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

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why are you including this---and the abomination of desolation was standing in the holy place)? What AOD standing in the holy place allegedly in the first century pertaining to the 2nd temple? What would that have looked like to them at the time? It has to look like something to them if when they see it standing in the holy place, they are to get out now. No time to spare. No time to even pack first.

Clearly, armies surrounding Jerusalem, we know what that would have looked like to them. That's not in question what that would have looked like to them. What's in question, if Matthew 24:15 is involving the first century and 70 AD, what would they have seen at the time, pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that alarmed them so much that they did the following at the time---Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes?

Some interpreters insist the holy place is simply meaning the city. If that's true, why isn't it also simply meaning the city per the following?

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:

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.

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.

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;

One reason, though there are numerous reason why I do, I reject a Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:15 is because not one person can convincingly explain what AOD they saw standing in the holy place that alarmed them to such a degree that it led to what verses 17-18 record at the time. And not only that. Assuming this AOD was already fulfilled 2000 years ago, thus should no longer be a mystery if true, why is it then that not all interpreters agree with each other as to what it was?

I guess maybe you didn't read the post I made where I addressed this before? Please look at this: When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

 

[Davidpt]

I just revisited this post because I didn't think it made sense when I read it before, but I ended up getting sidetracked by something else and didn't respond to it. First of all, can you please stop with the accusations against me that I supposedly think I have all the answers and have a way around everything? I have given you a few examples of passages that I changed my interpretation of in recent months and I've told you that I do not believe I have all the answers, so why do you keep doing this? Which one of us frequently refers to our claims as being "undeniably true"? That would be you, not me. I never make such claims about my opinions. So, should I claim that you are the one who thinks he has all the answers then? No, I'm not going to do that because it would serve no purpose even if it was true (it's not). Yes, I have strong opinions on things, but I don't ever say they are facts or are "undeniably true".

I'd like to leave the unnecessary personal insults out of our discussions. Can we do that, please? If it helps, I apologize for every time I've ever personally insulted you in any way. I have felt convicted about that and I am trying to stop doing that.

Anyway, how you decide to respond to what I said there is up to you, of course. I hope you will agree to just stick to discussing scripture and leave the insults out of it while remembering that no matter how I might come across in terms of being confident about what I believe, I do not believe I have all the answers.

Okay, back to the scripture. I disagree that what is described in Matthew 24:15-21 chronologically follows what is described in verse 14 and I'll explain why.

It's clear to me that once the gospel is preached in the whole world the end will come right then or, at least, very shortly afterwards. To me, that's exactly what Jesus said. When the gospel has been preached in the whole world then at that point the end will come. Not after a period of testing first. Right then. Otherwise, it seems to me that Jesus would have instead said something like this: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will be near, but not yet.". Or "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come after a time period of testing of the faith of those who accepted the gospel".

With that said, how exactly do you interpret Matthew 24:15-21? I think it's time for you to finally give an actual interpretation of the passage instead of only claiming that it has to occur in the future just before Jesus comes without any real explanation of why that is the case. I'm not going to be convinced that it could be true without you showing how it can be true.

I know you see the holy place as referring to the temple of God, as in the church, but I'd like to see your understanding of what it means spiritually for those in Judea to flee to the mountains and what you think Judea represents spiritually. And why it would be particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee. And why people should pray to not have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath. I personally can't even guess as to what those things would mean in a figurative, spiritual sense. If you at least have a guess as to what those things might mean in a figurative and spiritual sense then please share that so I can at least get an idea of how you actually interpret the passage.

I will try and address some of your concerns later. In the meantime, what I was proposing in that last paragraph in the post you were replying to, actually, assuming Amil is the correct view, though I have my doubts, it's possible that Matthew 24:15-26 can be explaining satan's little season after the millennium. IOW, those still alive when satan's little season begins, that were saved during the millennium, are then tested after the millennium, thus are deceived, thus fall away.

Which then equals this. During the millennium they weren't deceived, the fact they are saved during the millennium. But after the millennium when they are tested, many of them are deceived and fall away. At least this is not nonsensical since you don't have someone already deceived during the millennium deceived yet again after the millennium. The idea is to deceive someone not already deceived or no longer deceived, not someone already deceived. But, since no Amil I'm aware of teaches any of this nor wants to even entertain any of this as a possibility, why would I want to even entertain myself that Amil could be the correct position regardless that I have my doubts?

 

[Zao is life]

Do you remember when that was? Just curious. I think I vaguely remember it but couldn't recall if that was you or David or even if it was on this forum or not.

I think it was on this forum. It was quite some time back because I stayed away from all forums for - I don't know how many - months, and it was before I stayed away.

