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

[Douggg]

LOL. Seriously? You're asking for the names of the 24 elders? What kind of shallow argument is that? Go ahead—show us where Scripture lists their names. I’ll wait.

I said the text does not say who the 24 elders are. You are claiming to know who the 24 elders are, but cannot give the names of each of the 24 elders.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I said the text does not say who the 24 elders are. You are claiming to know who the 24 elders are, but cannot give the names of each of the 24 elders.

That’s a shallow argument. The Bible doesn’t give us the names of the 24 elders because it’s not about individual identity — it’s about representation. HELLO?!

The 24 elders represent the entire body of the Elect — 12 from the Old Testament (the tribes of Israel) and 12 from the New Testament (the apostles of the Lamb). This is symbolic, not a roster.

Demanding to know each of their names, when Scripture never gives them, is a pointless and immature distraction which is your M.O. here lately! What matters is what they represent — not what their individual names are.

 

[Douggg]

The 24 elders represent the entire body of the Elect — 12 from the Old Testament (the tribes of Israel) and 12 from the New Testament (the apostles of the Lamb). This is symbolic, not a roster.

You are speculating.

Demanding to know each of their names, when Scripture never gives them, is a pointless and immature distraction which is your M.O. here lately! What matters is what they represent — not what their individual names are

Not being able to give the names of each of the 24 elders means that you have not identified who the individual 24 elders are.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You are speculating.

Not at all. Based on Scripture!

Rev 21:9-17
(9) And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
(10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
(11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
(12) And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
(13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
(14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Therefore, the elders from the 12 tribes of the children of Israel (Old Testament Elect), and the elders from the 12 apostles of the Lamb (New Testament Elect). For a total of 24 elders. LOL! If you do not receive this, that is between you and God.

(15) And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
(16) And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

Sounds fimiliar? This is the same measurement we read about the temple, the altar and the worshippers therein (Elect) from Revelation 12:1? Indeed it does!

(17) And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

So the measurement of the WHOLE Holy City is the measure of a man! Meaning the Holy City is making up of ALL Chosen Elect from the 12 tribes of Israel and 12 apostles of the Lamb. This is the TRUE Holy City, True Church, and True Jersualem! God is not talking about some literal building coming down from heaven as you think!!! When the Elect are gathered together with the Lord in the Air at the Last Trump, you will see THEM as the bride of the Lamb! Not literal buildings and stones, for they represent the city, spiritually speaking! Selah!

Not being able to give the names of each of the 24 elders means that you have not identified who the individual 24 elders are.

Like I said, it's a dumb claim from you. The question is, can YOU?! That's why I asked for Scripture if you believe each "individual 24 elders" has a name. What a joke!

 

[Douggg]

Like I said, it's a dumb claim from you. The question is, can YOU?! That's why I asked for Scripture if you believe each "individual 24 elders" has a name. What a joke!

I don't claim to know the names of each of the 24 elders It is you who claims to know who the 24 elders are, but can't give the names for each one of them. Your claim to know, therefore, is invalid.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I don't claim to know the names of each of the 24 elders It is you who claims to know who the 24 elders are, but can't give the names for each one of them. Your claim to know, therefore, is invalid.

That’s a remarkably shallow argument. Just because Scripture reveals who the 24 elders represent—the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb—you absurdly demand to know each of their personal names? That’s not how biblical representation works. Your objection isn’t based on sound exegesis; it’s just petty deflection because you dislike the truth being presented. If that’s your standard of “proof,” it’s no wonder your understanding is so off; so are your charts!

Grow up.

 

[3 Resurrections]

...Scripture reveals who the 24 elders represent—the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb—

Yep, I agree...that's pretty much where I see the symbolism pointing to. I have heard others say the same thing.

 

[Douggg]

That’s a remarkably shallow argument. Just because Scripture reveals who the 24 elders represent—the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb—you absurdly demand to know each of their personal names?

So, using your logic, why are you not claiming the names for each one of the elders - 12 of them being as those in listed in Revelation 7:5-8 ?

