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

[Spiritual Israelite]

There's certainly nothing restricting the connection to verse 15 being only verse 14; the "therefore" is in reality the culmination and climax of everything in the previous 14 verses. Jesus is saying in verse 15 that in light of everything that I'm predicting and informing and warning you of in the previous 14 verses, and whose fulfillments you will be seeing and experiencing, do not be surprised by the appearance of the abomination of desolation, i.e. the Roman armies, advancing on Jerusalem. It will be the next of the sorrows referred to in verse 8.

Verse 15's "therefore" does not therefore refer back to only verse 3 or verse 14.

It refers back to verses 1-14.

No, it refers back to the first question in verse 3. If you want to believe that global events were the beginning signs of a coming local event then that's your choice, but it makes no sense at all to me. Also, it's surprising to me that you wouldn't see what is described in Matthew 24:9-13 as being related to Satan's little season and as being about the same time period described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. It makes me wonder what your understanding of Satan's little season is. Do you think there is no scripture besides Revelation 20:7-9 that alludes to that time period?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm certain that none of them recognized genetic ubiquity, without which understanding the racialization of the associated Scriptures is nonsense.

LOL. What? You think Matthew 24:34 is about 70 AD and the destruction of the Jews' city and temple, right? Should I then accuse you of "the racialization of the associated Scriptures"?

 

[Zao is life]

I disagree. You can't focus solely on that part of the generation and use the destruction of their physical temple in 70 AD as a basis. It was their spiritual temple and city that represented the Kingdom, which was affected at the Cross, not in 70 AD. The stones of the buildings symbolize people, not physical stones.

Maybe the most important parts of what you said above are going to be missed because of false and "not Christian, not biblical" doctrine in the churches, so I'm taking the liberty of repeating them, your words only slightly changed to my own words. So please correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying:

Christ is THE Temple, which His people (builders) represented. He told them (the Jews - builders) to destroy this Temple and in three days, he would rebuild it. So exactly when was THAT temple destroyed and rebuilt?

The Temple Christ was talking about fell when the veil was rent. But IN THREE DAYS CHRIST REBUILT THE TEMPLE, and FROM DECADES BEFORE the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the apostles were teaching:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

No one can show biblically how the Temple was rebuilt in three days in 70AD. How was it rebuilt in three days? Falling physical stones in 70 A.D being rebuilt in three days? No, because the New Testament congregation already started her commission at Pentecost. So why do you need to wait until 70AD to have a physical temple destroyed that God no longer dwelt in?

@TribulationSigns I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING you say in all your posts, but IMHO the above points you make are crucially important - but they will fly over their heads in unbelief in respect of far too many who post in these boards and they will fail to notice it - because of their false doctrines or the false doctrines they believe and adhere to - which is why I've re-posted it here.​

When did the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 take place? Where will it stand at? Physical Jewish Temple, or New Testament congregation in the end time?

My answer: It did not take place in 70 AD, because the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD was no more a "holy place" than a Hindu shrine. It will take place in a New Testament congregation in the end of time.

The abominations that are mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 are associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, but the abomination of desolation Daniel mentioned standing in the holy place (which Jesus also mentioned quoting Daniel), is the anti-type of the abomination of desolation placed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC that defiled the temple but did not result in the destruction of the temple or the city. The temple was cleansed afterward and reconsecrated to God.

The New Testament Tabernacle of God cannot be destroyed, but it can be defiled:

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."

* Jerusalem being trodden underfoot by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century B.C is the type of what Revelation 11:2 tells us about the holy city being trodden underfoot by the Gentiles.

* Lawlessness and apostasy on the part of the Jews sacrificing to idols and following the religion of the Greeks in the days of Antiochus IV is the type of the end-of-the-age lawlessness and apostasy mentioned both by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew Chapter 24), and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.

"And then" , Paul tells us, "shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

This is what Matthew 24:15 is talking about, but it flies over their heads in unbelief in respect of far too many who post in these boards - because of their false doctrines or the false doctrines they believe and adhere to - and they will fail to notice it because they do not believe what Jesus and the apostles said about God's only Temple.

So they have an abomination set up in a so-called holy place in a physical building in Jerusalem in 70 A.D, or somehow related to the armies of the Romans, or to the abominable acts of depravity that Josephus tells us were being committed by the Jews in the physical temple in 70 A.D and the years leading up to 70 A.D - and they cannot even agree on what constituted that abomination of desolation in a so-called "holy place".