That's a valid point if "the man of sin" is supposed to represent an individual person, but that's not what I believe. I think "the man of sin" is either sinful mankind in general, in contrast to "the man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Possibly all apostate saints, yes. Possibly not. Paul didn't spell it out for me, LOL. I read 2 Timothy 3:17 as meaning a man of God but applying the words "the man of God" to each and every (individual) man of God.​

Yeah, the fact that multiple abominations of desolation are referred to in Daniel does complicate this. No doubt. This is a very difficult passage to interpret for that reason and other reasons, including grammatical reasons like we have talked about. Any honest person will acknowledge that.

Then we agree again

It seems that it was intended for us to spiritually discern what He was saying, though. That is certainly the intention for some of scripture (the deeper things), according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. The fact that Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 say "let the reader understand" might be a hint that it wasn't all meant to be easily discerned even though that statement only applied to those verses in particular.

Well what you say above brings to my mind the question "Would it make sense that Matthew 24:15 was intended for me / us to understand what was meant by the holy place and the AoD prophesied about by Daniel, if the verse was fulfilled in 70 A.D? Maybe it was fulfilled in 70 AD and that's exactly why I don't understand it today?

Now I also remember how yourself and others who agreed with you on this (the last time I was involved in the debate) nevertheless disagreed with one another on what exactly constituted that AoD in the holy place. One person said it was the Roman armies, one said it was the abominations committed by the Jews in the temple that were taking place in the temple during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, (and I don't remember where you stood or what you put forward as to what that abomination was).

- but now I also remember that at the time I said (and still believe) that Daniel 9:27 has abominations in the plural in all English translations, and I believe that it's because it's referring to the continued sacrifices and offerings following the death of Christ (40 years of abominations) - but the AoD in the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is in the singular (abomination).

I might also have mentioned - and got shot down - (I did get shot down when I mentioned it but I don't remember if it was at that time) the fact that Wikipedia has this definition of the Abomination of Desolation:

"Abomination of Desolation" is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."

I never developed my view because of the above statement in Wikipedia. It kind of jumped at me when I saw it because IF the Wikipedia statement is true, then it confirms what I have believed
​

- and Davidpt disagreed with me at the time because I was saying that A4E's AoD is a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - even though Davidpt agreed with me that Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 are talking about the same thing, and Matthew 24:15 does not refer to the Jerusalem temple destroyed in 70 A.D.

I don't know how these things manage to be summarized like this in Wikipedia, but the article continues:

"In the 1st century AD it was taken up by the authors of the gospels in the context of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70, with the Gospel of Mark placing the "abomination of desolation" into a speech by Jesus concerning the Second Coming."

Don't ask me how Wikipedia's source has Mark 13:14 relating to the time of the return of Christ and Matthew 24:15 to 70 A.D - because IMO the two records of what Jesus said are virtually word-for-word, with minor exceptions. IMO what Mark is saying about the AoD and the timing of it, is the same as what Matthew is saying.

And I'm not satisfied that it relates to 70 A.D because to me the abominations mentioned in the plural in all English translations of Daniel 9:27 relates to the continued sacrifices for sin after the death of Christ.

But I'm also not satisfied that I know what I'm talking about.​

 

[covenantee]

Re. Matthew 24:14 is anyone going to tackle these?

1. What is the explanation for Paul's declarations that the gospel had penetrated globally in his day?
2. Why is the word for "end" not "sunteleia", consistent with its usage in verse 3?

The reality, brethren, is that Matthew 24:14-21 (and beyond) refer to 70 AD and the period leading up to it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I will try and address some of your concerns later. In the meantime, what I was proposing in that last paragraph in the post you were replying to, actually, assuming Amil is the correct view, though I have my doubts, it's possible that Matthew 24:15-26 can be explaining satan's little season after the millennium. IOW, those still alive when satan's little season begins, that were saved during the millennium, are then tested after the millennium, thus are deceived, thus fall away.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. That would be plausible except that verses 9-13 already describe Satan's little season, as I understand it, and those verses would be describing things that happen before Satan's little season in this scenario. Obviously, there won't be two little seasons for Satan. One is enough.

Which then equals this. During the millennium they weren't deceived, the fact they are saved during the millennium. But after the millennium when they are tested, many of them are deceived and fall away.

Okay, but you are talking about them falling away during a time period represented by Matthew 24:15-26. Yet, Jesus talks about many falling away before that in verse 10. So, there would be two mass apostasy events? I don't think that would make much sense.