As far as the 12 apostles - John, the apostle, saw the 24 elders. He would not have seen himself.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So, using your logic, why are you not claiming the names for each one of the elders - 12 of them being as those in listed in Revelation 7:5-8 ?

As far as the 12 apostles - John, the apostle, saw the 24 elders. He would not have seen himself.

Your logic is fatally flawed from the start.

Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded—or even expected—to identify the personal names of each of the 24 elders. That’s not the point. The number 24 is symbolic, representing the fullness of the elect from both covenants: 12 from the tribes of Israel (Old Testament), and 12 apostles of the Lamb (New Testament). It’s a representation—not a roll call.

As for your comment about John not seeing himself among the elders, again, you’re missing the entire spiritual nature of the vision. Revelation is filled with symbols and representations. Just because John saw the vision of 24 elders doesn’t mean he was excluded from the group they represent. That’s not how prophetic visions work.

You're not being reasonable—you're just playing a shallow game of semantics to dodge the real meaning. Study the Scriptures spiritually and stop trying to force a carnal interpretation into a symbolic text.

 

[Douggg]

Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded—or even expected—to identify the personal names of each of the 24 elders. That’s not the point. The number 24 is symbolic, representing the fullness of the elect from both covenants: 12 from the tribes of Israel (Old Testament), and 12 apostles of the Lamb (New Testament). It’s a representation—not a roll call.

You are discounting that the 24 elders are real persons. And instead, you are trying to create an issue of the number 24.

As for your comment about John not seeing himself among the elders, again, you’re missing the entire spiritual nature of the vision. Revelation is filled with symbols and representations. Just because John saw the vision of 24 elders doesn’t mean he was excluded from the group they represent. That’s not how prophetic visions work.

John was not one of the 24 elders. He did not see himself. Nor would John have engaged one of the elders in discussion in Revelation 7:13-17.

 

[3 Resurrections]

John was not one of the 24 elders. He did not see himself.

This is true. Because John the author of Revelation was NOT the disciple John, son of Zebedee whom Jesus predicted would be martyred as well as his brother James (already slain with the sword by Herod in Acts 12:1-2). John the author of Revelation was the "beloved disciple" - "the one whom Jesus loved". Namely Lazarus, aka John Eleazar.

 

[Douggg]

This is true. Because John the author of Revelation was NOT the disciple John, son of Zebedee whom Jesus predicted would be martyred as well as his brother James (already slain with the sword by Herod in Acts 12:1-2). John the author of Revelation was the "beloved disciple" - "the one whom Jesus loved". Namely Lazarus, aka John Eleazar.

The twelve disciples were...
two sets of brothers (red, blue). one father and son (green). two disciples names James.

Simon Peter
Andrew, who was Peter's brother
James, the son of Zebedee
John, who was James' brother
Philip
Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael
Thomas, also known as Didymus
Matthew
James, son of Alpaeus
Thaddaeus, also know as Jude, son of James
Simon
Judas Iscariot

There was only one John. He was not martyred. And was the author of Revelation.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You are discounting that the 24 elders are real persons.

That’s a complete misrepresentation of what I’ve said.


I’m not “discounting” that the 24 elders point to real people. What I am saying—and what Scripture clearly supports—is that the 24 elders themselves are not literal, individual persons. They are symbolic representatives of the true Elect, drawn from both the Old and New Testament—the 12 tribes and the 12 apostles.

This is exactly how biblical symbolism works. Just as the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes is not literally Christ himself, but a symbolic representation of Christ, so too are the 24 elders a symbolic image meant to convey a spiritual truth—not a directory of individual names.


To confuse the symbol with the reality it represents is to miss the entire nature of apocalyptic language. Stop forcing literalism where Scripture is speaking spiritually.


Selah.

And instead, you are trying to create an issue of the number 24.

LOL. Look at what you’re saying. What does the number 24 even mean to you? Are you still clinging to the idea that it refers to a literal group of 24 men—like you’re expecting to see a physical lamb with seven actual eyes sitting on a throne making a bleating sound, "baaa"?

