Let no man deceive you by any means...2 Thessalonians 2:3

[claninja]

A lot of it was. It was more detail of some things they were aware of such a the return of Christ. If it had all been know to the apostles it wouldn't have been a revelation to John.

Another debatable topic. I believe, like many preterists, it consists of many symbolic, recapitulating visions of the Olivet Discourse and was written pre 70ad, “Revealing” what must quickly take place”. It’s kind of comical to me, that the most debatable and highly symbolic book in the NT is “revealing” a new truth that no one seems to agree upon.

 

[claninja]

It is not possible to know what Paul knew we only knew what he wrote.

2 Corinthians 12:4
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakablewords, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

And Paul didn’t write any corrections as to what the Thessalonians believed the day of the Lord actually was. He only wrote to correct the timing of the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2.

 

[claninja]

With something like this in mind, the more I think about it, though I'm not being dogmatic here, maybe in general he was correcting them in advance, in the event they might apply some things he had previously written to them about, to the here and now, and not that they were necessarily already doing that.

Notice in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that is says this---That ye be not soon shaken in mind. 'soon' being the keyword. Had he said this instead--That ye be not shaken in mind---would that mean the same thing as saying---That ye be not soon shaken in mind?

I would argue the adverb “soon” should be more correctly understood as “quickly”. IOW Paul exhorted them not to be quickly alarmed or disturbed, by those claiming the day of the Lord already occurred. He was not correcting their understanding of the day of the Lord, only the timing. That’s why his explanation provided what events must first occur, so that they might not be deceived. He provided no corrections on what the day of lord is in 2 Thessalonians 2.

 

[keras]

There is no difference. The terrible day of His wrath will occur when He returns to gather His people to Himself and destroy all unbelievers, as taught in many passages such as Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 19:11-21.

Wrong. The Lord's wrath is not mentioned in any of the Prophesies which actually describe the glorious Return.
He just kills the armies at Armageddon by the Sword of His Word.

Wrong. You're not recognizing the recapitulations or parallels within the book.

You overdo it by jumbling up the events before the Return with God's wrath, that we are clearly told will be over before that. Rev 15:1

The coming of the Lord is clearly stated or alluded to in Revelation 6, 11, 14, and 19. He is only returning one time yet in our future.

I fully agree.
The Lord does not 'come' to the earth when He sends His fiery wrath. Psalms 11:4-6, Amos 1, + All to happen BEFORE the glorious Return.

s

 

[Douggg]

The Lord does not 'come' to the earth when He sends His fiery wrath. Psalms 11:4-6, Amos 1, + All to happen BEFORE the glorious Return.

keras, what do think happens to the abomination of desolation statue image on the day that Jesus returns? Is that not fiery wrath? Also is not casting the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire - not fiery wrath?

Ezekiel 28:
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

[keras]

keras, what do think happens to the abomination of desolation statue image on the day that Jesus returns? Is that not fiery wrath? Also is not casting the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire - not fiery wrath?

The statue will simply be removed and disposed of. But your idea of it being the actual AoD is wrong, as Paul plainly says: IT is when the Anti-Christ sits in the Temple, presumably in the Holy of Holies. 2 Thess 2:4

Throwing the beast and the FP into the Lake of Fire, does not constitute wrath, just the decreed punishment.
The idea of italhappeningatatthe Return, is wrong and contradicts the Prophesies.

 

[Douggg]

The statue will simply be removed and disposed of. But your idea of it being the actual AoD is wrong, as Paul plainly says: IT is when the Anti-Christ sits in the Temple, presumably in the Holy of Holies. 2 Thess 2:4

keras, Paul does not say that the act of the Antichrist sitting in the temple is the abomination of desolation. Paul does not say at all. But the act will be the transgression of desolation act of Daniel 8:12-13.

 

[keras]

keras, Paul does not say that the act of the Antichrist sitting in the temple is the abomination of desolation. Paul does not say at all. But the act will be the transgression of desolation act of Daniel 8:12-13.

Your comments are virtually unintelligible.
We know from how the 2nd Temple was desecrated by A4E in 167 BC, what constitutes an 'abomination of desolation'. It was then - the slaughter of a pig on the Altar. 1 Maccabees 1:54
This means anything or person unclean, a God rejector, will cause the Temple to be defiled.

Paul says that the AC will enthrone himself in the Temple.... 2 Thess 2:4 Which does relate to Daniel 9:27
Jesus says: When you see the AoD of which the Prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the Holy Place......

