This generation

DavidPT said:

Why is it a big deal to some of you, especially those of you who are not even Preterists, if the AOD in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involves the end of this age, thus is not meaning in a literal sense?

Click to expand...

Because many futurists are looking for a physical temple to be built in Jerusalem that would somehow be considered the temple of God (impossible) with some Antichrist dude going and sitting in there and claiming to be God, which is not what scripture teaches. Many futurists are obsessed with looking for an Antichrist to appear on the scene and looking for a new physical temple to be built when they should be watching for the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ instead.

Hammster said:

There are four possible groups who could have been said to desolate the temple after Jerusalem was surrounded. We can’t be dogmatic about which group it is, but it did happen.

Click to expand...

It wasn't the holy place (the naos in the Greek). It was the hieron.

Greek naos (the holy place):

-- in the temple complex --

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5; John 2:20;

-- Body of Christ --

(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

-------------The veil torn-----------------
(Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45).

-- the church & the temple in heaven --

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22

Greek hieron: the temple complex in Jerusalem (buildings and courtyards):

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20.

-------------The veil torn-----------------

-- the temple complex in Jerusalem-- (still using the Greek word hieron)
Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

The last time the word naós ("the holy place" or the holy sanctuary) is used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, is in the verses which talk about the tearing of the veil (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). After this, the first time the word is used again is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

Compare the above two verses with:

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ has not entered into the Holy of Holies made with (human) hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

The word hierón continues to be used in all references to the temple at Jerusalem.

The holy place = the church ever since the day the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn.

The most High has not dwelt in temples made with human hands since the day the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn.

It's Orthodox Christian doctrine, and New Testament doctrine. Anything else is heterodox.

Hammster said:

But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
— John 2:21

Click to expand...

See post # 1242

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

That is so true. The New Testament confirms over and over that after the tearing of the veil, the Jerusalem temple was no longer the holy place.

Both Matthew and Mark regarded this fact as important enough to add (let the reader understand) when they wrote was Jesus said about the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not saying it would be considered the holy place at the time the abomination of desolation occurred. He called it the holy place at the time He was speaking because the temple standing at that time was still the holy place at that time.

Let me give you an analogy to further explain my point in case you're not getting it. Let's say there was a venue called The Holy Place and they were planning to host a Mercy Me concert there in August and tickets for that were on sale now. So, let's say I bought a ticket today to go to that concert and let's say I said this to someone who is planning to go to the concert:

When you see me at The Holy Place in August then you will know that I'm there to watch Mercy Me perform at their concert. Let's say that The Holy Place changed ownership before the concert took place and the new owners decided to rename it to something else. Would that mean my having indicated that the concert would be held at The Holy Place was inaccurate just because it would no longer be called "The Holy Place" at the time the concert was held? No, right? Similarly, Jesus calling the temple "the holy place" at the time He was speaking in no way meant that it would have to still be considered "the holy place" when the abomination of desolation occurred there.

Spiritual Jew said:

I'm not understanding your point here. You are equating the term "Judea" with the church of God? Is that term used to describe the church anywhere else? I'm not seeing any basis for that conclusion. And what do you make of Jesus indicating in Matthew 24:19-20 that the fleeing from Judea would be a problem in the winter and a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women?

Click to expand...

The term Judea referred to the country of the elect. Where are the elect today?

What term could Jesus have used for the USA, Australia, New Zealand. Fiji, South Korea, South Africa or any nation which never existed in the 1st century where the saints dwell today?

The point in Matthew 24:15 is for the saints to know that they should perceive what is going on when the anti-type of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (the final son of perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2) seats himself up in the holy place (i.e the New Testament temple).

The abomination of desolation that was set up by the type (AE4) did not result in the destruction of the temple. After the Macabees had booted him out, the temple was cleansed and and sanctified, and re-consecrated to God. The final son of perdition will be consumed by the breath of Christ's mouth and the brightness of His coming. What does Matthew 24:29-31 tell us?

Revelation 7:13-14 " And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

GREAT TRIBULATION is spoken about only three times in the New Testament:-

Revelation 7:13-14 " And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Revelation 2:21 "Behold, I will cast her (Jezebel) into a bed, and them (those Christians) that commit adultery with her into mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), except they repent of their deeds.

