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

[Davidpt]

Paul is interpreting it.

In the Romans 1:8, Romans 16:25-26, and Colossians 1:5,6,23 passages you submitted earlier in this thread, there is zero mention of the 'end'(telos) in any of those verses nor in any of those chapters. Therefore, Paul is not interpreting Matthew 24:14 in any of those passages, you are. Except you are misapplying them, thus misinterpreting Matthew 24:14.

Let me ask you this since it seems obvious that sound hermeneutics is important to you. If you instead thought verse 14 was indeed meaning the end of this age, would you still be interpreting verses 15-21 in the same manner as now?

 

[covenantee]

In the Romans 1:8, Romans 16:25-26, and Colossians 1:5,6,23 passages you submitted earlier in this thread, there is zero mention of the 'end'(telos) in any of those verses nor in any of those chapters. Therefore, Paul is not interpreting Matthew 24:14 in any of those passages, you are. Except you are misapplying them, thus misinterpreting Matthew 24:14.

Let me ask you this since it seems obvious that sound hermeneutics is important to you. If you instead thought verse 14 was indeed meaning the end of this age, would you still be interpreting verses 15-21 in the same manner as now?

I should have been more precise. Paul was confirming the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations". He was not confirming the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy "then shall the end come" because the end had not yet come.

I do not think verse 14 means the end of this age, because I'm then unable to make sense of verses 15-21.

 

[David in NJ]

There's no re-created 2nd temple in your scenario.

Thus no dual fulfillment.

Please copy/paste a recognized definition of dual fulfillment from a recognized source today, and evidence from a recognized source in post-apostolic pre-1800 orthodox Christianity who espoused it.

Good night @David in NJ

"recognized source" = lol

THE Only Recognized Source = Matthew 4:4

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

YES

Now please answer my question.

I asked which verses you think have a dual fulfillment, so please answer that question.

Revelation/The Seven Churches = Has the words CHRIST Spoke concerning the seven churches, are they in the past and behind us?

He said some things that related to each of those churches specifically and some things that applied to all churches then and from that point on. But, there is nothing He said that had a specific fulfillment back then that will be fulfilled again.

For example, what He said here applied directly to those in the first century church in Smyrna:

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

This will not be fulfilled again in the future. This tribulation of ten days applied only to those in the church in Smyrna who were being persecuted back then.

What He said immediately after that applies to all believers in all churches:

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is completely beside the point of what was being talked about. Are you just stalking me and looking for an argument or what? Do you have any thoughts on what was actually being discussed, which was whether or not there are dual fulfillments of prophecy?


Is that not the same thing you do with Luke 21? You see Luke 21:8-19 as being related to things that happen before the second coming and then you see Luke 21:20-24 as being about 70 AD and then you see Him going back to talking about things related to the second coming again in Luke 21:25. How is that any different than how I see Matthew 24?


Do you not do the same thing with Luke 21?


That's like saying that Luke 21:20 has to refer to the same time period as Luke 21:19, but you don't believe that.


I think that not seeing Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24a as parallel passages is bizarre, so at least he and I both avoid that bizarre manner of interpretation.

@Davidpt Do you have any thoughts on what I said here? It seems like there are many times when I address one of your arguments and then you never respond back.

 

[covenantee]

Isaiah 46:10
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying;
"My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

"recognized source" = lol

THE Only Recognized Source = Matthew 4:4

Then you don't qualify to be opining about Isaiah 46:10.

"THE Only Recognized Source = Matthew 4:4"

 

[David in NJ]

I asked which verses you think have a dual fulfillment, so please answer that question.

Answered that question 3 times already.

He said some things that related to each of those churches specifically and some things that applied to all churches then and from that point on.

SEE - You also, along with @covenantee bring forth and admit to dual prophecy.

But, there is nothing He said that had a specific fulfillment back then that will be fulfilled again.

You contradicted your own words.

 

[David in NJ]

Then you don't qualify to be opining about Isaiah 46:10.

"THE Only Recognized Source = Matthew 4:4"

GOD has qualified me with His Holy Spirit to know and believe the Truth = ALL the TRUTH = Genesis to Revelation

 

[covenantee]

GOD has qualified me with His Holy Spirit to know and believe the Truth = ALL the TRUTH = Genesis to Revelation

But no one else?

 

[David in NJ]

But no one else?

All whom God calls are given the SAME Holy Scriptures.
God makes available the Holy Spirit to those who seek Him and His Promise.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

Those who, thru unbelief, reject His Promise will not receive.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Answered that question 3 times already.


