When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[Dave Watchman]

If your point perhaps has to do with homosexuality, the fact you put 'men' in bold letters, I don't see that making sense of the text based on what this part says---the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. One of those is something good that you would hope to happen to you, the other isn't. IOW, there is no such thing as practicing homosexuals that are saved. All of this assuming homosexuality was your point. But if it wasn't, everything I submitted here is moot in that case.

Nope you're right. Moot is not the case. I was thinking the same thing too. Could it mean not all homosexuals will be taken to destruction.

I still agree with the concept, I borrowed it from another guy much smarter than me. He's an intellectual. He also quotes a Rabi with detail on the upper and lower millstone, being symbolic for the male and female. He's saying it all happens at night. The two women "grinding", the two "men" in bed, and the two "men" in the field. He says the disciples knew it meant the Sodomite situation. The earlier mention of the "days of Lot" is the slam dunk; from John D. Brey:

I can't speak for, or against, your theological foundations, but for the record, let me state mine. I believe the scripture is inerrant when interpreted correctly. I don't believe it ever makes scientific or logical errors when interpreted correctly.​

​

I preface my comments with that, since not only does Luke chapter 17 speak of men in the field, as does Matthew, but Jesus's students appear to have been following what Jesus is saying just fine. In other words, after Jesus speaks of two men in the same bed, and two women grinding together, both at night mind you, he then speaks of two men in the field.​

​

At the latter (men in the field), his students, scratching their heads, ask: "Where Lord?" (verse 37). ---- Where on earth do men work the fields in the middle of the night? Jesus's students are clearly following him. They know he's speaking of homosexuals (particularly since he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah where sodomizers are tight עמרה, so to say). They're under no illusion concerning the fact that Jesus is speaking of homosexuals which is why they ask about the men in the field ---at night? Jesus answers:​

​

Wheresoever the body is, thither will the vultures gather.​

​

Luke 17:37.​

​

Since, unlike Jesus's students, the interpreters and translators are daft, i.e., they don't know whats going on in the text, they translate "vultures" (Greek "aetoi") as "eagles," so that those reading the translation, like those doing it, don't have a clue what's going on. Jesus is confirming to his students that the sheep are going to be separated from the goats at the Judgment in the end-times so that the righteous are removed from the earth while the unsaved remain. And it matters not a wink if they're in their beds safe and sound or in their graves out in the field. At the resurrection they'll be treated the same.

Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical

It was a very black and white outlook. Maybe back then what other cultures wore, i.e., mixed materials, were wrong for Hebrew people, so if they wore all the same material, it set them apart. I don't know...it just sounds like a lot of work to me. It certainly does sound like a life of...

www.religiousforums.com

What about women "grinding" at the same time men are in the same bed?​

​

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman,​

Or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;​

10 Then let my wife grind unto another,​

And let others bow down upon her.​

​

Job 31:9-10.​

​

Fwiw, "grinding" was a metaphor for sex in the Tanakh. The grinding stone was often phallic in shape and was placed into the opening where the grain was waiting to be ground by the stone.​

​

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife [enjoy conjugal relations with her] which he hath taken. 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. 7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.​

​

Deuteronomy 24:5-6.​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:​

​

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].​

​

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Bracketed statement is R. Munk's).​

​

Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical

It was a very black and white outlook. Maybe back then what other cultures wore, i.e., mixed materials, were wrong for Hebrew people, so if they wore all the same material, it set them apart. I don't know...it just sounds like a lot of work to me. It certainly does sound like a life of...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Stumpmaster]

BTW, what I said in regards to Acts 6:13 below, that does not apply to you nor your view. I'm attempting to kill 2 birds with one stone, so to speak. That being, the holy place isn't meaning the city of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:15 nor is it meaning the 2nd temple.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

This verse aside since it is the verse in question.

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

(BTW, those that insist the holy place was the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 also agree with the Jews here that the 2nd temple was still the holy place after Christ died and rose. Which then begs the question, why aren't these same interpreters also siding with the Jews when they said this--This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place? Probably because they disagree with the Jews about that part, thus are cherry picking what they disagree with the Jews here about. While some of the rest of us don't agree with the Jews here about any of these things. IOW, we don't need to cherry pick anything here. )

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others

Holy place isn't meaning Jesusalem here.

It stands to reason then, if none of those other verses are meaning the city of Jerusalem then neither is the holy place meaning the city in Matthew 24:15.

