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

[David in NJ]

You have not listened very well. Do you understand what the number seven signifies in Revelation? Did God mention seven literal angels here, bringing messages to the seven literal churches? Read my post again.



Do you know who this Angel of the Lord is? The Hebrew word for "angel" is "Malak" which simply means a messenger. Someone who carries a message. Someone performs some other specific commission from God, such as a miracle, and reprsent more or less officially the one God sending him. So who is this angel of the Lord?

Judges 13:18-22

• "And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
• So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
• For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.
• But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
• And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

Again, the word is messenger. The great "I AM" was the messenger of the Lord, because His name is a mystery / secret. Selah! So this is the same "I AM" who spoke with mistress in Genesis 16:9-11 for God Himself is a messenger, "Malak".

The problem is that many Christians normally think of when they hear the word "angel", they automatically think about supernatural being sent out by God from heaven. But that is only because of Christian tradition, theologian's eisegesis, and long-standing church customs. But NOT from anything actually spoken about in Scripture detailing the mythical angelic beings. Anyone who thinks that is not true, show me! As in the Children of Israel whom He brought out of the land of Egypt, and yet they rebelled. The result?

Psalms 78:49

• "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil [messengers] among them."

God sent no evil angels among them; he sent evil messengers, and they all died in the wilderness. Selah!

A human becomes a "supernatural being" in their spirit, when they are Born-Again by the SUPERnatural Spirit of God

God equates supernatural angels with people who have His Spirit = they are also called "elohim" making them "sons of God"

 

[TribulationSigns]

A human becomes a "supernatural being" in their spirit, when they are Born-Again by the SUPERnatural Spirit of God

God equates supernatural angels with people who have His Spirit = they are also called "elohim" making them "sons of God"

Time out. Geez...

Did you even read what I wrote carefully? The focus was clearly on the Angel of the Lord. Do you agree—or not—that the Angel of the Lord is God Himself, appearing as a messenger? In Genesis 16:9–11, it's unmistakably the Lord Himself speaking to Hagar. That’s the point.

But instead of addressing that you started, you suddenly veered off into a completely different topic—talking about humans becoming ‘supernatural beings’ or somehow being equated with angels through God's Spirit. What does that even have to do with the original point? Why are you dodging the real subject here? Let’s stay on topic: Who is the Angel of the Lord? That’s the discussion—don’t try to distract from it.

 

[Zao is life]

Except no one that insists this is meaning the first century can tell us exactly what the AOD looked like that they saw, where it then caused them such alarm that they fled to the mountains, and didn't even bother to take any thing out of his house first, nor return back to take his clothes.

Yeah, you are so right! The words imply something that happens suddenly, as in the days of Lot - but that did not happen in A.D70:

In AD70 the Roman armies first besieged the city for a long time, until their battering rams managed to breach its walls. Then within the city they had to besiege the temple, and were not able to get into it until their battering rams breached the temple's walls, because the Jews who escaped when the armies had breached the city's walls, had locked themselves inside the temple.

But Jesus' words do imply something way more sudden, saying that the one who is on his housetop should not even go down to take any thing out of his house - and this tells us a LOT about these words:

1 Thessalonians 5
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

I'm sure that the Jews were not saying "Peace and Safety" in A.D70.

1 Thessalonians 5
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Revelation 3
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Revelation 16
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Matthew connects our "watching" to seeing the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

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.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Luke 17
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot’s wife.

There was nothing about the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple that was nearly as sudden as what Jesus was talking about in the above verses, in the day He comes as a thief.

Your post was very insightful, IMO.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yeah, you are so right! The words imply something that happens suddenly, as in the days of Lot - but that did not happen in A.D70:

In AD70 the Roman armies first besieged the city for a long time, until their battering rams managed to breach its walls. Then within the city they had to besiege the temple, and were not able to get into it until their battering rams breached the temple's walls, because the Jews who escaped when the armies had breached the city's walls, had locked themselves inside the temple.

But Jesus' words do imply something way more sudden, saying that the one who is on his housetop should not even go down to take any thing out of his house - and this tells us a LOT about these words:

1 Thessalonians 5
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

I'm sure that the Jews were not saying "Peace and Safety" in A.D70.

1 Thessalonians 5
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

The church will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air just before 1 Thesalonians 5:2-3 occurs, so there will be no believers left on the earth to flee to the mountains at that point. There is no relation between Matthew 24:15-21 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.

Also, fleeing to the mountains was not something the Jews could do quickly, so they would need time to get to the mountains. They would not be fleeing to avoid sudden destruction. There would be no time for that. So, you are trying to conflate two unrelated passages.

 

[Davidpt]

As to the Op of this thread. Something I need to point out yet again, is this.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day

If taking these things to be meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, this obviously means everything has to be taken in a literal sense in that case. The questions then needing to be asked, if taking these things to be meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, does any of it defy logic if taken literal? Let's see.