More likely IMO the abominations that Daniel 9:27 mentions were 40 years of animal sacrifices for sins that were an abomination to God, performed in a temple that was NOT the temple of God.

So I quoted what you said, added other facts to it, and re-posted it. I hope you don't mind.

Copy @Spiritual Israelite

PS: Agreeing with the theological arguments put forward by someone does not mean I'm taking sides in personal arguments between the person and someone else who disagrees with him. Nor does it mean I agree with the person about "everything" he says.​

 

[claninja]

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how that can be the case. Can you explain that? I've asked covenantee to explain that as well.

I think covenantee may be applying definition c per post 819.

“c. of things future; then (at length) when the thing under discussion takes place (or shall have taken place)”

No, that's referring to His coming and the end of the age being near. You only quoted up to verse 34 there, but the next verse indicates the time when that passage will occur, which will be when heaven and earth pass away (Matt 24:35), which occurs when Jesus comes. No one knows the day or hour that day will come (Matt 24:36) because it will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night (2 Peter 3:10-12).

Not knowing the day nor hour, doesn’t mean the general time frame is unknown - Jesus said , when you see these things happen, you WILL know, he is near, right at the door.

Of course it does. It's not reasonable at all to think otherwise.

I can agree.

 

[claninja]

You're not understanding what you're seeing there.

Here is what WPM posted:

The word genea means:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

You are acting as if number 2 on its own isn't a definition for the word, but it is. So, 2a and 2b are separate definitions of the word "genea", that relate to the number 2 definition, but are more specific in terms of referring to particular chronological generations of the "race" or "stock" or "family" that is general described by definition 2. So, the number 2 definition is one definition of "genea" and then 2a and 2b show variations of that definition that are have more detail and are more narrow definitions of the word than that broad definition of the word given in number 2 there. So, there's no reason why the #2 definition of the word on its own can't be the one that was used in Matthew 24:34.

So, with that in mind, definition 2a refers to "men of the same stock" or people of the same race, but only refers to a particular generation of that race who are alive during a particular period of time. That's what you think the word means in Matthew 24:34, but I believe definition 2 applies instead.

And definition 2b again relates to the broader definition of the word shown in #2, but refers specifically to a certain type of people of the same stock rather than all of the people of that stock. That's how the word is used in Matthew 23:36 because that isn't referring to all Jewish people or all people in general, but rather refers specifically to a type of people like the Pharisees and scribes who were vipers, hypocrites and murderers of innocent servants of God. Jesus related the word in that verse to all such people going all the way back to Cain, since He said "this generation" was even responsible for Abel's death. But, even though that type of people going back to Cain were of "this generation", His focus was on those who were of "this generation" at that time in Jerusalem and He was referring to their destruction in particular. However, it can't be said that "this generation" only referred to those who were alive at that time He was speaking because many died before 70 AD and some who were killed in 70 AD were born or became Jews after the time when Jesus said those things. That shows that He had a particular type of people in mind there and not just those who were alive at that particular time when He was speaking.

Wpm quoted 2a:

“a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 “

I believe it means “this race” - as in "the successive members of a particular genealogy."

I was responding to that specific point.

 

[claninja]

The root word for genea is genos (Strong’s 1085), which means race, kindred, offspring, family, stock, tribe, nation, i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people.

Acts 13:26 talks about “children of the stock [Gr. genos] of Abraham” and Philippians 3:5 those “of the stock [Gr. genos] of Israel.” The Bible is here speaking in a natural sense.

The root word of genos is ginomai (Strong’s 1096), which literally means to gen-erate.

Matthew 24:34 is telling us that the Jewish race would not pass away until all things are fulfilled. Israel is an ongoing generation.

This is an etymological fallacy because a word’s root doesn’t necessarily define how a word is used:

• “The Etymological Fallacy occurs whenever someone falsely assumes that the meaning of a word can be discovered from its etymology or origins. Example: The word “vise” comes from the Latin “that which winds,” so it means anything that winds. Since a hurricane winds around its own eye, it is a vise.” (Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Genea is overwhelmingly used to refer to a group of people living at the same time in the Septuagint and the NT.

While genea and genos share the same root word, their usages are distinct.

 

[claninja]

Again, put your trust in the Holy Spirit, not James Strong. He did a great service by showing all the definitions of Greek words mean, but we don't need to rely on him to interpret scripture for us.

The spirit didn’t guide the overwhelming majority of translators to translate genea into English as “generation” instead of “race”?

