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

[Spiritual Israelite]

There was no sin in the flesh of Adam and Eve until in their spirit they disobeyed.

Eze 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

That's a man who was created perfect and in whom there was no spirit to disobey until that day it was conceived by lust and brought forth death. Nothing is talked about Satan being created in heaven so iniquity found him in Heaven. Heaven?! God forbid that iniquity shows up in His Heaven! That is why you got brainwashed about Lucifer, thinking that he was a good angel that God created in heaven. This is not what Scripture said. Your Sunday School taught you that. God was talking about ADAM in Ezekiel 28.

Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

So, Adam was a guardian cherub, was he? LOL.

 

[Truth7t7]

Be more clear about what you believe then. I'm trying to get you to address Luke 21:24. Where does the part about Jews being taken prisoners to all nations fit in that 42 months? Wouldn't they be taken captive to all nations after the tribulation in Jerusalem is over?


I am not trying to misrepresent your view. I'm trying to ask questions to clarify your view, but your answers are not entirely clear.

Look at it this way. You agreed that Matthew 24:15-22 is parallel to Luke 21:20-24. Isn't the tribulation over at the end of Luke 21:20-24? If so, why wouldn't it also be over at the end of Matthew 24:15-22?


Does Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 24:23-26 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 look like physical tribulation to you? Maybe in the form of persecution against believers, but not God's wrath. They refer mainly to a high level of deception, apostasy and wickedness occurring before Jesus comes. Also, Matt 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 refer to God's wrath. The tribulation that occurs before Christ's return is not God's wrath, but rather spiritual tribulation like we see in Satan's little season. Don't you, as an Amill, equate Satan's little season with the tribulation that occurs before Christ returns?

You failed to answer my statement in post #389 here it is again, you don't get to avoid my statement, it's a two way street right, please answer

Post #389:
You can't have a 70AD great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 70AD great tribulation is "False"

 

[Truth7t7]

Matthew 24:21, Daniel 12:1. Luke 21:20, OTOH, is pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD.

I disagree with your preterist view in 1st century fulfillment, the events mentioned in the scripture above are future unfulfilled

You can't have a 1st century great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future Matthew 24:29-30

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 1st century great tribulation is "False"

 

[Davidpt]

I disagree with your preterist view in 1st century fulfillment, the events mentioned in the scripture above are future unfulfilled

You can't have a 1st century great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future Matthew 24:29-30

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 1st century great tribulation is "False"

You are not following me. I simply do not believe Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are involving the same events, same era of time. I used to believe that a long time ago but no longer do. My position regarding Matthew 24:15-26 has never changed. I have never taken that to be involving 70 AD ever, so I think it's time for you to quit misrepresenting me again. OTOH, because of the way I interpret Matthew 24:15-26, I used to for decades even, not take Luke 21:20 to be involving 70 AD, either. I have since changed my mind about Luke 21:20. I have never changed my mind about Matthew 24:15-26, though. And I doubt that I ever will. Once again unless you have mental impairment issues or something that might explain why you keep telling me that I'm taking Matthew 24:15-26 to be involving 70 AD, when I have made it perfectly clear multiple times already they I do not, then you need to quit saying I do. This is getting old already.

As to Luke 21:20, I have already made it clear that there is a 2000 year gap between verse 20 and verse 27. But as to Matthew 24:15-30, there is no 2000 year gap between verse 15 and verse 30. Yet there is a gap between those verses, it's 42 months not 2000 years. While OTOH, the gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27 is not 42 months, it is 2000 years. Once again, I simply do not take Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 to be involving the same era of time, the same events. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you and others, but it makes sense to me, though.

EDITED TO ADD: I just found the following article moments ago if anyone wants to take a look at it. It seems this person agrees with me that Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are not the same event. His and my reasons for that might not be entirely the same, but still, it at least shows I'm not alone in my thinking here.

Are Matthew 24 and Luke 21 Parallel Records?

