I assumed that would one would get you all riled up, lol.
So, you were purposely trying to rile me up? That doesn't seem very nice.
One reason I said that though is because Amils are noted for discerning when things are spiritual while Premils are usually noted as taking things literal that might be meaning spiritual instead. And here I am, a Premil, taking Matthew 24:15 spiritually rather than literal, and here you are, an Amil, taking Matthew 24:15 literally rather than spiritually.
Yes, exactly! This illustrates the problem with Premils like yourself. You are often not able to discern what is literal and what is figurative, so you often take figurative things literally and take literal things figuratively. There's no magic formula that tells us which is which in any given scripture passage. We need discernment from the Holy Spirit in order to determine that.
You don't interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the literal sense, though. Why not treat Matthew 24:15 in the same sense?
Because they have a completely different context. In Matthew 24:15-22 Jesus was answering a question regarding when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and 2 Thess 2:4 has nothing to do with that.
That way your interpretation doesn't have Jesus meaning the 2nd temple was still holy all the way up until 70 AD.
My interpretation does not have Jesus meaning the 2nd temple was still holy all the way up until 70 AD. This is what I was talking about David. You continue to make these strawman arguments. Stop wasting your time doing that.
At the time Jesus was giving His Olivet Discourse to the disciples, the temple was still "the holy place" and His disciples would have understood exactly what He was referring to. There is nothing that demands it would still have to be considered the holy place once the abomination of desolation actually occurred there.
Let's not ignore the huge problem of thinking that Matthew 24:15 will be fulfilled in the future. What "holy place" could there be in the future where the abomination of desolation could take place? It can't be a physical temple building. I've already explained why many times. And the context of the Olivet Discourse clearly relates to physical temple buildings (Matt 24:1-2) and not to the spiritual temple of God (the church). So, how exactly do you interpret Matthew 24:15-22? Please be as specific as possible.
If Jesus could accurately predict the future, then He obviously already knew that once He dies and rises, the 2nd temple would no longer be holy at that point. To argue that because Jesus predicted this before His death and resurrection, thus the 2nd temple was still holy at the time He predicted Matthew 24:15, therefore He was meaning the 2nd temple, is an unconvincing argument.
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if my arguments are convincing to you or not. I believe they are. If you disagree, so be it. I can't do anything about that.
Once again, as if Jesus could predict the future but that He would be clueless about what actually happens in the future until these events take place first, is ludicrous. He couldn't have possibly meant the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 because He already knew good and well that that temple would not still be holy in 70 AD.
He was talking about its status at that time so that the disciples who He was talking to at that time would know what place He was referring to.
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.
Notice here, in both accounts, it is unbelieving Jews, not Christians, that are insisting the 2nd temple is still a holy place post Christ's death and resurrection. When Jesus was giving His Discourse, He was giving it to the church not to unbelieving Jews instead.
You continue to waste your time making a strawman argument. You're acting as if I am claiming that the 2nd temple was still holy in 70 AD, but I am not claiming that.
Seriously, in 70 AD, what kind of abomination could have taken place in a temple that was no longer holy? And for what reason?
Are you really this naive, David? Do you know why what occurred in 70 AD happened? Are you somehow not aware that what happened then was God's wrath against unbelieving Jews (see Luke 19:41-44)? The abomination that caused the desolation of Jerusalem was that the Roman armies took it over and did many shameful acts at the place that was supposed to be the holy place for the Jews. That would obviously be an abomination to God. But, what was seen as an abomination by God was not just what the Romans did there, but that it happened because of the Jews rejecting His Son.
Is that the reason the temple was destroyed, because an abomination took place in it? Is that what one is to believe, that in a temple that was no longer holy, an abomination took place in it, therefore, it needed to be destroyed and was destroyed?
No! Since you are asking this question, does that mean you don't know why the temple was destroyed? If you really don't know then the reason can be seen here:
Luke 19:41
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43
The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”
What this describes is exactly what happened around 70 AD. God used the Romans armies to bring His wrath against the unbelieving Jews because they "did not recognize the time of God's coming to" them.