 

[claninja]

but I believe definition 2 applies instead.

Hold on a minute. Are you saying definition 2 is different from 2a and 2b, and NOT that 2a and 2b describe the usages of 2?

 

[WPM]

As I've pointed out a couple times already, in Matthew 23:36, this generation (genea) refers to a type of people going all the way back to Cain. So, I believe that definition 2b that you showed there is being used for the word "genea" in that verse. And, like you, I believe definition 2 of the word "genea" is being used in Matthew 24:34, but allow that it could be referring to people or the human race in general there as well.

When people try to act as if definition 3 is the only viable definition for that word in Matthew 24:34, I find that to be very dishonest and based on doctrinal bias.

You have presented a strong argument above. I am open towards that.

 

[covenantee]

LOL. What? You think Matthew 24:34 is about 70 AD and the destruction of the Jews' city and temple, right? Should I then accuse you of "the racialization of the associated Scriptures"?

It is to laugh. Israel's city, temple, and nation were destroyed. Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Yes, I'm an anti-Jew-Gentile racist.

 

[covenantee]

No, it refers back to the first question in verse 3. If you want to believe that global events were the beginning signs of a coming local event then that's your choice, but it makes no sense at all to me. Also, it's surprising to me that you wouldn't see what is described in Matthew 24:9-13 as being related to Satan's little season and as being about the same time period described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. It makes me wonder what your understanding of Satan's little season is. Do you think there is no scripture besides Revelation 20:7-9 that alludes to that time period?

It refers back to verses 1-14 for the reasons given.

Jesus' descriptions, warnings, and predictions were relevant and applicable to His disciples; He didn't tell them to go for coffee whilst He talked to a dispenized futurized wind.

We don't need Revelation to understand Matthew 24.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wpm quoted 2a:

“a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 “



I was responding to that specific point.

Well, I know his understanding of what it means fits 2 and not 2a since it refers to "this generation" and the 2a definition would only fit a first century generation of that type rather than a generation that could still exist up until Christ's return. So, I'm not sure why he said that.

@WPM Can you provide some clarity on this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is to laugh. Israel's city, temple, and nation were destroyed. Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Yes, I'm an anti-Jew-Gentile racist.

Why are you even bringing racism into the discussion at all? I can't follow your line of reasoning sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The spirit didn’t guide the overwhelming majority of translators to translate genea into English as “generation” instead of “race”?

Does the English word "generation" have only one definition? No, it doesn't. So, what is your point?

Tell me exactly how you define it and we'll see if it fits the context of Matthew 24:34 or not.

The translators were not inspired by God, but the NT authors were. I believe most of them did a great job, overall, but they did not always choose the right English words. For example, most of them translated the Greek word "ethnos" as "nations" in verses like Matthew 25:31, Matthew 28:19 and Revelation 20:7. As if nations will be judged and given either eternal life or eternal punishment when Jesus comes? As if nations can be baptized? As if nations can number "as the sand of the sea"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think covenantee may be applying definition c per post 819.

“c. of things future; then (at length) when the thing under discussion takes place (or shall have taken place)”

I asked you to explain it to me as well, not just him. So, please tell me how you interpret Matthew 24:29.

Not knowing the day nor hour, doesn’t mean the general time frame is unknown - Jesus said , when you see these things happen, you WILL know, he is near, right at the door.

Of course. I did not say otherwise. But, what is that in relation to? His future second coming when He comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night when heaven and earth will pass away (2 Peter 3:10-12).

I can agree.

So, in that case, I assume then that you would agree that it does not make sense for covenantee to not see Matthew 24:34 as being related to verses 30 and 31?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe the most important parts of what you said above are going to be missed because of false and "not Christian, not biblical" doctrine in the churches, so I'm taking the liberty of repeating them, your words only slightly changed to my own words. So please correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying:

Christ is THE Temple, which His people (builders) represented. He told them (the Jews - builders) to destroy this Temple and in three days, he would rebuild it. So exactly when was THAT temple destroyed and rebuilt?

The Temple Christ was talking about fell when the veil was rent. But IN THREE DAYS CHRIST REBUILT THE TEMPLE, and FROM DECADES BEFORE the physical temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the apostles were teaching:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

No one can show biblically how the Temple was rebuilt in three days in 70AD. How was it rebuilt in three days? Falling physical stones in 70 A.D being rebuilt in three days? No, because the New Testament congregation already started her commission at Pentecost. So why do you need to wait until 70AD to have a physical temple destroyed that God no longer dwelt in?