Author’s note: I am going to publish two versions of this essay, one that includes the referenced sections of scripture in the body of the essay, and another that does not include the referenced se…

endofreligion.org

 

[Truth7t7]

You are not following me. I simply do not believe Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are involving the same events, same era of time. I used to believe that a long time ago but no longer do. My position regarding Matthew 24:15-26 has never changed. I have never taken that to be involving 70 AD ever, so I think it's time for you to quit misrepresenting me again. OTOH, because of the way I interpret Matthew 24:15-26, I used to for decades even, not take Luke 21:20 to be involving 70 AD, either. I have since changed my mind about Luke 21:20. I have never changed my mind about Matthew 24:15-26, though. And I doubt that I ever will. Once again unless you have mental impairment issues or something that might explain why you keep telling me that I'm taking Matthew 24:15-26 to be involving 70 AD, when I have made it perfectly clear multiple times already they I do not, then you need to quit saying I do. This is getting old already.

As to Luke 21:20, I have already made it clear that there is a 2000 year gap between verse 20 and verse 27. But as to Matthew 24:15-30, there is no 2000 year gap between verse 15 and verse 30. Yet there is a gap between those verses, it's 42 months not 2000 years. While OTOH, the gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27 is not 42 months, it is 2000 years. Once again, I simply do not take Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 to be involving the same era of time, the same events. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you and others, but it makes sense to me, though.

EDITED TO ADD: I just found the following article moments ago if anyone wants to take a look at it. It seems this person agrees with me that Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are not the same event. His and my reasons for that might not be entirely the same, but still, it at least shows I'm not alone in my thinking here.

Are Matthew 24 and Luke 21 Parallel Records?

Author’s note: I am going to publish two versions of this essay, one that includes the referenced sections of scripture in the body of the essay, and another that does not include the referenced se…

endofreligion.org

"I Disagree" with your view on Luke 21:20 it's a parallel reading of Matthew Chapter 24 and Mark 13, they are all representing future events unfulfilled

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You failed to answer my statement in post #389 here it is again, you don't get to avoid my statement, it's a two way street right, please answer

LOL. You have avoided my statements in the past many times, so don't try to tell me what to do. It's up to me what I respond to, not you. It's always funny when I give lots of detail about what I believe and someone thinks it's not enough. Ridiculous. I do have other things to do than this, you know? If you don't understand what I believe and why by now then you're not paying attention.

Post #389:
You can't have a 70AD great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 70AD great tribulation is "False"

I have already addressed this multiple times. Go back and read my posts again.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are not following me. I simply do not believe Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are involving the same events, same era of time.

I can't blame him for being confused by that. To many of us, it's obvious that those verses are about the same event and the reason that Luke didn't specifically mention the abomination of desolation spoken about by Daniel is simply because his Gentile audience would not have known anything about that while Matthew's Jewish audience would have been familiar with it.

I used to believe that a long time ago but no longer do. My position regarding Matthew 24:15-26 has never changed. I have never taken that to be involving 70 AD ever, so I think it's time for you to quit misrepresenting me again. OTOH, because of the way I interpret Matthew 24:15-26, I used to for decades even, not take Luke 21:20 to be involving 70 AD, either. I have since changed my mind about Luke 21:20. I have never changed my mind about Matthew 24:15-26, though. And I doubt that I ever will. Once again unless you have mental impairment issues or something that might explain why you keep telling me that I'm taking Matthew 24:15-26 to be involving 70 AD, when I have made it perfectly clear multiple times already they I do not, then you need to quit saying I do. This is getting old already.

Something is definitely off about him. He keeps telling me that I believe Jesus returned in 70 AD immediately after Matthew 24:21 occurred even though I never said any such thing. I don't believe Jesus returned in 70 AD in any way, shape or form.

 

[Truth7t7]

LOL. You have avoided my statements in the past many times, so don't try to tell me what to do. It's up to me what I respond to, not you. It's always funny when I give lots of detail about what I believe and someone thinks it's not enough. Ridiculous. I do have other things to do than this, you know? If you don't understand what I believe and why by now then you're not paying attention.


I have already addressed this multiple times. Go back and read my posts again.

You failed to answer my statement in post #389 here it is again, you don't get to avoid my statement, it's a two way street right, please answer

Post #389:
You can't have a 70AD great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 70AD great tribulation is "False"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You failed to answer my statement in post #389 here it is again, you don't get to avoid my statement, it's a two way street right, please answer

Post #389:
You can't have a 70AD great tribulation Matthew 24:21 with Jesus returning immediately after this tribulation in the future

There isn't a 2,000 year gap seen anywhere between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30, your claim of a 70AD great tribulation is "False"

Is there something you didn't understand about what I said? I said I have already addressed what you said there multiple times. Go back and read my posts where I addressed what you said there already.