 

[Douggg]

We know from how the 2nd Temple was desecrated by A4E in 167 BC, what constitutes an 'abomination of desolation'. It was then - the slaughter of a pig on the Altar. 1 Maccabees 1:54
This means anything or person unclean, a God rejector, will cause the Temple to be defiled.

Slaughtering a pig on the altar - an abomination - is not the act of going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God - a transgression of the Mt. Sinai covenant to worship the One True God.

keras, you need to learn the difference between the transgression of desolation and the abomination of desolation.

Daniel 8
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

 

[keras]

keras, you need to learn the difference between the transgression of desolation and the abomination of desolation.

Those 2 words mean the same thing, just the translators preference.
I reject your idea of two different 'desolations'.

There will be an image, a statue made of the AC. But from Revelation 13:14-15, it seems unlikely that it is in the Temple. More probably in a highly visible location.

 

[Douggg]

Those 2 words mean the same thing, just the translators preference.
I reject your idea of two different 'desolations'.

There will be an image, a statue made of the AC. But from Revelation 13:14-15, it seems unlikely that it is in the Temple. More probably in a highly visible location.

You reject that there is a difference between the transgression of desolation - an act, versus the abomination of desolation - a thing, because you are not thinking it through.

The statue image of the beast - a thing - will be placed on the temple mount courtyard - a holy place - where it can be seen. Satan will incarnate that statue image making it appear to come alive and speak. The statue image is the abomination of desolation.

When Jesus returns, Jesus causes the image to burst into flames, and be reduced to ashes - leaving Satan there on the temple mount for all to see Satan. Everyone who had been worshiping the statue image will be astonished, aghast, when they see Satan. To fulfill Ezekiel 28:16-19.


16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

[keras]

You reject that there is a difference between the transgression of desolation - an act, versus the abomination of desolation - a thing, because you are not thinking it through.

The statue image of the beast - a thing - will be placed on the temple mount courtyard - a holy place - where it can be seen. Satan will incarnate that statue image making it appear to come alive and speak. The statue image is the abomination of desolation.

When Jesus returns, Jesus causes the image to burst into flames, and be reduced to ashes - leaving Satan there on the temple mount for all to see Satan. Everyone who had been worshiping the statue image will be astonished, aghast, when they see Satan. To fulfill Ezekiel 28:16-19.

Lots of opinion and fanciful guesswork. Plus another opportunity to show off your childish artwork.
What you are trying to prove, is irrelevant and is something which we will know about at the time it happens.

Because; for sure: we won't be sitting up in heaven, as you and all the deceived rapture believers love to think/

 

[DavidPT]

What some are taking in a literal sense is never in a million years going to be fulfilled in a literal sense. Keep on believing it will all you want, still can't make something that is never going to happen happen, simply because one thinks these events will be fulfilled in a literal sense. There is never going to be a rebuilt temple where someone literally takes up residence in it proclaiming to be God. I suspect that it's mainly those who, for example, take Genesis 6 to be involving literal angels mating with earth women, being the ones that are taking 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense. If they take Genesis 6 literally like that, it's no wonder they apply the same logic to 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Since there are apparently also Preterists that take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense but apply it to the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, I wonder who they think was the person sitting in the 2nd temple proclaiming to be God? One can't have the temple meaning a literal temple while having the part about sitting in it not literal. That is not being consistent.

Amils probably wonder, if I don't take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense, then why do I take the thousand years in Revelation 20 in the literal sense? In return, I then wonder why Amils who do not take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense, since there are some that don't, that they take Matthew 24:15-26 in a literal sense, the fact it is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving? As if, the fact Matthew 24 records the 2nd coming, Jesus is just going to skip over any events involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as if those events have no relevance in the end of this age.

What happened to the 2nd temple in 70 AD is no longer relevant in the end of this age the same way it was relevant 2000 years ago. Some just don't get it, thus think Jesus is still going on about the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 when that is already addressed in Luke 21:20. The latter mentions zero about any AOD, therefore, it's not involving the same temple in both accounts. Plus we have to factor in Daniel 12, and that there is no way anything involving Daniel 12 is involving the first century and 70 AD.

 

[keras]

There is never going to be a rebuilt temple where someone literally takes up residence in it proclaiming to be God

This is a very presumptuous statement.
What you and many others do too, is to pick and choose which scripture to believe and which ones to biff into the allegory or impossible to happen bin.