SEE - You also, along with @covenantee bring forth and admit to dual prophecy.


You contradicted your own words.

Good grief. No, I did not. Why do you lie? I have made it clear that my understanding of dual prophecy is regarding a specific prophecy being fulfilled more than once. Such as the Olivet Discourse or certain parts of the Olivet Discourse. I do NOT believe that. I do not believe any verses regarding specific prophecies like we see in the Olivet discourse and elsewhere are fulfilled more than once.

There are general things that Jesus said that are true for everyone, such as anyone who overcomes not being hurt of the second death, but that's not a specific prophecy about a specific event, so that doesn't fit what I'm talking about.

 

[David in NJ]

Good grief. No, I did not. Why do you lie? I have made it clear that my understanding of dual prophecy is regarding a specific prophecy being fulfilled more than once. Such as the Olivet Discourse or certain parts of the Olivet Discourse. I do NOT believe that. I do not believe any verses regarding specific prophecies like we see in the Olivet discourse and elsewhere are fulfilled more than once.

Listen to your own words for they are truthful and correct:

"He/Jesus said some things that related to each of those churches specifically and some things that applied to all churches then and from that point on."

 

[covenantee]

All whom God calls are given the SAME Holy Scriptures.
God makes available the Holy Spirit to those who seek Him and His Promise.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

Those who, thru unbelief, reject His Promise will not receive.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

All on this forum are given the same Holy Scriptures, but there are differing interpretations.

Do you believe that you are always right, and anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong?

There's a word for that.

Cult.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Listen to your own words for they are truthful and correct:

"He/Jesus said some things that related to each of those churches specifically and some things that applied to all churches then and from that point on."

Okay, so do you understand what I'm saying then? There are no dual fulfillments of specific prophecies like, for example, the ones relating only to those churches. But, Jesus also made general statements about what is true for all churches like when He said "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.". But, that has nothing to do with dual fulfillment since it's something that's true for anyone who overcomes at any time. It was true back then, was true after that and is still true now.

 

[David in NJ]

All on this forum are given the same Holy Scriptures, but there are differing interpretations.

Do you believe that you are always right, and anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong?

There's a word for that.

Cult.

God words are always right = Matthew 4:4 , John 17:17, Revelation 22:18

YES, i belong to the 'cult' of the LORD Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit of Truth and the FATHER from whom all Blessings come.

You belong to the amillennialism cult.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God words are always right = Matthew 4:4 , John 17:17, Revelation 22:18

YES, i belong to the 'cult' of the LORD Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit of Truth and the FATHER from whom all Blessings come.

You belong to the amillennialism cult.

So, I guess you wouldn't mind me saying that you belong to the dual fulfillment prophecy believers cult.

 

[Davidpt]

This is completely beside the point of what was being talked about. Are you just stalking me and looking for an argument or what? Do you have any thoughts on what was actually being discussed, which was whether or not there are dual fulfillments of prophecy?

I'm not really familiar with that concept, a dual fulfillment. I know what a 'type' means, but is that the same thing as a dual fulfillment? I'm guessing maybe no. I'm not stalking you, lol. I just can't figure out why, since you are not a Preterist, and that Preterists don't interpret Matthew 24:14 like you do, why you would then interpret Matthew 24:15-21 in the same manner as they do? How can both you and Preterists be interpreting verses 15-21 correctly, when one of you is interpreting verse 14 correctly, the other isn't?

It makes zero sense, as of verse 14, unless Jesus is still speaking of first century events in verse 14, to then switch gears and once again be speaking of first century events in verses 15-21. But it does make sense that if He is speaking of first century events in verse 14, for Him to still be speaking of first century events in verses 15-21. But that's not the only option. Except, Jesus speaking of the end of the age events in verse 14 and then speaking of first century events in verses 15-21, is not a valid option. But, Him speaking of the end of the age events in verse 14 and then speaking of the end of the age events in verses 15-21, is a valid option.

Once again, as of verse 14, what happened in 70 AD is no longer relevent. Verse 14 would fit after verses 15-21 if 70 AD is still relevant. Except He never said what He said in verse 14 after what He said in verses 15-21, He said that before. Preterists think Jesus remained fixated with first century events throughout the Discourse. While you seem to think He didn't, yet you have Him all over the place here. Where one minute He is speaking of the end of the age events, verse 14, then the next minute He is speaking of first century events in verses 15-21.

