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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke doesn't mention the temple specifically in Luke 21:20, but does say that the armies would desolate Jerusalem. Why would the disciples believe that Jerusalem would be desolated, but that the temple within Jerusalem would be spared?

That's what I've been trying to tell him, but he doesn't think that's a valid argument. But, I think it most certainly is a valid argument because it goes without saying that if the city is destroyed and desolated then that would include the temple buildings located within the city.

 

[Zao is life]

Luke doesn't mention the temple specifically in Luke 21:20, but does say that the armies would desolate Jerusalem. Why would the disciples believe that Jerusalem would be desolated, but that the temple within Jerusalem would be spared?

Because they knew that the Romans did not like to destroy famous magnificent buildings that had very impressive architecture - especially not when Roman money and engineering skills had been involved when their puppet king Herod extended the temple.

The Roman armies could have chosen to preserve the temple.

When the armies had begun the siege of Jerusalem no one would be able to say whether or not the Romans would go as far as destroying the temple. The Romans could have pulled back their armies without destroying the temple, and they could have gone back again 30 years later to put down another Jewish revolt - and destroyed the temple 10 years after that. The choice was THEIRS.

Jesus DID NOT give them the destruction of THE TEMPLE as a sign to flee Judea. He gave them armies gathering around THE CITY as a sign to flee Judea.

The reason you don't know what you are talking about most of the time IMO (because it's plain and easy to see) is because you do not believe what IS written in scripture at the same time as believing what IS NOT written in scripture because you ALWAYS mentally insert words and meanings and references to things that you want to believe are in the text, but mentally delete or change the meaning of what you do not want to believe the text is saying - as your above post shows yet again.

Your buddy @Spiritual Israelite does the same whenever he chooses to. Sometimes with regard to the binding of Satan, sometimes with regard to Revelation 20:4-6, and also like you, with regard to Luke 21:20-24.

That's why I normally just ignore the posts of Prets and Part Prets. Just like yourself, @Spiritual Israelite seems to think that his doing the same thing you are doing with Luke 21:20-24 is going to magically insert a reference to the temple in Luke 21:20-24. You both need it to have a reference to the temple because you need it to be a support passage for your respective theologies.

 

[claninja]

Something indicating the inevitably of an event does not mean that event is near. And, again, global events are not signs of a coming local event.

Global events? Vs 4-8 are not required to be “global”.

No, I was listing all the things that would be included in "all these things" in Luke 21:36 if Jesus was talking about literally all the things that He had previously mentioned. I do not believe that is the case, personally. I was just showing all the things that you are trying to say He was including in "all these things", but I disagree with that.

I agree that those events can be included in “all these things” in Luke 21:36

Show me any OT references which talk about every eye seeing Him when He comes. You're not comparing like things here.

Where does it mention every eye will see him in the olivet discourse?

I don't think you're understanding my point. So, you think Jesus was saying to pray for strength to escape His coming and the gathering of the elect? I'm sure you would not try to claim that. But, those are "things" that He had previously mentioned before Luke 21:36. The gathering of the elect is not specifically recorded in Luke 21, but we know from the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts that the gathering of the elect occurs when Christ returns. You run into problems when you insist that "all these things" refer to literally everything previously mentioned.

Luke 21 doesn’t mention a gathering - so grammatically and contextually, that would not be included In “all these things in vs 36”

But the events in Luke 21 of famines, earthquakes, wars, persecution, Jerusalem’s desolation, etc…would be, contextually and grammatically.

 

[claninja]

I had to come back to this. I think you are completely misunderstanding what Jesus was saying there in verses 4-8. The BEGINNING of birth pains cannot refer to things that indicate that "the end" when Jesus comes and ushers in the fullness of the kingdom of God is near. Those things (wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes in various places) cannot be included among "all these things" that would indicate that His coming is near.

Think about when a woman is giving birth. I mean, technically, when she's around 9 months pregnant and then she starts feeling birth pains you could say that she's near giving birth, but looking at it that way does not fit the context of what Jesus was saying. He was not saying that, just like when a woman is about a day or so away from giving birth when she first starts feeling birth pains, the wars, famines, pestilence and earthquakes that He mentioned would indicate that His coming is near. Obviously, He was not saying that once the wars and so on started happening then His coming would be about a day or so away, so we can't take His comparison of those physical disasters to the beginning of birth pains too literally.

There is a sense in which you can say that when a woman starts having birth pains it doesn't mean that the birth of the baby is near. The birth of the baby is generally around 12 to 24 hours away after a woman starts having birth pains. At least for her first baby. It tends to be a bit less time than that when they have their second baby and so on, but let's just go by what the average amount of time is and say that the beginning of birth pains for a pregnant woman means that the birth of her baby is around 12 hours away or so.

In the context of the pain and stress that the woman has to go through during that time (especially without the aid of the far more effective modern pain medications that didn't exist back then), I doubt that a pregnant woman would consider the birth of her baby to be near when her birth pains are just starting. Those 12 hours or so can seem like a long time to a woman because of how difficult it is to get through it because of the pain.