A new Temple is Prophesied many times, it will be built and Jesus will reign from it after He Returns.
But before that glorious time, the Bible Prophets tell us there will be a short time when the world will be under the control of Satan. Do you reject the many Prophesies about this? Why do that?
Is the thought of really having to prove your faith; too hard to handle?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is a very presumptuous statement.
What you and many others do too, is to pick and choose which scripture to believe and which ones to biff into the allegory or impossible to happen bin.

Nonsense. Just because we disagree with your interpretations doesn't mean we are not believing the scriptures. We don't believe you.

A new Temple is Prophesied many times,

We (the church) are the temple of God, keras. Scripture is very clear about that. All you seem to be able to think about are earthly and physical things, but scripture talks about spiritual and heavenly things as well.

it will be built and Jesus will reign from it after He Returns.

Nope. Not a chance.

But before that glorious time, the Bible Prophets tell us there will be a short time when the world will be under the control of Satan. Do you reject the many Prophesies about this? Why do that?

That seems to describe Revelation 20:7-9. But, you don't think that Revelation 20:7-9 happens "before that glorious time". Why not?

Is the thought of really having to prove your faith; too hard to handle?

What is this nonsense? Many Christians have to prove their faith on a regular basis and that has been the case since Christianity began. Why do you act as if that is just a future thing? You insult the many, many Christians who have suffered over the years and have had to overcome tribulations of many kinds by acting like that is only something that has to be done in the future.

Acts 14:21 They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, 22 strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Amils probably wonder, if I don't take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense, then why do I take the thousand years in Revelation 20 in the literal sense? In return, I then wonder why Amils who do not take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense, since there are some that don't, that they take Matthew 24:15-26 in a literal sense, the fact it is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving?

That's your assumption that they involve the same temple, but I (an Amil) disagree with that. As do many other Amils. So, I'm wondering which Amils exactly you're talking about here.

As if, the fact Matthew 24 records the 2nd coming, Jesus is just going to skip over any events involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as if those events have no relevance in the end of this age.

In Matthew 24:10-13, Jesus addressed the same falling away from the faith, increase in wickedness and deception that occurs before His second coming that Paul did in 2 Thessalonians 2.

What happened to the 2nd temple in 70 AD is no longer relevant in the end of this age the same way it was relevant 2000 years ago. Some just don't get it, thus think Jesus is still going on about the 2nd temple in Matthew 24:15 when that is already addressed in Luke 21:20.

What do you mean already addressed in Luke 21:20? Luke 21:20 is a record of the same thing that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:15. Luke worded it differently only because he was addressing a Gentile audience, unlike Matthew.

Please address this. I cannot take you seriously unless you try to offer some kind of evidence to show that Luke 21:20-24 is not parallel to Matthew 24:15-22. Can you show the sequence of Jesus's words in the Olivet Discourse so that I can see at what point in the OD that you think He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 and at what point He said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22? You are the one saying He said those things at different times, so do something to prove that. The only way you could do that for me is to take the texts from each account and put them in the order in which you think Jesus said them.

The latter mentions zero about any AOD, therefore, it's not involving the same temple in both accounts.

Do you understand that Luke was writing to a Gentile audience? Would it have made any sense for him to tell his Gentile audience about the prophecy from Daniel and then say "let the reader understand"? Of course not. They would not have known anything about any prophecy from Daniel about the abomination of desolation like Matthew's audience would. So, Luke spelled it out to them instead.

Plus we have to factor in Daniel 12, and that there is no way anything involving Daniel 12 is involving the first century and 70 AD.

We have to factor in context. The context of Daniel 12 is global because it involves the global resurrection of the dead. The context of Matthew 24:15-22 is local or regional because it only involves those in Judea having to flee for their lives. You seem to be ignoring the context in that sense.

Yes, both passages have similarities, but the fact is that there are similarities between what happened in 70 AD and what will happen when Christ returns. In each case, unbelievers will suffer mass casualties as a result of God's wrath while believers will be spared. It's just that at Christ's return it will be on a much bigger scale.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I would disagree, as Paul NEVER corrects the Thessalonians on what the Day of the Lord is in 2 Thessalonians 2. He provides events that must first occur before the day of the Lord BUT does not provide a correction to what the Day of the Lord is.

When did I say he did that? I didn't.