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? I would say no.

What about this? 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

Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? It is clearly questionable if applying that literally since it has to be applied to this part first--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place

Which then raises the question, what if the housetop they are on at the time, nor the field they are in at the time, is somewhere the holy place is not even in their line of sight? How can they then see something they can't see from where they are at the time, then be so alarmed by seeing what they can't see from where they are, then fleeing to the mountains, no time to pack first? Get out now, at that very split second, as if a volcano nearby has just erupted and is sending flowing lava in their direction. No time to pack, have to get out before it is too late to get out and that the flowing lava consumes you.

What about this? And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD?
It is clearly questionable if applying that literally. Because it then begs the question, why only focus on nursing mothers? Why is there only woe on them? What about children and disabled ppl, for example? Why not woe on them as well?

What about this? But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day. Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? I would say no.

How should one proceed in this case. Only go by what is not questionable if applying in a literal sense, but ignore what is questionable if applying in a literal sense? This approach obviously makes no sense. What makes sense is this. If some of it is questionable if applying these things in a literal sense to the the first century leading up to 70 AD, then we have to conclude that it is not reasonable to apply these things in this manner if some of these things when being applied in this manner are questionable when being applied in this manner.

If zero is questionable when applying it in this manner, that's another story. In that case it could be perfectly reasonable to apply all of the above in verses 15-20 in this manner, a literal manner.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As to the Op of this thread. Something I need to point out yet again, is this.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day

If taking these things to be meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, this obviously means everything has to be taken in a literal sense in that case. The questions then needing to be asked, if taking these things to be meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD, does any of it defy logic if taken literal? Let's see.

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? I would say no.

But, you don't think that is supposed to be applied in a literal sense. Do you have any guesses as to what that would mean in a non-literal sense?

What about this? 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

Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? It is clearly questionable if applying that literally since it has to be applied to this part first--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place

Which then raises the question, what if the housetop they are on at the time, nor the field they are in at the time, is somewhere the holy place is not even in their line of sight? How can they then see something they can't see from where they are at the time, then be so alarmed by seeing what they can't see from where they are, then fleeing to the mountains, no time to pack first? Get out now, at that very split second, as if a volcano nearby has just erupted and is sending flowing lava in their direction. No time to pack, have to get out before it is too late to get out and that the flowing lava consumes you.

There is no requirement that it would be something that everyone could see first before anyone started fleeing to the mountains. Once some saw it happening then word spread about it in the rest of Judea and that's when people knew they need to flee. Also, as we can see in Luke 21:20-24, people would have understood that Jerusalem being surrounded by armies would indicate that they needed to flee to the mountains at that point, also.

What about this? And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD?
It is clearly questionable if applying that literally. Because it then begs the question, why only focus on nursing mothers? Why is there only woe on them? What about children and disabled ppl, for example? Why not woe on them as well?

It says nursing mothers and pregnant women. Then that are with child are pregnant women, which is why other translations refer to "pregnant women" instead of "them that are with child" which is not clear. You obviously think "them that are with child" are the same as "them that give suck", but that is not the case. Anyway, it should be obvious why having to flee would be a problem for pregnant women and nursing mothers. What do you expect, that Jesus should have listed every single type of person that would have trouble fleeing at that time? That's ridiculous. It doesn't mean He was saying other types of people would have no trouble fleeing. He just gave a couple examples of types of people who would have trouble fleeing, showing that it would be a particularly difficult time for some people.

What about this? But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day. Does that defy logic if applying it in the literal sense pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD? I would say no.

Yet, you don't apply that in a literal sense. Any guesses as to how that can be applied in a non-literal sense?

How should one proceed in this case. Only go by what is not questionable if applying in a literal sense, but ignore what is questionable if applying in a literal sense?

What you think is questionable is not questionable to others. Yet, you assume that anything that's questionable to you also has to be questionable to everyone.

This approach obviously makes no sense.

Maybe not for you since you find some of it to be questionable as to whether it can be applied literally or not. I have no such questions personally, so my approach to interpreting the passage does not have the problems that yours does.

What makes sense is this. If some of it is questionable if applying these things in a literal sense to the the first century leading up to 70 AD, then we have to conclude that it is not reasonable to apply these things in this manner if some of these things when being applied in this manner are questionable when being applied in this manner.

Why are you acting as if the word "questionable" means unlikely? The word questionable just means it's not certain one way or another.

If zero is questionable when applying it in this manner, that's another story. In that case it could be perfectly reasonable to apply all of the above in verses 15-20 in this manner, a literal manner.

It is perfectly reasonable to apply all of Matthew 24:15-21 in a literal manner. Your argument that it should not be applied literally would be much more convincing if you actually could at least offer a guess as to what it could mean in a non-literal way. But, you've never even done that as far as I can recall.