So, again, I really don't think that a woman would claim that the birth of her baby is near during the early stage of labor or beginning of birth pains. I don't think she would say it's near until at least until it gets to the point of what is called "active labor" when she is dilating from 6 to 10 cm. Active labor doesn't start until about 6 to 12 hours after "early labor" and it lasts about 4-8 hours and then the actual delivery of the baby typically takes about 30-60 minutes. Yes, I looked this all up, but so what (haha).

This might seem silly for me to be talking about all this, but if we want to understand what Jesus was intending to say by comparing the wars, etc. to birth pains, then we need to take into consideration whether the beginning of birth pains in relation to the actual moment a baby is born is something that would be analogous to wars, famines, etc. being an indication that Christ's coming was near. I don't believe so. Relatively speaking, the birth pains get worse slowly over the course of those 12 or however many hours after the birth pains begin, so I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that the beginning of birth pains is an indication that the birth of the baby is near. Which would mean Jesus comparing certain events to the beginning of birth pains would not mean that He was saying those things would be indications that His coming was near.

He did seem to imply that those things would increase in frequency over time since that is what happens with birth pains. But, like a woman's birth pains, it would gradually get worse as time went on, so the beginning of those things occurring would not be an indication that "the end" was near. But, feel free to try to make an argument to show otherwise.

Jesus isn’t giving an obgyn lecture. You are taking the analogy way too literally.
While it’s true that birth pains don’t signal immediate delivery, Jesus didn’t say they did. He said they mark the beginning of the process that leads inevitably to the end. That’s what the metaphor means — and that’s how it works throughout Scripture.

So wars, famines, and earthquakes are signs — not of immediate return, but of the start of the covenantal crisis that culminates in the judgment and vindication



“Definition and Context
In biblical literature, "birth-pains" or "labor pains" are often used metaphorically to describe periods of intense suffering or tribulation that precede a significant event or transformation. This imagery is drawn from the natural process of childbirth, where pain and struggle culminate in the birth of new life. The metaphor is employed in both the Old and New Testaments to convey the idea of impending change or divine intervention.

Old Testament Usage
In the Old Testament, birth-pains are frequently associated with the judgment and deliverance of Israel. The prophets often used this imagery to describe the nation's suffering under foreign oppression or divine judgment, which would eventually lead to redemption and restoration. For example, in Isaiah 26:17-18 , the prophet writes, "As a pregnant woman about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pain, so were we before You, O LORD. We were with child, we writhed in pain, but we gave birth to wind. We have not brought salvation to the earth, nor have the inhabitants of the world been born."

New Testament Usage
In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles use the metaphor of birth-pains to describe the tribulations that will precede the end times and the coming of God's kingdom. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus speaks of wars, famines, and earthquakes as "the beginning of birth pains" (Matthew 24:8). This suggests that these events are not the end themselves but are precursors to the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan.”

(Topical Bible: Birth-pains)

 

[claninja]

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

this:

G3778
houtos houtoi haute¯ hautai
hoo'-tos, hoo'-toy, how'-tay, how'-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

The verse equally can be translated as, "Verily I say unto you, THAT generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Many people use "this generation" as supposed proof Jesus meant the one he lived in and was speaking to but that is faulty since the word equally can mean "that" so we would have "that generation".

Since the generation he lived in and was speaking to did not see the sun and moon go dark, stars fall, the sign of the son of man nor saw the son of man coming, nor the angels gathering the elect which would have included the disciples means without a doubt Jesus was speaking of a future generation.

Additionally, you can talk about a future generation and refer to it as "this generation". Example, "The generation of 3000AD will populate other planets. This generation will be known as the Space Generation."

Equally a past generation can be referred to as "that generation".

Another example. A man points to a red Corvette in his garage, "This car is mine." or "That car is mine." Same thing.

You provided strongs concordance (which is not a lexicon) stating that “Houtos” can mean “this or that”. Strong’s includes “this or that” to reflect how translators render Greek INTO ENGLISH, not to imply that the Greek word means both equally.

“Houtos” is a demonstrative pronoun. It points to something near in space, time, distance, thought, or context. “Ekeinos” is the demonstrative pronoun that refers to things far off.

So to your generation 3000ad example. Right, “this space generation” is appropriate because its point back contextually to what is near -> “the generation of 3000 ad will populate planets”.

To your car example - Something near to you can be said, in English, as this or that. Greek is different. Houtos can be translated into English as “this or that”, but the Greek is still pointing to is near in space, time, thought, context. You set up the context - the car near you in the garage.

Your argument overall seems to be that “this generation” refers to the generation that sees the signs in verses 4–33, not the generation Jesus was addressing directly- therefore it can be understood as “this or that” In English. This relies on the idea that αὕτη points to the generation just described in the context — i.e., the one that sees “all these things.”,

The problem:
Contextually, “ALL these things” includes events prior to and/ leading up to the destruction of the temple. Grammatically, there is no clear distinction or dividing of thousands of years between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the son of man.

So,if you don’t believe it fulfilled, you would have to argue that if “this” is pointing not to Jesus contemporaries, but instead contextually to those who would live through all the events, then Jesus didn’t answer any questions about the 70ad destruction of Jerusalem. This is highly unlikely from a contextual standpoint.