Matthew 24:21-22 "for then shall be mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

(Also see Matthew 24:9 and Matthew 13:21 below):-

Matthew 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to thlîpsis (tribulation) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. And then many will skandalízō, and will betray one another, and will hate one another."

Matthew 13:21 "But he has no root in himself, and is temporary. For when thlîpsis (tribulation) or persecution arises on account of the word, he immediately skandalízō."

σκανδαλίζω skandalízō
Strongs Greek Dictionary G04624
from 4625;
to entrap, i.e. trip up (figuratively, stumble (transitively) or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure):--(make to) offend.

G04625
σκάνδαλον skándalon, skan'-dal-on
("scandal"); probably from a derivative of 2578;
a trap-stick (bent sapling), i.e. snare (figuratively, cause of displeasure or sin):--occasion to fall (of stumbling), offence, thing that offends, stumblingblock.

Hammster said:

See John 2

Click to expand...

And this proves in your mind that because Jesus spoke of His body as the temple of God that the church is not the temple of God?

Hammster said:

Very thorough answer. The only problem is that it ignores the whole context of Mathew 23 and 24. Apart from that, it would be valid.

Click to expand...

It's your argument that ignores 50% of the whole context of Matthew 23 and 24, which speaks both about the coming destruction of the temple at Jerusalem (which was no longer the holy place following the day the veil in it was torn) AND the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age, and it's in the context of the latter that the saints are told to flee Judea when the see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in the holy place.

Apart from including everything that is the context of Matthew 23 and 24, your argument cannot be valid.
50% is half a truth. Try for 100%.

Spiritual Jew said:

Because many futurists are looking for a physical temple to be built in Jerusalem that would somehow be considered the temple of God (impossible) with some Antichrist dude going and sitting in there and claiming to be God, which is not what scripture teaches. Many futurists are obsessed with looking for an Antichrist to appear on the scene and looking for a new physical temple to be built when they should be watching for the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ instead.

Click to expand...

and many others are obsessed with the notion that the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 AD was the holy place even though it had been 40 years since the veil in that holy place was torn in two and it had ceased being the holy place that very year and month and day and hour.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Actually it's the other way around. But enjoy your fantasy, LOL.

Click to expand...

Why are you so crude?

sovereigngrace said:

Why are you so crude?

Click to expand...

Why are you making false assertions after twisting what I was saying about the holy place?

And there's nothing crude about stating fact. You fantasize that I have not addressed your argument, but it's the other way around - you have not addressed many of the points I made in my posts to you because you are unable to.

I don't like your repeated false accusations like the above one. It's something that I've grown used to coming from you, but it's really ugly and your nasty comments and false accusations and twisting of what I'm saying are often very thinly veiled by lengthy poetic posts when you do this.

parousia70 said:

Q: In what age was Jesus born?

A: The Old Testament Law Age:
"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law [of Moses]" (Gal 4:4)

Click to expand...

That is not referred to in scripture as an age. That's something you're making up. How many times do I have to point out to you that when Jesus thought of ages, there were only 2 ages that He had in mind. He referenced them in Luke 20:34-36. To Him, there is this temporal age that we're still in during which people get married and they die. This age has been ongoing since the beginning of time. And then there is the eternal age to come during which people will no longer get married or die.

So, when determining what Jesus was talking about when determining when the end of the age would occur, you should look at what He taught about this age and the age to come and determining when the end of the age would come based on that. Also, you should look at what He said in Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50. What He said there has not yet occurred, so the end of the age has not yet come.

Q: At what point in that Old Testament age did Jesus appear, suffer, and die on the Cross?

A: "In these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:2). "But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26). "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" (1 Peter 1:20).

Click to expand...

If you want to think of the old covenant time period as an age, then you should acknowledge that it ended in 33 AD (or so) and not in 70 AD. Can you acknowledge that?

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

But, again, in terms of Jesus talking about the end of the age, He NEVER talked about it in terms of an end to the old covenant age, but rather talked about it in terms of the end of this temporal age that we're still in now.