In order for you to be correct about verses 15-21 you need to convincingly show the relevance to verse 14. IOW, why would verses 15-21 still matter as of verse 14, if verse 14 the context is the end of this age, but in verses 15-21 the context is the first century and 70 AD?

Is that not the same thing you do with Luke 21? You see Luke 21:8-19 as being related to things that happen before the second coming and then you see Luke 21:20-24 as being about 70 AD and then you see Him going back to talking about things related to the second coming again in Luke 21:25. How is that any different than how I see Matthew 24?

I don't think it's the same thing. For one, I'm using Luke 17 to help interpret Matthew 24. In Luke 17:31-33 Jesus places that in great tribulation in Matthew 24, meaning verses 17 and 18. But even if that is not a strong argument, the following clearly is. Meaning Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1. According to Daniel 12:1, what follows at the end of this unequaled time of trouble recorded in Matthew 24:21 is a resurrection event. Something that never happened at the end of 70 AD. Therefore, this alone proves Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving 70 AD since not one single thing recorded in Daniel 12 is involving 70 AD, including verse 1.

Hmmmm---speaking of dual fulfillments, though I'm not exactly familiar with that concept, maybe the following is an example of one? Not meaning per my view, but per your view. And if it is, why are you then arguing against the concept, lol?

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.

Daniel 12:1 ¶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.


Rather than---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be--such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time--that these are describing the same events, the same era of time.

This instead---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be---this is meaning 70 AD---while this is meaning in the final days of this age---such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time--thus maybe an example of a dual fulfillment, a concept you are arguing against.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not really familiar with that concept, a dual fulfillment. I know what a 'type' means, but is that the same thing as a dual fulfillment?

No. A dual fulfillment would mean that, for example, believing that the verses Matthew 24:15-21 were fulfilled in 70 AD and will be fulfilled again in the future. If we allow for things like that then we can make scripture say whatever we want it to say without ever accepting that anything has ever been completely fulfilled yet.

I'm guessing maybe no. I'm not stalking you, lol.

Well, that's a relief. So, it just seems that way then. lol

I just can't figure out why, since you are not a Preterist, and that Preterists don't interpret Matthew 24:14 like you do, why you would then interpret Matthew 24:15-21 in the same manner as they do?

Probably for similar reasons that you interpret Luke 21:20-24 in the same manner they do.

How can both you and Preterists be interpreting verses 15-21 correctly, when one of you is interpreting verse 14 correctly, the other isn't?

How can both you and Preterists be interpreting Luke 21:20-24 correctly, when one of you is interpreting verse 19 correctly, the other isn't?

It makes zero sense, as of verse 14, unless Jesus is still speaking of first century events in verse 14, to then switch gears and once again be speaking of first century events in verses 15-21.

Yet it makes perfect sense to you for Him to do that from Luke 21:19 to Luke 21:20-24.

But it does make sense that if He is speaking of first century events in verse 14, for Him to still be speaking of first century events in verses 15-21.

So, are you then saying that your belief that Him talking about future events in Luke 21:19 and then talking about first century events in Luke 21:20-24 doesn't make sense?

But that's not the only option. Except, Jesus speaking of the end of the age events in verse 14 and then speaking of first century events in verses 15-21, is not a valid option.

But Him talking about end of the age events in Luke 21:19 and then speaking of first century events in verses 20-24 is a valid option? You're not being very consistent here.

But, Him speaking of the end of the age events in verse 14 and then speaking of the end of the age events in verses 15-21, is a valid option.

Looks like you're going to have to change your view of Luke 21:20-24 from being a past event to being a future event then in order to stay consistent with the logic you're using regarding Matthew 24.

Once again, as of verse 14, what happened in 70 AD is no longer relevent. Verse 14 would fit after verses 15-21 if 70 AD is still relevant. Except He never said what He said in verse 14 after what He said in verses 15-21, He said that before. Preterists think Jesus remained fixated with first century events throughout the Discourse. While you seem to think He didn't, yet you have Him all over the place here. Where one minute He is speaking of the end of the age events, verse 14, then the next minute He is speaking of first century events in verses 15-21.

LOL! Did you not read my post? You are doing the same thing with Luke 21, but somehow that's okay?! Unbelievable.

I don't think it's the same thing.

LOL! You have to be kidding me. You are being intellectually dishonest here. Your argument is that it makes no sense for Jesus to go from talking about the future (future from 70 AD), then to the past (things related to 70 AD) and then back to the future (Great Scott!) again. Yet, that is exactly how you understand Luke 21. But, you say it's not the same thing. Good grief. Yes, it is.