- Oct 12, 2020
- 7,394
- 2,496
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes.Do you then think it was meaning the 2nd temple
No. But, Jesus hadn't died yet when He gave the Olivet Discourse. So, He was talking about it's status at the time He was speaking. The disciples certainly would have understood what He was referring to while He was speaking. Should He have said instead "When you see the abomination of desolation stand in what is currently the holy place, but won't be the holy place any more when this happens, get out of Jerusalem as fast as you can and tell everyone in Judea to hightail it to the mountains"?and that the 2nd temple was actually still holy after Christ died and resurrected?
You're clearly not thinking in terms of the status of the temple at that time. It was still the holy place even if only for a very short time longer, so that's why Jesus still called it that. He knew that the disciples would know what He was talking about. Do you think at the time Jesus was speaking to them the disciples would have thought that "the holy place" was anything but the temple standing at that time?It seems silly to me, that if it can't be a 3rd rebuilt temple since that temple wouldn't be holy in God's eyes, it could still be meaning the 2nd temple though, because that temple would still be holy in God's eyes even after His Son died and resurrected but a 3rd rebuilt one wouldn't be. If you can't see a major problem here either way, I don't know what to tell you. It's clues like this that clearly tell us that Matthew 24:15 has zero to do with a temple in 70 AD. It also has zero to do with a rebuilt one in the future, yet, that verse involves the future still.
Yes, it was. If only you would acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 then you would understand this, but, sadly, you don't.You would think if anyone should know what this adds up to then, you would think it should at least be Amils that would. It's not meaning nor involving a literal temple, period.
That verse is talking about something different entirely than what Matthew 24:15 is about. One passage relates to things happening in and around Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15-22) and the other refers to things happen globally (2 Thess 2).The same way 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple.
That isn't what I'm arguing. Why do you have to constantly make straw man arguments, David? You do it repeatedly. It's tiresome. In another thread you tried to say that Amils believe that the GWTJ has to be completed within 24 hours, which isn't true. Are you even trying to understand what we believe? After all these years where we've explained what we believe many times, you still don't have a clue about some of what we believe. It's incredible.To argue that a 3rd rebuilt temple can't be holy, but the 2nd one still can be, even after Christ's death and resurrection, is nonsensical.
Let me go find the straw man you're arguing with and see if he is willing to respond.If the 2nd one can still be holy in 70 AD, then a 3rd rebuilt one can still be holy as well. Neither are meaning before Christ died and rose. Both are meaning after He died and rose. How can any literal temple post His death and resurrection still be holy, including the 2nd one?
None of us are.If you or any Amils still want to insist the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD,
David, how much time do you think you could get back if you could get back all the time you've wasted making straw man arguments? It would probably be at least a full year's worth of time.then you all need to admit that a 3rd rebuilt one would still be holy as well, thus quit calling that idea nonsense when it would be equally nonsensical if the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, meaning up until it was destroyed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0