Q: What age were the apostles in at the time they asked Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

A: as demonstrated above, They were in the Old Testament Age. Therefore their statement logically spoke of the signs accompanying the end of that Age.

There is no way, contextually, that the apostles were asking, and Jesus was answering, about the end of an age tha hadn't even begun, nor did the apostles have any idea WOULD begin, when they asked about "the end of the age".

Click to expand...

When did I say they were asking about an age that had not yet begun? I didn't.

They were clearly asking, and Jesus was clearly answering, about the end of the age they were born into and living in, when they asked about it's end.

Click to expand...

Of course! I never said otherwise. But, you have the wrong age in mind. That's the issue. You're not allowing passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Luke 20:34-36 to aid your understanding of what Jesus was talking about.

The text gives us no other option.

13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;

Wait what? He's already made us alive and forgiven us all our tresspasses? How does that happen before Judgment? How is forgiveness metered out prior to Judgment? If we are not yet Judged, how are we forgiven? Maybe we're not really forgiven yet? is that your assertion?

Click to expand...

Calm down. I truly have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? If verse 14, which you didn't quote for some reason, wrong that Jesus took the ordinances of the old covenant away by nailing them to His cross? The old covenant was put to an end by Christ on the cross and the new covenant was established. The idea that they were both in effect at the same time for 40 years is complete nonsense.

Right. I remember.
You assert that there are MULTIPLE comings of Christ as a thief throughout history. You have to assert that.
In Contrast, scripture uniformly teaches there is only one.
Scripture nowhere teaches that Christ comes as a theif multiple times. There is only one coming of Christ as a thief.

Click to expand...

In terms of a global coming of Christ, that is true. His global coming like a thief in the night, as described in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12, has clearly not occurred yet. But, Revelation 3:3 clearly has a different context than that.

Since you believe His one coming like a thief occurred in the past, then tell me what day He came (give me an exact date) and explain how exactly He came like a thief on that day.

--Compare this--

1 Thess 5:2-5
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. 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.

--To This--

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

--and To this--

Revelation 3:3
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.

I realize your doctrine is wholly dependent on there being multiple comings of Christ as a thief taught in Scripture. Unfortunately for your doctrine, they don’t exist.

Click to expand...

You can act like your opinions are facts all you want, but they are still only your opinions. You're not recognizing the difference in scope between those passages. Where in Revelation 3:3 is there an indication of His coming like a thief being a global event like in the other passages? There isn't. But, you just ignore that.

Matthew 24:42-44 is exactly parallel to Revelation 3:2-4.
Matthew 24:42-44 is also exactly parallel to 2 Peter 3:10-12

I truly have no idea why you can’t recognize they all speak of the same “thief in the night” event.
wait.. yes I do have an idea why. Accepting the scriptural fact they speak of the same event, as they do, destroys your doctrine.

Click to expand...

You have no idea even though I've explained it to you multiple times? Maybe you need to pay closer attention then. Your rhetoric does nothing to support your doctrine. But, if you want to waste your time with that, that's your choice.

There is only one "coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture, not multiple.

Compare also to Thyatira where Jesus promised to come and kill off their false prophetess and her followers (Rev 2:20-25). Jesus gave her time to repent and she did not. Therefore Jesus promised to come kill her and her followers, and the godly ones in Thyatira were told to hang on for that coming (Rev 2:25)! I remind everyone reading here that Jesus could not lie to them or break his promises, else He is not Messiah. There is no way around this--Jesus Christ plainly applied his theif's coming to all the first-century Churches mentioned in Revelation. It is a simple fact.

Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the difference in scope between that passage and one like 2 Peter 3:10-12. But, just keep ignoring that if you want. You have to in order to keep your doctrine afloat.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

What you miss is that Jesus is talking about two different temples. The one that was going to be destroyed (the Old Testament temple which was no longer called the holy place after the tearing of the veil) and the one that is going to be desecrated when the final son of perdition, the anti-type of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, seats himself up in the church and claims to be God.

Let the reader understand what Jesus meant by the holy place when He mentioned the abomination of desolation that would be placed in the holy place.

Click to expand...

You could put an end to all this back and forth bickering if you could just show us what exactly Jesus meant when He said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22. Can you do that?