Matthew 24:9 Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

At least this is not nonsensical since you don't have someone already deceived during the millennium deceived yet again after the millennium. The idea is to deceive someone not already deceived or no longer deceived, not someone already deceived. But, since no Amil I'm aware of teaches any of this nor wants to even entertain any of this as a possibility, why would I want to even entertain myself that Amil could be the correct position regardless that I have my doubts?

I obviously don't think my current view is nonsensical, either, but we don't exactly think alike, so we each think some things the other believes are nonsensical from our perspectives. My view of Satan's binding obviously won't ever make any sense to you as long as you insist that it results in him being completely incapacitated rather than him being bound from doing certain things in NT times to the extent that he was able to do in OT times when he held the power of death that he was able to use to keep a vast majority of the world in slavery to the fear of death due to having no hope of eternal life after death (Hebrews 2:14-15).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Possibly all apostate saints, yes. Possibly not. Paul didn't spell it out for me, LOL

Well, he wasn't always into spelling things out. He's the same guy who wrote this...

1 Corinthians 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

. I read 2 Timothy 3:17 as meaning a man of God but applying the words "the man of God" to each and every (individual) man of God.

That's similar to how I understand the man of sin, whether it applies to every individual person of sin or to apostates in particular. It does seem that there is a possible direct connection between the mass falling away that Paul talked about and "the man of sin".

Then we agree again

That's always good.

Well what you say above brings to my mind the question "Would it make sense that Matthew 24:15 was intended for me / us to understand what was meant by the holy place and the AoD prophesied about by Daniel, if the verse was fulfilled in 70 A.D? Maybe it was fulfilled in 70 AD and that's exactly why I don't understand it today?

Well, it's clear to me that at least some of the Olivet Discourse has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings because what spawned it in the first place was Jesus saying that the temple buildings standing at the time would be destroyed. So, to me, He not only was asked about it, but I see no reason to think He wouldn't have answered the question about it.

Obviously, the city and the temple being destroyed fits perfectly with Daniel 9:26-27, so that's why I see Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24) as referring to the fulfillment of that particular prophecy. I think everything else relates to His future second coming and the end of the age.

Now I also remember how yourself and others who agreed with you on this (the last time I was involved in the debate) nevertheless disagreed with one another on what exactly constituted that AoD in the holy place. One person said it was the Roman armies, one said it was the abominations committed by the Jews in the temple that were taking place in the temple during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, (and I don't remember where you stood or what you put forward as to what that abomination was).​

I may not have had a firm stance on that at the time, but right now I lean towards believing it relates in some way to the abominable things that took place in the temple and that area before 70 AD. The Jews themselves named a mock Messiah and committed murders and worshiped false gods and did other abominable things there and the Roman soldiers also did similar abominable things like bringing idols into the temple and worshiping false gods there (a place intended for God to meet with His people, not a place intended for false gods and idols). Since I see Luke 21:20 as being a parallel verse, I think the abomination of desolation more likely relates to the Roman armies being there and doing abominable things in the place where only the Jews were supposed to be in worship of God and meeting with God there.

As far as nailing down one particular abomination, if that's what it is supposed to mean instead of just referring to everything going on there as a collective abomination, I'm not sure. And neither are you or anyone else. But, what we do know, if the historical documents written by Josephus and others are accurate, is that Christians in Judea did flee the scene to the mountains when the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and the city and the temple buildings were destroyed and it was indeed an event that would have caused difficulty for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee and such. And, there were Jews taken captive to all nations afterwards as Jesus said, as well. What is described just seems to fit what happened in 70 AD very well.

- but now I also remember that at the time I said (and still believe) that Daniel 9:27 has abominations in the plural in all English translations, and I believe that it's because it's referring to the continued sacrifices and offerings following the death of Christ (40 years of abominations) - but the AoD in the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is in the singular (abomination).

I might also have mentioned - and got shot down - (I did get shot down when I mentioned it but I don't remember if it was at that time) the fact that Wikipedia has this definition of the Abomination of Desolation:

"Abomination of Desolation" is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."

I never developed my view because of the above statement in Wikipedia. It kind of jumped at me when I saw it because IF the Wikipedia statement is true, then it confirms what I have believed
​

- and Davidpt disagreed with me at the time because I was saying that A4E's AoD is a type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - even though Davidpt agreed with me that Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 are talking about the same thing, and Matthew 24:15 does not refer to the Jerusalem temple destroyed in 70 A.D.

I don't know how these things manage to be summarized like this in Wikipedia, but the article continues:

"In the 1st century AD it was taken up by the authors of the gospels in the context of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70, with the Gospel of Mark placing the "abomination of desolation" into a speech by Jesus concerning the Second Coming."