Is that really it? No spiritual depth? No symbolic meaning?
Come on… seriously?

John was not one of the 24 elders.

Look. The 24 elders themselves are not real people. It's just a representative of real Elect which John is indeed one of them!

He did not see himself.

Looney. You are asking too many dumb questions because of your denial of God's Word. No wonder you have no spiritual understanding of what God says in Revelation.

Nor would John have engaged one of the elders in discussion in Revelation 7:13-17.

Rev 7:13-17
(13) And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
(14) And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
(15) Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
(16) They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
(17) For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

John was called up in the spirit to see the vision to write down what God wanted him to pen in His Book of Revelation for our understanding. One of the Elders, with the wisdom of Christ, explains who these people are - all Elect out of the great tribulation from Abel to today, (not to be confused with end time great tribulation) having their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb. They are the great Multitides. They are the 24 elders. They are the living creatures. They are the souls under the altar. They are the Two Witnesses. Etc. etc.

 

[Douggg]

I’m not “discounting” that the 24 elders point to real people. What I am saying—and what Scripture clearly supports—is that the 24 elders themselves are not literal, individual persons.

Are you a literal individual person ? Or a symbolic representation of the Elect ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Are you a literal individual person ? Or a symbolic representation of the Elect ?

Oh, give me a break—you’re just playing games at this point.

Yes, I’m a literal, individual Elect. But like all the true Elect, I’m also part of what the 24 elders, the 2 witnesses, the 4 living creatures, the 2 olive trees, and the 2 candlesticks, etc. represent spiritually. Just like the 144,000 that John heard, which turned out to be a great multitude John saw that no man could number—clearly symbolic!!

Hello, this isn’t rocket science… unless you're committed to missing the point on purpose.

Got any more brilliant questions, or are we done here?

 

[Douggg]

Got any more brilliant questions, or are we done here?

Yes, we are done.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

Why this matters is because of what Matthew 24:15, for one, records.

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

If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed. Don't some interpreters even grasp what a 'contradiction' is? That contradictions clearly lead to lies not the truth?

What does one do then, assuming they are at least humble enough to admit that they are contradicting that they agree Christ's death and resurrection made the 2nd temple no longer the holy place by insisting that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple? Do they do like Dispys do, make it be involving a rebuilt temple in the future? Like that is the only option. But if it was the only option, I for sure don't fault them for insisting the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple in that case. Because clearly, a literal rebuilt temple in the future being how one should interpret this, is one of the most far-fetched ideas anyone has ever come up with. And I'm thinking there may have been a time in the past when that was my position as well. And if so, that was then, this is now.

Is there another option? Of course there is. It's involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. Except 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple, not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters insisting the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is the 2nd temple are on the same page with me concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that it is not involving a literal temple.

Why can't these same interpreters plainly see, that by applying 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to Matthew 24:15 rather than the 2nd temple, now they are no longer speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Now they are no longer contradicting that they agree that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, as opposed to it continuing to be the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. But who cares, right? It's way better to contradict something rather than trying to understand something in such a manner where nothing is being contradicted. God forbid, that the latter makes the better sense.

What one should be asking themselves since Jesus was a prophet and knew He was going to the cross, did He too think the 2nd temple remained the holy place until it would be destroyed in 70 AD? After all, keep in mind, Jesus is the one who called the temple in mind the holy place. Would He be so silly to contradict that His death and resurrection would make the 2nd temple no longer the holy place, by then meaning the 2nd temple rather than the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple?

When do some of you think the 3rd temple initially came into affect? In 70 AD when the 2nd temple was destroyed? Surely not. There you go then unless you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth. That the 3rd temple came into affect once Christ died and rose, therefore, causing the 2nd temple to cease being the holy place, yet the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple. What a confused interpreter this person is, spouting nothing other than one contradiction after another.