Paul was warning them to not believe anything they may have heard or read about the day of the Lord that contradicts what he taught about it. What he taught made it so that it couldn't possibly have come yet because certain things had to happen first. So, he wanted to make sure they understood that. He was talking about a hypothetical situation, so of course he was not correcting them about something that was only a hypothetical situation.

It's clearly possible that some of them could have been deceived about the day of the Lord or else Paul wouldn't have warned them to not be deceived by anything they read or heard that wasn't from him or the other disciples.

If you can show me where in 2 Thessalonians, that Thessalonians didn’t understand that the day of the Lord involved the “coming of Christ” or “gathering of believers”, then I would willing to take another look at your argument.

I didn't say that they didn't understand that, I'm saying that they were warned to not believe anything that would have gone against what Paul taught about the day of the Lord.

So, there was concern that they might be deceived about what the day of the Lord entailed. Why would Paul have warned them about that if it wasn't possible for them to be deceived about it? He clearly was concerned that they might be deceived by someone about what the day of the Lord entailed, so he told them not to believe anything that didn't come from the disciples.

Otherwise my argument still stands: if the Thessalonians did understand the day of the Lord involved the coming of Christ and gathering to him, how could they be deceived

They couldn't be if they understood that. What you're missing here is that we're talking about a hypothetical. It was clearly possible that some of them may not have understood what the day of the Lord entailed IF they believed any falsehood about it that came from someone other than the disciples. That's why Paul warned them about that.

if they also understood that this also meant:

1.) Christ physically and bodily and literally descending through the atmosphere for literally every eye to see, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and Christ setting up an earthly 1,000 year reign.

OR

2.) Christ physically and bodily and literally descending through the atmosphere for literally every eye to see, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and the literal heaven and earth being destroyed.

(Edit: maybe one could argue they simply didn’t YET know about points 1 or 2?)

Again, you're just missing the point here. I'm only talking in terms of any of them who may have believed wrongly because of being taught something other than what Paul and the other disciples taught them. I'm not saying any of them necessarily did believe wrongly, but Paul was obviously concerned about that or else he wouldn't have warned them about that.

I simply believe the possibility of the Thessalonians being deceived that the destruction of Jerusalem and gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast had already occurred Is more plausible than being possibly deceived that the events of the literal heaven and earth being destroyed or Christ setting up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years had already occurred.

Why would anyone want to deceive them about the destruction of Jerusalem when that wouldn't even affect them directly? I don't believe that is something that Paul would have warned to not be deceived about since I don't know what harm that would do if they were deceived about that. But, if they thought that Jesus had somehow already come and they missed it or anything like that, I can see how that would be a serious concern.

 

[keras]

Nope. Not a chance.

This is a flat out denial of plainly stated scriptures.
We Christinas are the Spiritual Temple now, but that is for the Church age. Soon to end and a new Temple will be built in Jerusalem
There are many scriptures which prove this, but if you are incapable of understanding them correctly, then so be it.

That seems to describe Revelation 20:7-9. But, you don't think that Revelation 20:7-9 happens "before that glorious time"

Revelation 20:7-9 are plainly stated to happen after the thousand years are over.
The control of the world by Satan, is before Jesus Returns. Revelation 13:1-16

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

But what 1 Peter 4:12 prophesies, is the great test of our faith by fire from the Lord.
Anyway, just how much persecution do we Christians in the Western nations, have to endure? None.

 

[claninja]

When did I say he did that? I didn't.

Huh? I never said you did.

That means Paul was warning them about being deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord was something that it's not. How else could they have thought that it had already come?

Above, shows You had previously said Paul warned them about being deceived into thinking the day of the Lord was something that its not. I simply disagreed with that “as” Paul never corrects them on what the day of the Lord is in 2 Thessalonians 2. That was my reasoning for disagreeing with your statement, not a claim of what you did or didn’t say.

So, there was concern that they might be deceived about what the day of the Lord entailed. Why would Paul have warned them about that if it wasn't possible for them to be deceived about it? He clearly was concerned that they might be deceived by someone about what the day of the Lord entailed, so he told them not to believe anything that didn't come from the disciples.

Again, there is no correction or warning on being deceived about what the Day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2.
The only correction or warning provided to the Thessalonians, was that it had not yet happened.

They couldn't be if they understood that. What you're missing here is that we're talking about a hypothetical. It was clearly possible that some of them may not have understood what the day of the Lord entailed IF they believed any falsehood about it that came from someone other than the disciples. That's why Paul warned them about that.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if Paul corrected a misunderstanding of what the day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2. But as it stands, he did not.