Don't ask me how Wikipedia's source has Mark 13:14 relating to the time of the return of Christ and Matthew 24:15 to 70 A.D - because IMO the two records of what Jesus said are virtually word-for-word, with minor exceptions. IMO what Mark is saying about the AoD and the timing of it, is the same as what Matthew is saying.​

Just shows that you can't fully trust Wikipedia. If Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 aren't about the same event, then we all might as well give up on all of this because there's no way we can be sure about any of it in that case and we can't relate any two verses between the accounts together.

And I'm not satisfied that it relates to 70 A.D because to me the abominations mentioned in the plural in all English translations of Daniel 9:27 relates to the continued sacrifices for sin after the death of Christ.

But I'm also not satisfied that I know what I'm talking about.​

Well, you can ask God for wisdom about it (James 1:5-7). That's what I do when I get stuck like that and am just not sure how to determine what something means.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Re. Matthew 24:14 is anyone going to tackle these?

1. What is the explanation for Paul's declarations that the gospel had penetrated globally in his day?
2. Why is the word for "end" not "sunteleia", consistent with its usage in verse 3?

The reality, brethren, is that Matthew 24:14-21 (and beyond) refer to 70 AD and the period leading up to it.

Well. The time has come. You know I never back down from a challenge. We agree on a lot, but not on this. So, let's talk about it.

1. To me, Paul was writing about the known world at that time, which did not include the entire world. I believe the gospel surely had not literally gone out into the whole world yet when Paul made his declarations. I believe Jesus was talking about literally the entire world because I think it makes a lot of sense that it will be time for Him to return once the gospel has literally reached the entire world.

2. The same Greek word translated as "end" in verses 6, 13 and 14 (telos), while not the same word used in verse 3 to refer to "the end" of the age, is used here...

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end (telos) will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

So, here, it is used to refer to "the end" that will come when Jesus comes again in the future. That's how I see it in Matthew 24:6, 13 & 14 as well. There is nothing which dictates that just because a different word is translated as "the end" in one verse than is used in another verse, that those verses can't be related to the end of the same time period. I am not certain of this, but I think it's possible that when it speaks specifically of the end of something or the end of a time period, such as "the end of the age", then the word "sunteleia" was the word of choice. But, if something just generally refers to "the end" without specifying what it is the end of exactly, like we see in Matthew 24:6,13,14 and 1 Cor 15:24, then the word "telos" is the word of choice. This is obviously just speculation on my part. Here is some info about those two words that might help us discern if what I'm saying has some validity or not.

While both telos and synteleia can relate to "end," they have distinct nuances. Telos generally refers to a final point or conclusion, while synteleia encompasses a period leading up to that final point, a "bringing together" of events. So, synteleia is a better word to describe the end of a time period, as it suggests a culmination of events rather than just a single endpoint.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Telos:
  Means "end," "conclusion," "purpose," or "goal." It can refer to the definitive termination of something or the final outcome. In the context of time, it can describe a specific moment in time when something ends.
• Synteleia:
  Means "completion," "consummation," or "end" of something, but it also implies a "bringing together" or "coming together." It suggests a period of events leading up to a final point or culmination. It often refers to the "end of the age" or the "end of a period" in a more encompassing sense, rather than just the final moment.

For example, one might use telos to refer to the moment when the play ends, while one might use synteleia to refer to the entire process of the play leading up to that final moment

Based on this information, I think what I'm saying very well may be valid.

This might be a good starting point to discuss this, anyway. I need to go for now.

 

[covenantee]

1. To me, Paul was writing about the known world at that time, which did not include the entire world. I believe the gospel surely had not literally gone out into the whole world yet when Paul made his declarations. I believe Jesus was talking about literally the entire world because I think it makes a lot of sense that it will be time for Him to return once the gospel has literally reached the entire world.

Hey bro, we can't always be clones, that would be no fun.

Paul's epistles use two or three different words for world/earth. But in Romans 16:26 he uses the word nations, and it is the same word that Christ used at Olivet.
1484 [e]
ethnesin
ἔθνεσιν ;
nations
N-DNP

And in both cases, all nations.

Matthew 24
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Romans 16
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

So there is consistency, the significance and value of which we both recognize.

 

[covenantee]

So, here, it is used to refer to "the end" that will come when Jesus comes again in the future. That's how I see it in Matthew 24:6, 13 & 14 as well.

Matthew 24
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Who is/are "ye" in verse 6?

 

[WPM]

I'm not going to lie though, I had Chatgpt to try and help me flesh out some of my thoughts, in regards to that. And IMO, it did an excellent job.

LOL. That is where your theology comes from. That says it all! Why is no one here surprised at where your help comes from.

If it was the Holy Spirit you would say otherwise.