I stopped reading after a few lines. The argument provided is too convoluted and leads nowhere. Give it up and face reality, I suggest.

 

[Timtofly]

SO God, in His infinite compassion and mercy, knew that word travels fairly fast but people also need time to adjust to new truths...so the Lord gave them 38 more years (?) to make the transition in their own minds and then let the Romans tear down the temple and destroy it.

They could have had hundreds of more years with a twmple economy, had they not started to fight each other, and bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire. They already had peace under the Romans. They did not need to start fighting each other. They were not content with the status quo.

God could have stirred up this strife within the temple leadership as a test, or as punishment for declaring the blood of Jesus on their hands, and their offspring. They failed either way, instead of asking for God's forgiveness.

People want to compare this 40 years with the 40 years in the wilderness, for unbelief after leaving Egypt and receiving the Promised land. Obviously they did not receive the Promised land free of Roman influence. They lost everything. It was not an extension of time. It was the end of God's blessings, and the blindness in part that will last until the Second Coming.

They did not have to loose, nor struggle for 40 years. They could have remained under the Romans for another 400 years, and more.

 

[Timtofly]

We know the answers to those questions.

We don't know the answer to how long between the Second Coming and "the end" is.

You think you know how long Jesus will be on the earth, after the Second Coming, but you do not. You deny there is even a thousand years after the Second Coming of Jesus on the earth.

Those in Paradise, which is where these people are, do not even ask the question until the Second Coming happens. There are still people alive on the earth after the Second Coming, and it could be years, months, or days, but no one knows how long that period will be. Many here claim it is over in a split second, and they don't have to wait, even though they are told they wait a little longer.

"that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

No one knows how long that little season will last.

 

[grafted branch]

Those in Paradise, which is where these people are, do not even ask the question until the Second Coming happens.

Ok, so let me get this straight, all the souls under the altar at the fifth seal are people in paradise and some of them have been there for almost 2,000 years. Then when the second coming happens they all in unison ask the Revelation 6:10 question knowing full well that the answer to that question will be “that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled”.

Why do you suppose they are asking a question when they know what the exact answer will be? Do you think that somehow once people die they can’t remember the words written in Revelation 6:11?

"that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

You obviously know what answer is going to be given because you just quoted it above, so why would you personally ask the question of how long if you were at the fifth seal?

 

[Davidpt]

Ok, so let me get this straight, all the souls under the altar at the fifth seal are people in paradise and some of them have been there for almost 2,000 years. Then when the second coming happens they all in unison ask the Revelation 6:10 question knowing full well that the answer to that question will be “that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled”.

Why do you suppose they are asking a question when they know what the exact answer will be? Do you think that somehow once people die they can’t remember the words written in Revelation 6:11?


You obviously know what answer is going to be given because you just quoted it above, so why would you personally ask the question of how long if you were at the fifth seal?

I gave what you said to Chatgpt to chew on. Here is some of what it said. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like how it answered and addressed this. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
----------------------------
chatgpt:
-----------------Futurist View:
Futurists interpret Revelation largely as future prophecy still awaiting fulfillment, especially from chapter 4 onward.

From this angle, the souls under the altar represent those killed during the Tribulation, not from the first century.

Their cry for justice is understood as part of the escalating drama of divine judgment in the final days.

Asking "how long?" is seen as expressing holy impatience or longing for God's justice, not ignorance.

It’s often framed as symbolic or poetic language rather than a literal “they don’t know.”

Why Would They Ask If They Know the Answer?
This question taps into theology, psychology, and literary style:

Lament as a genre:

In the Bible, asking “how long?” is not always about needing information.

It often expresses a deep emotional longing for justice or deliverance.

The martyrs echo this cry, showing the rightness of yearning for God to act.

Memory and Knowledge in the Afterlife:

Revelation doesn’t establish whether souls in paradise remember all earthly scriptures or prophecies.

If they did know Revelation’s timeline, their question could still serve as a liturgical or symbolic prompt to move the narrative forward.

Prophetic Drama:

Revelation is full of visions, signs, and dramatized sequences meant to convey spiritual truth.

This question may be part of that drama, not a literal transcript of actual souls conversing.

Summary:
The Preterist uses this argument to critique Futurism: "Why would souls ask a question they already know the answer to if this event is still future and they’ve had 2,000 years to figure it out?"

But from a Futurist (or symbolic) standpoint, the question isn't about ignorance—it’s a prophetic cry for justice.

