buildings" that were to be "thrown down." The obvious inference is that the buildings *above ground* were to be demolished, which clearly is what happened in Jesus' generation.

Obviously, those retaining walls were not part of the foundation of the temple itself! So Jesus is referring to the structures *above ground* that were to be "thrown down,* and not anything that was *under them.*

 

[ewq1938]

It appears that buildings were built over the retaining walls, as well. In that case, you might argue that the retaining walls form part of the foundation of those peripheral buildings.

Obviously, those retaining walls were not part of the foundation of the temple itself!

The walls support the entire temple complex and everything in it and they also support normal protective walls that go higher up. Plus one of the temple buildings was not destroyed in 70 AD further proving my position and debunking the preterist position.

 

[ewq1938]

Not at all, Jesus was referring to the temple in Jerusalem being thrown down with its associated buildings--not separate tower structures that had nothing to do with the temple.

Jesus said all the buildings would be torn down, not just the temple. What happened and what did not happen in 70 AD does not match what Christ said would happen.

Mar 13:1 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!
Mar 13:2 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.

Here they leave the temple and they speaks of the buildings they can see which is more than just the temple. The building the Roman's kept is one of these great buildings they are admiring.

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.


More of the prophecy! 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.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus said all the buildings would be torn down, not just the temple. What happened and what did not happen in 70 AD does not match what Christ said would happen.

Sorry, the buildings that Jesus referred to were the buildings associated with the temple worship.

Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.

Mark 14.58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

 

[ewq1938]

Sorry, the buildings that Jesus referred to were the buildings associated with the temple worship.

No, he didn't. He clearly said the entire city would be torn down to the ground. That didn't happen.

Mark 14.58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

That's not even the right temple. Are you trying to claim the temple the Roman's destroyed was rebuilt 3 days later? lol

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, he didn't. He clearly said the entire city would be torn down to the ground. That didn't happen.

Jesus did say the city of Jerusalem would be completely destroyed. It actually took place in two stages, I believe, in 70 AD and in 135 AD. But it was completely defeated by the Romans in 70 AD, as Jesus indicated. Daniel had said this would happen in Dan 9.26-27, at the end of a period of 70 weeks (of years) leading to the 1st Coming of Messiah. So Jesus confirmed what was already known from reading Daniel.

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.”

The above passage sounds as if all the buildings in Jerusalem would be completely flattened. But in context, Jesus was speaking primarily of the temple buildings, which was at the core of Jerusalem. We know that because the other versions confirm that. And Luke here seems to be focused on the temple, as well, because we read that in Luke 21.1.

That's not even the right temple. Are you trying to claim the temple the Roman's destroyed was rebuilt 3 days later? lol

Jesus' enemies interpreted Jesus' statements to mean that he would destroy the temple. He had mentioned that his body would be killed, but they understood him to refer to the temple of Herod.

The point is not what Jesus meant but what Jesus' enemies understood by the sense of the temple's destruction. It was not an annihilation of the entire temple complex, but only the destruction of the temple itself, which for Jesus was the equivalent of his body.

I think it important to recognize that when Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem they were understood as together being decimated. The annihilation of the temple was an essential part of the defeat of the city.

So when Luke hears about Jesus railing against the city that every stone will be removed, he is speaking, in context, of the annihilation of the temple. Immediately after he referred to the removal of every stone in this desolation of the city Jesus focuses on the temple itself.

Luke 19.45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. 46 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.

And so we know that Jesus' reference to the desolation of the city was exemplified specifically in the annihilation of every stone of the *temple.* This is borne out in Luke's account a little later....

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.”

All of the versions agree with Dan 9.26-27 and focus on the desolation of Jerusalem and on the complete termination of temple worship, ie sacrifices and offerings. And so, it is not surprising that when Jesus refers to the defeat of Jerusalem he refers to the removal of every stone. We know from all of the versions that he is inferring the annihilation of the temple itself and its associated buildings.

The most convincing argument in all this is that it happened just as Jesus said, and in the very generation Jesus said it would happen. To get around this arguing about whether the retaining wall must be included in Jesus' reference to the destruction of the temple is absurd, in my estimation.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus did say the city of Jerusalem would be completely destroyed.

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.


He said it would be even with the ground. That has never happened to Jerusalem. The prophecy of no stone upon another is unfulfilled. It will happen during the vials at the second coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

He said it would be even with the ground. That has never happened to Jerusalem. The prophecy of no stone upon another is unfulfilled. It will happen during the vials at the second coming.

I can't argue this point--I just interpret it the way it makes sense to me. The desolation of Jerusalem involves its complete desolation, and part of that desolation is the removal of every stone of the temple buildings in order to seal the end of Jewish temple worship. What makes it compelling to me that Jesus was referring to 70 AD was not just the matter of which buildings were flattened, but also, the point that it had to take place in Jesus' generation.

"This generation will not pass away unless all these things happen first..." (paraphrased)