Jesus pointing to the Temple, which would be destroyed in 70 AD, used the phrase "holy place" as a current identifying description that the Jews held. Btw, holy means separate, not to diminish it's value, just saying. It was a place where God dwelled. God for certain ceased to dwell there when Jesus died. The veil was torn.
> I am not even sure God dwelled in it during Jesus entire ministry.<
God became flesh and dwelt among us. Certainly when Jesus was baptized, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit were present, they weren't in the Temple. One could argue against that by saying God is omnipresent. Still, would sacrifices and worship be legitimate in the Temple during Jesus ministry? Well, they were still under the Law, tya5 Jesus was fulfilling- sibHe was too.
Jesus prayed to His Father in Heaven. He looked up. Did Jesus go to the Temple at any time to pray? He just visited and turned over a few tables - in anger, but still identifying it as His Father's house. Or was the Holy Spirit in the Temple while Jesus taught his disciples?
God is with us, Emmanuel, is a reference to Jesus. Therefore, when God ( Jesus) was with us, was He in the Temple too?

 

[3 Resurrections]

There was only one John. He was not martyred. And was the author of Revelation

Correction: there was more than one John in the early church. John the son of Zebedee was definitely martyred, as Christ promised that both brothers would "share the same cup" that He was about to suffer (Matt. 20:22-23). And you probably remember "John surnamed Mark", the young man who Paul initially did not want coming on his missionary journey. So there were other "Johns" in the NT.

John as one of the sons of Zebedee is listed separately from the "two other of his disciples", one of which was "that disciple whom Jesus loved", in the fishing expedition found in John 21:2 & 7.

Also, on the cross, Christ gave the care of His mother into that beloved disciple's hands. The disciple "at that same hour" brought Mary into his own house. But John the son of Zebedee's house was in far-off Galilee; impossible to access within the same hour. The only beloved disciple who could have taken Mary into his own home within the same hour was the beloved Lazarus, whose home was in Bethany, within an hour's walking distance from the crucifixion site.

Lazarus was that beloved disciple standing at the cross with Mary, whose given name was John Eleazar. Christ provided well for senior care for His own mother, by entrusting her to the man whom He had raised from the dead, who was wealthy enough, who would never get sick again, or die again, or commit a sin ever again. This man Lazarus was the author of the material in the gospel of John, as well as the three epistles, and the book of Revelation. "And we know that his testimony is true" (John 22:24), because a resurrected person like Lazarus / John Eleazar could not possibly utter an untruthful statement when authoring all those NT writings.

 

[Timtofly]

Satan did this once before in Noah's day/time.

The angels left when Adam was kicked out of the Garden. That was a thousand years before Noah was born. They did not make it to earth but were bound in chains of darkness, immediately. No stars/angels came to earth and lived. Where in Revelation do angels come and have relationships with humans?

The only relationships they will ever have in all of this creation is to torment humans.

"And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months."

Interesting that you think the symbolism of a tail casting a third part of the stars to earth was a past gift granted by God to let stars/angels live among humans. The symbolism does not mean they came to earth. It means a third of the stars rebelled against God. You are adding to Scripture a mythology of your own creation.

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth"

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Jude 1:6

These are the only 2 verses that say what happened to those rebellious stars. In Revelation 9, they are released from the pit. By Revelation 12, they are attacking heaven, and have to be cast out of heaven.

 

[David in NJ]

The angels left when Adam was kicked out of the Garden. That was a thousand years before Noah was born. They did not make it ti earth but were bound in chains of darkness, immediately. No stars/angels came to earth and lived. Where in Revelation do angels come and have relationships with humans?

The only relationships they will ever have in all of this creation is to torment humans.

"And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months."

Interesting that you think the symbolism of a tail casting a third part of the stars to earth was a past gift granted by God to let stars/angels live among humans. The symbolism does not mean they came to earth. It means a third of the stars rebelled against God. You are adding to Scripture a mythology of your own creation.

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth"

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Jude 1:6

These are the only 2 verses that say what happened to those rebellious stars. In Revelation 9, they are released from the pit. By Revelation 12, they are attacking heaven, and have to be cast out of heaven.

The angels who rebelled and came to earth were not locked up until God sent the Flood.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Jude 1:6