Memory or knowledge of Revelation itself may not apply in the afterlife the way we assume, or the scene may be representative rather than literal.

 

[Wick Stick]

I gave what you said to Chatgpt to chew on. Here is some of what it said. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like how it answered and addressed this. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
----------------------------
chatgpt:
-----------------Futurist View:
Futurists interpret Revelation largely as future prophecy still awaiting fulfillment, especially from chapter 4 onward.

From this angle, the souls under the altar represent those killed during the Tribulation, not from the first century.

The souls of the martyrs crying out for justice is a reference to another Hebrew book that is not part of the Bible. In that book, they are the souls of ALL the martyrs from the beginning of time, starting with Abel.

Matthew 23 and Hebrews 12 also make allusions to this story. It was well-known in 1st century Judea.

 

[Davidpt]

The souls of the martyrs crying out for justice is a reference to another Hebrew book that is not part of the Bible. In that book, they are the souls of ALL the martyrs from the beginning of time, starting with Abel.

Matthew 23 and Hebrews 12 also make allusions to this story. It was well-known in 1st century Judea.

The fact you brought this up, I guess I overlooked something chatgpt said that I myself don't necessarily agree with. Meaning this---From this angle, the souls under the altar represent those killed during the Tribulation, not from the first century.

I would argue this instead. That it includes Abel through Stephen and anyone else martyred after Stephen was martyred, yet before the beast ascends out of the pit. All of these would be in view under the altar in Revelation 6. I guess that means we are somewhat in agreement about some of this then. Maybe.

But once the beast ascends out of the pit, now we are in the time of the little season meant in Revelation 6. Where I equate that with the 42 month reign of the beast that must precede the 2nd coming. In my view it is meaning great tribulation, Matthew 24:21, Daniel 12:1. Except I don't view that the same way Pretribbers and Dispies view it. I don't take those things literal. It's involving a temple, no doubt. The one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. but not meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, nor a literal rebuilt one in the future, but this temple instead---

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

 

[Wick Stick]

The fact you brought this up, I guess I overlooked something chatgpt said that I myself don't necessarily agree with. Meaning this---From this angle, the souls under the altar represent those killed during the Tribulation, not from the first century.

I would argue this instead. That it includes Abel through Stephen and anyone else martyred after Stephen was martyred, yet before the beast ascends out of the pit. All of these would be in view under the altar in Revelation 6. I guess that means we are somewhat in agreement about some of this then. Maybe.

But once the beast ascends out of the pit, now we are in the time of the little season meant in Revelation 6. Where I equate that with the 42 month reign of the beast that must precede the 2nd coming. In my view it is meaning great tribulation, Matthew 24:21, Daniel 12:1. Except I don't view that the same way Pretribbers and Dispies view it. I don't take those things literal. It's involving a temple, no doubt. The one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. but not meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, nor a literal rebuilt one in the future, but this temple instead---

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I'm not sure if it's "futurists" that are mistaken here or ChatGPT. I feel like "futurist" is kind of an insulting label - one that people with that belief system don't embrace.

 

[Truth7t7]

the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed.

Your Claim Is "False"

When Jesus shed his blood and died on the cross of Calvary the veil in the temple "Holy Place" was torn from the top to the bottom, God vacated his presence from the temple "Holy Place" at this time, Jesus at that time was the mediator between God and Men, the temple and its priestly service was replaced with the High Priest Jesus Christ

1 Timothy 2:5-6KJV
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Mark 15:37-38KJV
37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

 

[Davidpt]

Your Claim Is "False"

When Jesus shed his blood and died on the cross of Calvary the veil in the temple "Holy Place" was torn from the top to the bottom, God vacated his presence from the temple "Holy Place" at this time, Jesus at that time was the mediator between God and Men, the temple and its priestly service was replaced with the High Priest Jesus Christ

1 Timothy 2:5-6KJV
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Mark 15:37-38KJV
37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Here's an idea. Instead of blatantly misrepresenting what I plainly said and meant, why not look at what I said in context, not out of context? Observe what I was arguing at the time. Grasp my position. I wasn't arguing for what you quoted, I was arguing against it. One would have to lack reading comprehensions altogether in order to not have noticed. Or if not that, the only option is, this one is purposely misrepresenting what I plainly said and meant.

Here is what I said in context.

"If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed."