 

[Truth7t7]

Is there something you didn't understand about what I said? I said I have already addressed what you said there multiple times. Go back and read my posts where I addressed what you said there already.

Please direct me to your post number, "Waiting"?

 

[Truth7t7]

Is there something you didn't understand about what I said? I said I have already addressed what you said there multiple times. Go back and read my posts where I addressed what you said there already.

Please direct me to your post number, "Waiting"?

Crickets!

 

[covenantee]

Once again, I simply do not take Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 to be involving the same era of time, the same events.

What about Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16? Do they involve the same events in the same era of time?

 

[Davidpt]

Something is definitely off about him. He keeps telling me that I believe Jesus returned in 70 AD immediately after Matthew 24:21 occurred even though I never said any such thing. I don't believe Jesus returned in 70 AD in any way, shape or form.

In your case, I think he is simply debunking your interpretation based on his interpretation of those verses. Your interpretation contradicts his interpretation of verses 15-30. His interpretation of those verses doesn't have a gap of 2000 years between verse 15 and verse 30. Yours does. His interpretation does not have Christ returning 2000 years after verse 15 is fulfilled. His interpretation has Him returning after 42 months are fulfilled, where that 42 months begins with verse 15. According to his interpretation, the logic would be this per your interpretation, per his perspective. You have Christ returning in 70 AD not in the end of this age, since the correct length of time between verse 15 and verse 30 is not 2000 years it is 42 months. Granted, that is not your position, yet it is beside the point since his interpretation reveals the holes in your interpretation.

In your case the problem is not him, the problem is you since you are not being consistent here. You can't have verse 21 involving 70 AD then have verse 30 involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age when there is no 2000 year gap between those events. Verse 29 alone undeniably proves there is no 2000 year gap between the trib of those days, obviously meaning verse 21, and the coming meant in verse 30.

IOW, in no universe is 2000 years immediately after anything. The way you try and get around this, you invent another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days in verse 21 that the text knows nothing of. The only tribulation mentioned prior to verse 29 is great tribulation, verse 21. Therefore, it stands to reason that the nearest antecedent for the tribulation of the days in verse 29 must be the tribulation of days involving verse 21.

At least Preterists are being consistent, even though they too are wrong. There is nothing consistent about your view in this case if you have verse 21 meaning 2000 years ago then have verses 29 and 30 meaning 2000 years later. This is not an issue in Luke 21, though. Nowhere in that chapter does it ever say the stars fall from heaven immediately after the days involving verse 20.

I don't think you fully grasp the art of debunking something. When someone attempts to debunk your view, you take it to mean they are misrepresenting your view when all they are basically doing is exposing the holes in your view.

 

[Truth7t7]

Is there something you didn't understand about what I said? I said I have already addressed what you said there multiple times. Go back and read my posts where I addressed what you said there already.

Please direct me to your post number, "Waiting"?

Crickets!

 

[Truth7t7]

In your case, I think he is simply debunking your interpretation based on his interpretation of those verses. Your interpretation contradicts his interpretation of verses 15-30. His interpretation of those verses doesn't have a gap of 2000 years between verse 15 and verse 30. Yours does. His interpretation does not have Christ returning 2000 years after verse 15 is fulfilled. His interpretation has Him returning after 42 months are fulfilled, where that 42 months begins with verse 15. According to his interpretation, the logic would be this per your interpretation, per his perspective. You have Christ returning in 70 AD not in the end of this age, since the correct length of time between verse 15 and verse 30 is not 2000 years it is 42 months. Granted, that is not your position, yet it is beside the point since his interpretation reveals the holes in your interpretation.

In your case the problem is not him, the problem is you since you are not being consistent here. You can't have verse 21 involving 70 AD then have verse 30 involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age when there is no 2000 year gap between those events. Verse 29 alone undeniably proves there is no 2000 year gap between the trib of those days, obviously meaning verse 21, and the coming meant in verse 30.

IOW, in no universe is 2000 years immediately after anything. The way you try and get around this, you invent another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days in verse 21 that the text knows knowing of. The only tribulation mentioned prior to verse 29 is great tribulation, verse 21. Therefore, it stands to reason that the nearest antecedent for the tribulation of the days in verse 29 must be the tribulation of days involving verse 21.