Can you paraphrase the passage for us so we can see exactly how you understand it since you are not interpreting it in a literal sense as far as it having to do with people literally, physically fleeing into the mountains? For the life of me, I can't figure what it could possibly mean in a figurative sense when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women and a problem during the winter.

Spiritual Jew said:

That is not referred to in scripture as an age. That's something you're making up. How many times do I have to point out to you that when Jesus thought of ages, there were only 2 ages that He had in mind. He referenced them in Luke 20:34. To Him, there is this temporal age that we're still in during which people get married and they die. This age has been ongoing since the beginning of time. And then there is the eternal age to come during which people will no longer get married or die.

So, when determining what Jesus was talking about when determining when the end of the age would occur, you should look at what He taught about this age and the age to come and determining when the end of the age would come based on that. Also, you should look at what He said in Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50. What He said there has not yet occurred, so the end of the age has not yet come.

If you want to think of the old covenant time period as an age, then you should acknowledge that it ended in 33 AD (or so) and not in 70 AD. Can you acknowledge that?

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

But, again, in terms of Jesus talking about the end of the age, He NEVER talked about it in terms of an end to the old covenant age, but rather talked about it in terms of the end of this temporal age that we're still in now.

When did I say they were asking about an age that had not yet begun? I didn't.

Of course! I never said otherwise. But, you have the wrong age in mind. That's the issue. You're not allowing passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Luke 20:34-36 to aid your understanding of what Jesus was talking about.

Calm down. I truly have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? If verse 14, which you didn't quote for some reason, wrong that Jesus took the ordinances of the old covenant away by nailing them to His cross? The old covenant was put to an end by Christ on the cross and the new covenant was established. The idea that they were both in effect at the same time for 40 years is complete nonsense.

In terms of a global coming of Christ, that is true. His global coming like a thief in the night, as described in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12, has clearly not occurred yet. But, Revelation 3:3 clearly has a different context than that.

Since you believe His one coming like a thief occurred in the past, then tell me what day He came (give me an exact date) and explain how exactly He came like a thief on that day.

You can act like your opinions are facts all you want, but they are still only your opinions. You're not recognizing the difference in scope between those passages. Where in Revelation 3:3 is there an indication of His coming like a thief being a global event like in the other passages? There isn't. But, you just ignore that.

You have no idea even though I've explained it to you multiple times? Maybe you need to pay closer attention then. Your rhetoric does nothing to support your doctrine. But, if you want to waste your time with that, that's your choice.

Again, you're missing the difference in scope between that passage and one like 2 Peter 3:10-12. But, just keep ignoring that if you want. You have to in order to keep your doctrine afloat.

Click to expand...

I agree. Scripture teaches us about this Age and the Age to come.

But you don't agree with me on the first thousand years of the Age to come. No matter:


Hebrews 2
5 For He has not put in subjection to the angels the world to come, of which we speak.
6 But one testified in a certain place, saying, "What is man, that You are mindful of him; or the son of man, that You visit him?
7 You have made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor and set him over the works of Your hands.
8 You have subjected all things under his feet." For in order that He put all things under him, He did not leave anything not subjected.

But now [Greek: νῦν nŷn] we see not yet all things having been put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every son.

Mark 10
28 Then Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and have followed You.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Truly I say to you, There is no man that has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my sake and the gospel's sake,

30 but he shall receive a hundredfold now [Greek: νῦν nŷn] in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecutions, and in the age to come, eternal life.

Jude 1:25
24 Now to Him being able to keep you without stumbling, and to set you before His glory without blemish, with unspeakable joy;
25 to the only wise God, our Savior, be glory and majesty and might and authority, even now [Greek: νῦν nŷn] and forever. Amen.

[*StrongsGreek*]
03568
νῦν nŷn, noon
a primary particle of present time;
"now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate:--henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time).

There is this temporal Age, and the Age to come, which both Jesus and His apostles spoke of, calling it exactly that.

Spiritual Jew said:

You could put an end to all this back and forth bickering if you could just show us what exactly Jesus meant when He said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22. Can you do that?