(IOW, these interpreters can't seem to make up their mind which it is. Obviously, it can't be both. It has to be one or the other. Either the 2nd temple was no longer the holy place when Christ died and rose, or was no longer the holy place once it was destroyed some 40 years later. Make up your mind one way or the other then. In this case, is that too much to ask?)

 

[Truth7t7]

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

First, let's think about what this does not say that you have tried to say that it says in the past.

It does not say then shall be great tribulation of a greater scope than ever happened before or ever will happen again. Do you agree? Can you acknowledge that? If Jesus was saying that, then how could it be true? How could there be great tribulation in that sense that is greater than what happened with the flood in Noah's day? Will this great tribulation you believe in result in less than 8 people in the world being saved? Of course not, right? So, Jesus could not have meant what He said in that sense. Are you following me so far?

So, what does it actually say then? What He said is that the great tribulation that He was talking about would be unlike anything that happened before. He made NO reference to the scope of the great tribulation there (local, regional or global), but only said it would be unlike anything that happened before or anything that would ever happen afterwards. Agree? Are you still with me?

So, with the understsanding that Jesus was not talking about a gobal event involving great tribulation greater than anything that happened before or would happen after, but instead was talking about an event unlike any that happened before or would ever happen after, that allows for something to happen locally or regionally instead of globablly that was unlike anything else to happen before or after. And, if you read about what happened in 70 AD, it definitely was unlike anything that happened anywhere before or since.

God's words below silence your claims of a 70AD fulfillment of Matthew 24:21 the "Great Tribulation"

Daniel clearly states that at the time of great tribulation the final judgment (Everyone Found Written In The Book) and the resurrection of "All" takes place, we know well this takes place at the Lord's second coming

Matthew below is in perfect agreement with Daniel, (Immediately After The Tribulation Of Those Days, They Shall See The Son Of Man Coming) verse 31 shows the angels harvesting in the last day resurrection at the second coming

Conclusion: The great tribulation seen in Matthew 24:21 is "Future" and immediately after this "Future" great tribulation the second coming, resurrection, and final judgement takes place, your claim in 70AD fulfillment of Matthew 24:21 is 100% "False"

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Daniel 12:1-2KJV
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Matthew 24:21 & 29-31KJV
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

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.

 

[Davidpt]

I'm not sure if it's "futurists" that are mistaken here or ChatGPT. I feel like "futurist" is kind of an insulting label - one that people with that belief system don't embrace.

Maybe look at it like this. Take this little season in Revelation 6, for instance. If one interpreter is applying it to the first century and another interpreter is applying it to final days of this age leading up to the 2nd coming, obviously then, a futurist label can't fit the former, nor can a Preterist label fit the latter. But a Preterist label can fit the former, and a futurist label can fit the latter, though.

That doesn't have to mean the label being applied to the latter at the time means that this is this person's position every single time. Obviously, some prophecies are not always involving the future, the final days of this age. Luke 21:20 would be a good example. That's referring to the events leading up to 70 AD. Therefore, though a futurist label fits someone applying the little season in Revelation 6 to that of the final days of this age, and if this same interpreter is applying Luke 21:20 to first century events though, obviously then a futurist label can no longer apply in this case.

 

[Truth7t7]

Luke 21:20 would be a good example. That's referring to the events leading up to 70 AD.

"False"

Luke 21:20 in Jerusalem being surrounded by armies is a future event unfulfilled, in the fulfilling of the gentiles Luke 21:24 also seen in Revelation 11:2 as the book of Revelation was written in 96AD when John was imprisoned by Emperor Domitian that reigned in 81-96AD years "After" Your 70AD claim

Luke 21:24KJV
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2KJV
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

 

[Truth7t7]

Luke 21:20 would be a good example. That's referring to the events leading up to 70 AD.

"False"

Luke 21:20 in Jerusalem being surrounded by armies is a future event unfulfilled, in the fulfilling of the gentiles also seen in Revelation 11:2 as the book of Revelation was written in 96AD when John was imprisoned by Emperor Domitian that reigned in 81-96AD years "After" Your 70AD claim in fulfillment

 

[Davidpt]

"False"

Luke 21:20 in Jerusalem being surrounded by armies is a future event unfulfilled, in the fulfilling of the gentiles also seen in Revelation 11:2 as the book of Revelation was written in 96AD when John was imprisoned by Emperor Domitian that reigned in 81-96AD years "After" Your 70AD claim

For decades that was my position as well. Therefore, I grasp where you are coming from and why. The reason I changed my position is because I eventually realized that it was not reasonable that the Discourse would be silent altogether in regards to 70 AD. 70 AD happened, and that it makes zero sense, the fact it did happen, that what is recorded in the Discourse did not include this event.