At least Preterists are being consistent, even though they too are wrong. There is nothing consistent about your view in this case if you have verse 21 meaning 2000 years ago then have verses 29 and 30 meaning 2000 years later. This is not an issue in Luke 21, though. Nowhere in that chapter does it ever say the stars fall from heaven immediately after the days involving verse 20.

I don't think you fully grasp the art of debunking something. When someone attempts to debunk your view, you take it to mean they are misrepresenting your view when all they are basically doing is exposing the holes in your view.

Who are you responding to, you havent quoted a poster?

 

[Timtofly]

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?

Because neither you nor I, nor they, know how long. Obviously it is not 40 years until 70AD, which you think is the answer.

A "little season" is not the answer. A "little season" means there is no specific answer, because it is like a parent telling a child to wait a little longer, and the long car ride will be over. No one knows when the car ride will be over, not even the driver of the car.

If John had written, "rest 2 more days until the rest are killed", that would be a known time period. A "little season" is not specific enough to know the answer.

What people know and do not know in Paradise now, is an assumption on our part. Is there a verse that states those in Paradise know everything God knows? Whether or not the question asked is rhetorical, is besides the point. You think the answer is a little season, which is not a specific answer, but a prolonging of the question that has been asked for almost 2 millennia.

The point is that the rapture and Second Coming happened, so for certain, people thought it was or should be over at that point. It is not over, because they are still asking the question after the Second Coming had already happened.

It is not that they asked the question in the first century, as the rapture had not happened, for those people to ask the same ongoing question. The question is related to the point that at the Second Coming, that should have been the end, and it was not.

You think they already knew the answer in the first century, so why ask it at the Second Coming. They thought the Second Coming was sure to happen in the first century, and it did not. A little season is not 2000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

We are souls conversing on a virtual chat cite. Does that mean we do not have physical bodies?

I am not sure how people interpret Revelation has people not having a physical body.

People reading this web cite could interpret it as we don't have physical bodies either.

 

[Davidpt]

Because neither you nor I, nor they, know how long. Obviously it is not 40 years until 70AD, which you think is the answer.

A "little season" is not the answer. A "little season" means there is no specific answer, because it is like a parent telling a child to wait a little longer, and the long car ride will be over. No one knows when the car ride will be over, not even the driver of the car.

If John had written, "rest 2 more days until the rest are killed", that would be a known time period. A "little season" is not specific enough to know the answer.

What people know and do not know in Paradise now, is an assumption on our part. Is there a verse that states those in Paradise know everything God knows? Whether or not the question asked is rhetorical, is besides the point. You think the answer is a little season, which is not a specific answer, but a prolonging of the question that has been asked for almost 2 millennia.

The point is that the rapture and Second Coming happened, so for certain, people thought it was or should be over at that point. It is not over, because they are still asking the question after the Second Coming had already happened.

It is not that they asked the question in the first century, as the rapture had not happened, for those people to ask the same ongoing question. The question is related to the point that at the Second Coming, that should have been the end, and it was not.

You think they already knew the answer in the first century, so why ask it at the Second Coming. They thought the Second Coming was sure to happen in the first century, and it did not. A little season is not 2000 years.

What this little season tells us though, is this. It tells us when they initially ask what they ask. They obviously ask this at the beginning of when there is a little season back on earth still to go before any avenging can commence. This little season in question is obviously meaning the 42 month reign of the beast. What else could it mean if not that? Basically then, the 5th seal introduces us to the 42 month reign of the beast that must be fulfilled before any avenging can take place. That's where we on the timeline of events when they ask that. We are in the beginning of the 42 month reign back on earth.

 

[Davidpt]

We are souls conversing on a virtual chat cite. Does that mean we do not have physical bodies?

I am not sure how people interpret Revelation has people not having a physical body.

People reading this web cite could interpret it as we don't have physical bodies either.

Let's take you for example since I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Let's say that you die before Christ returns and that you of course go to heaven. At this point you are dead back on earth. At this point there has been no resurrection of the dead event yet. Except for 2000 years ago. Except that resurrection event would not be relevant in your case since you died 2000 years later not 2000 years earlier. How then do you view yourself in heaven after you have died but prior to any resurrection event? If you view yourself bodily in heaven, how did you obtain that body? There wasn't any resurrection event that happened when you died that might explain it. It is impossible, once someone has physically died to then obtain an immortal body without them being raised from the dead first.

 

[David in NJ]

What about Luke 21:21 and Matthew 24:16? Do they involve the same events in the same era of time?

YES