Can you paraphrase the passage for us so we can see exactly how you understand it since you are not interpreting it in a literal sense as far as it having to do with people literally, physically fleeing into the mountains? For the life of me, I can't figure what it could possibly mean in a figurative sense when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women and a problem during the winter.

Click to expand...

I've already done that. We don't agree on what the holy place means in Matthew 24:15 or what constitutes the abomination of desolation in it, or when this AoD will appear in it or appeared in it (past tense).

You may say that you do not understand what I've said, but clearer than I've already made it I cannot do. I'm not a miracle worker and certainly won't want to use such a power for winning an argument even if I was.

So I've exhausted all I am able to say regarding what I'm 100% sure Jesus meant by the holy place and the abomination in it.

Have a great "rest of your day"/evening.

Spiritual Jew said:

Jesus was not saying it would be considered the holy place at the time the abomination of desolation occurred. He called it the holy place at the time He was speaking because the temple standing at that time was still the holy place at that time.

Let me give you an analogy to further explain my point in case you're not getting it. Let's say there was a venue called The Holy Place and they were planning to host a Mercy Me concert there in August and tickets for that were on sale now. So, let's say I bought a ticket today to go to that concert and let's say I said this to someone who is planning to go to the concert:

When you see me at The Holy Place in August then you will know that I'm there to watch Mercy Me perform at their concert. Let's say that The Holy Place changed ownership before the concert took place and the new owners decided to rename it to something else. Would that mean my having indicated that the concert would be held at The Holy Place was inaccurate just because it would no longer be called "The Holy Place" at the time the concert was held? No, right? Similarly, Jesus calling the temple "the holy place" at the time He was speaking in no way meant that it would have to still be considered "the holy place" when the abomination of desolation occurred there.

Click to expand...

Let the reader understand whatever he understands.

I understand what He meant.

Spiritual Jew said:

Jesus was not saying it would be considered the holy place at the time the abomination of desolation occurred. He called it the holy place at the time He was speaking because the temple standing at that time was still the holy place at that time.

Let me give you an analogy to further explain my point in case you're not getting it. Let's say there was a venue called The Holy Place and they were planning to host a Mercy Me concert there in August and tickets for that were on sale now. So, let's say I bought a ticket today to go to that concert and let's say I said this to someone who is planning to go to the concert:

When you see me at The Holy Place in August then you will know that I'm there to watch Mercy Me perform at their concert. Let's say that The Holy Place changed ownership before the concert took place and the new owners decided to rename it to something else. Would that mean my having indicated that the concert would be held at The Holy Place was inaccurate just because it would no longer be called "The Holy Place" at the time the concert was held? No, right? Similarly, Jesus calling the temple "the holy place" at the time He was speaking in no way meant that it would have to still be considered "the holy place" when the abomination of desolation occurred there.

Click to expand...

That's a decent analogy, I'll give you that. There is the following to take into consideration.

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:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

But is this in verse 14 meaning by means of an AOD, though? Granted, the temple was still being called the holy place after Christ died and rose. But by whom? Unbelieving Jews of course. And look what they said in verse 13. If they were correct about this part---this holy place---that it was still a holy place, that should mean they were correct about this part as well---This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place.


Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

What should we take this to mean----when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not? Since He mentions Daniel the prophet, the answer to some of this is obviously found in the book of Daniel, which means we should look at all passages dealing with abomination and desolation in the book of Daniel. A lot of interpreters tend to think the answers are in Daniel 9 alone, thus let's just disregard any other passages in Daniel involving abomination and desolation.

What is interesting about the book of Daniel, there are no passages when they are involving abomination and desolation that it is depicting anyone fleeing into the mountains, yet Jesus said to flee into the mountains. He must not have meant than in a literal sense though, otherwise something recorded in Daniel should match this.

Something else we need to keep in mind. In Matthew 24:15, the word translated 'see', Jesus used the Greek word eido, while in verse 30 He used the Greek word optanomai for the word translated 'see' in that verse. Clearly, though Preterists disagree, He was meaning in the literal sense in verse 30 which means He wasn't meaning in the literal sense in verse 15. But if verse 15 is involving the 2nd temple in 70 AD, why would He have not meant 'see' in the literal sense in that case?