@TribulationSigns I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING you say in all your posts, but IMHO the above points you make are crucially important - but they will fly over their heads in unbelief in respect of far too many who post in these boards and they will fail to notice it - because of their false doctrines or the false doctrines they believe and adhere to - which is why I've re-posted it here.



My answer: It did not take place in 70 AD, because the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD was no more a "holy place" than a Hindu shrine. It will take place in a New Testament congregation in the end of time.

The abominations that are mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 are associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, but the abomination of desolation Daniel mentioned standing in the holy place (which Jesus also mentioned quoting Daniel), is the anti-type of the abomination of desolation placed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century BC that defiled the temple but did not result in the destruction of the temple or the city. The temple was cleansed afterward and reconsecrated to God.

The New Testament Tabernacle of God cannot be destroyed, but it can be defiled:

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."

* Jerusalem being trodden underfoot by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century B.C is the type of what Revelation 11:2 tells us about the holy city being trodden underfoot by the Gentiles.

* Lawlessness and apostasy on the part of the Jews sacrificing to idols and following the religion of the Greeks in the days of Antiochus IV is the type of the end-of-the-age lawlessness and apostasy mentioned both by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew Chapter 24), and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.

"And then" , Paul tells us, "shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

This is what Matthew 24:15 is talking about, but it flies over their heads in unbelief in respect of far too many who post in these boards - because of their false doctrines or the false doctrines they believe and adhere to - and they will fail to notice it because they do not believe what Jesus and the apostles said about God's only Temple.

So they have an abomination set up in a so-called holy place in a physical building in Jerusalem in 70 A.D, or somehow related to the armies of the Romans, or to the abominable acts of depravity that Josephus tells us were being committed by the Jews in the physical temple in 70 A.D and the years leading up to 70 A.D - and they cannot even agree on what constituted that abomination of desolation in a so-called "holy place".

More likely IMO the abominations that Daniel 9:27 mentions were 40 years of animal sacrifices for sins that were an abomination to God, performed in a temple that was NOT the temple of God.

So I quoted what you said, added other facts to it, and re-posted it. I hope you don't mind.

Copy @Spiritual Israelite

PS: Agreeing with the theological arguments put forward by someone does not mean I'm taking sides in personal arguments between the person and someone else who disagrees with him. Nor does it mean I agree with the person about "everything" he says.​

What was the reason you copied me on this post? Are you wanting me to respond to what you said here? You already know that I don't find the argument that Jesus didn't answer the question about the destruction of the temple buildings to be valid. Not sure what else I can say about this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hold on a minute. Are you saying definition 2 is different from 2a and 2b, and NOT that 2a and 2b describe the usages of 2?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think I made that pretty clear. So, definition 2 is the broad definition and the word can be used to mean that broad definition. And then 2a and 2b are narrower variations of 2.

 

[Zao is life]

What was the reason you copied me on this post? Are you wanting me to respond to what you said here? You already know that I don't find the argument that Jesus didn't answer the question about the destruction of the temple buildings to be valid. Not sure what else I can say about this.

It's because you and TribulationSigns were arguing about this and insulting one another in the process. Right under me posting your handle in order to copy you I said:

PS: Agreeing with the theological arguments put forward by someone does not mean I'm taking sides in personal arguments between the person and someone else who disagrees with him. Nor does it mean I agree with the person about "everything" he says.

 

[Davidpt]

Why are you even bringing racism into the discussion at all? I can't follow your line of reasoning sometimes.

Ummm--aren't you bringing racism into this yourself by proposing that it means the end of the Jewish race? What does that even mean? That there is only the Gentile race remaining after that? There are only Jews and Gentiles, right? If the Jewish race no longer exists at some point, that logically means the only race remaining is the Gentile race, since you didn't mention it also being the end of that race. Race couldn't possibly have anything to do with it one way or the other. But the world of the ungodly can. Meaning that is what passes away which includes both bad Jews and bad Gentiles, and not just bad Jews only.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's because you and TribulationSigns were arguing about this and insulting one another in the process. Right under me posting your handle in order to copy you I said:

PS: Agreeing with the theological arguments put forward by someone does not mean I'm taking sides in personal arguments between the person and someone else who disagrees with him. Nor does it mean I agree with the person about "everything" he says.

There's no need to explain that you don't agree with everything he believes. He is an Amill and you are a Premill, so you obviously don't agree on everything.