The same way it makes zero sense, the fact 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, has to be fulfilled before Christ can return, and then the fact the Discourse records Christ's 2nd coming, that the Discourse did not include anything pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Jesus ignored that subject altogether if some of these interpretations are correct. That He found the 2nd temple and it's fate to be far more important than the fate involving the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple, but not meaning a literal temple.

 

[ewq1938]

For decades that was my position as well. Therefore, I grasp where you are coming from and why. The reason I changed my position is because I eventually realized that it was not reasonable that the Discourse would be silent altogether in regards to 70 AD. 70 AD happened, and that it makes zero sense, the fact it did happen, that what is recorded in the Discourse did not include this event.

It isn't mentioned in the discourse. It was something that happened to the Jews primarily (since it was they that rebelled), not to Christians. Another similar thing happened later, like 125 AD or so but not as many people mention that but it was the Romans suppressing the Jews similar to what happened in 70 AD. It was also not mentioned by Christ. The discourse is solely about the end times, a few years prior to the second coming, and ends with the second coming and rapture/gathering of the saints.

 

[Davidpt]

"False"

Luke 21:20 in Jerusalem being surrounded by armies is a future event unfulfilled, in the fulfilling of the gentiles also seen in Revelation 11:2 as the book of Revelation was written in 96AD when John was imprisoned by Emperor Domitian that reigned in 81-96AD years "After" Your 70AD claim in fulfillment

What you are failing to factor in, IMO, is the following.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


Something has to explain this---And they shall fall by the edge of the sword--and this---and shall be led away captive into all nations. Hmmm...maybe "in the twinkling of an eye" explains it?

 

[Davidpt]

It isn't mentioned in the discourse. It was something that happened to the Jews primarily (since it was they that rebelled), not to Christians. Another similar thing happened later, like 125 AD or so but not as many people mention that but it was the Romans suppressing the Jews similar to what happened in 70 AD. It was also not mentioned by Christ. The discourse is solely about the end times, a few years prior to the second coming, and ends with the second coming and rapture/gathering of the saints.

Luke 21:24 mentions until the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled. How can the times of the Gentiles not be involving a few thousand years? The point being, if it does, this indicates there is a gap of at least 2000 years that follows Luke 21:20 before the coming in verse 27 can arrive.

 

[grafted branch]

Here’s my critique of the summary ChatGPT gave …

Summary:
The Preterist uses this argument to critique Futurism: "Why would souls ask a question they already know the answer to if this event is still future and they’ve had 2,000 years to figure it out?"

Correct

But from a Futurist (or symbolic) standpoint, the question isn't about ignorance—it’s a prophetic cry for justice.

Under the new covenant we are to forgive each other. Stephen is an example of this where he says “lay not this sin to their charge” in Acts 7:60.

Consider Jim Elliot, the missionary who was killed trying to bring the gospel to a native tribe in Ecuador. After his death his wife went on to spend two years with the very tribe that killed her husband and she witnessed to them. Some of the killers became believers.

If Jim Elliot were to “poetically” cry for his blood to be avenged then he is “poetically” asking for the sins of a believer not to be forgiven. The sin of killing Jim Elliot by a person that had become a believer after the fact was paid for at the cross, justice was already served.

Now, we could argue that the souls asking the Revelation 6:10 question of how long till their blood is avenged are only souls that were killed by unbelievers. That would be a fair assumption but they are specifically asking for justice to be served on those who “dwell on the earth”. I can’t find any references to “dwell on the earth” that are not referring to physically alive people. So it’s unknown whether those that killed the souls under the altar will become believers or not unless God discloses that information to those under the altar prior to them asking their question. That idea would be a whole different can of worms to argue, God disclosing who will and won’t become believers to souls in heaven.

Memory or knowledge of Revelation itself may not apply in the afterlife the way we assume,

That assumption can’t be correct, the Bible exists, unaltered, outside of our current heaven and earth. If our memory or knowledge in general is lost then true justice couldn’t be served.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

or the scene may be representative rather than literal.

Sure, if we go that route then I can say the millennium is representative rather than literal, and use Revelation 6:10-11 as an example. Or I can go even further and claim both GWT and NHNE are representative rather than literal. I don’t think any of that will fly with Premils.