IF they understood the day of the Lord as the destruction of Jerusalem, it’s more plausible that they (those living far away in thessalonia) could be deceived it had already occurred. IF they understood the day of the Lord as the destruction of the literal heavens and earth, then it seems less plausible to be deceived that it already happened.

Again, my argument is that Paul doesn’t correct the Thessalonians understanding of what the day of the Lord entails in 2 Thessalonians 2. His warning is that it hasn’t happened yet because the apostasy and “revealing” of man of sin haven’t happened yet.

Again, you're just missing the point here. I'm only talking in terms of any of them who may have believed wrongly because of being taught something other than what Paul and the other disciples taught them. I'm not saying any of them necessarily did believe wrongly, but Paul was obviously concerned about that or else he wouldn't have warned them about that.

Again, Paul doesn’t mention a correction or warning as to what the Day of the Lord entails. He’s correcting or warning about the false belief that it has already occurred by providing events that must first occur: apostasy, revealing of man of sin.

Why would anyone want to deceive them about the destruction of Jerusalem when that wouldn't even affect them directly? I don't believe that is something that Paul would have warned to not be deceived about since I don't know what harm that would do if they were deceived about that. But, if they thought that Jesus had somehow already come and they missed it or anything like that, I can see how that would be a serious concern.

I disagree the The destruction of Jerusalem and apostate Israel would not directly affect them.


1.) the Thessalonians were being persecuted by Apostate Jews, and Paul stated they would receive relief from this as the coming of Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1)

2.) the Thessalonian church was made up of Jews and gentiles. Many Christian Jews were still zealous for the law. The removal of the old obsolete covenant would directly impact many Christian Jews that were still zealous for the law.

 

[DavidPT]

That's your assumption that they involve the same temple, but I (an Amil) disagree with that. As do many other Amils. So, I'm wondering which Amils exactly you're talking about here.

Since most Preterists are also Amils, though some of them are PostMils instead, I'm meaning Amils like them. And as to Preterism, from what I can tell, most of them see the temple involving Matthew 24:15 to be meaning the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving. If I were to guess, regardless what temple one thinks 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving, whether it be the 2nd temple, a rebuilt one in the future, or a temple in a non literal sense, the majority of interpreters, which includes both Preterists and Futurists, agree that it is meaning the same temple Matthew 24:15 is meaning. Those who might disagree, such as you, would be in the minority not the majority.

And the same would be true of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21, would be my guess. The majority of interpreters agree that Jesus was quoting from Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21. Any interpreters that might disagree, such as you, would be in the minority not the majority.

Assuming Matthew 24:15 is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving. And assuming Matthew 24:21 is involving the same time of trouble Daniel 12:1 is involving. And that if we interpret Matthew 24:15-21 to be involving the 2nd temple in the first century, while interpreting Daniel 12:1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to be involving something pertaining to the end of this age, this is an example of an interpretation full of contradictions, not one that is squaring. Keeping in mind, assuming that the first 2 sentences in this paragraph are true.

It doesn't matter which temple or what kind of temple one is applying the one in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to. That's not the point. The point is that it is meaning the same temple Matthew 24:15 is meaning.

In Matthew 24:10-13, Jesus addressed the same falling away from the faith, increase in wickedness and deception that occurs before His second coming that Paul did in 2 Thessalonians 2.

I agree. So why can't that also mean during when Matthew 24:15-26 is meaning? Look how Jesus begins the OD.

Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And that He is still going on about this in the following verses right after what He said in regards to the AOD.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

If I'm not mistaken, you think these verses are meaning after the events involving verses 15-21 are fulfilled first. I would likely agree if I too was convinced that Matthew 24:15-21 is referring to the first century leading up to 70 AD. But I cannot agree with that the fact I already fully accept, just like the majority of interpreters do, that Jesus was quoting from Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21. And that no resurrection of the dead event ever followed what took place in 70 AD, and that Daniel 12:2 records that a resurrection event follows the time of trouble meant in Daniel 12:1.

Let me bring up something else.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


How can verse 13 not be interpreting what is meant in verse 12? IOW, how can the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days, once that has been reached, not be meaning at the same end of the days verse 13 is meaning? Assuming one is able to accept that, thus agree, well, one can't divorce verse 12 and 13 from verse 11 then.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days

And if verse 12, at the end of the 1335 days results in the end of the days in verse 13, obviously, one can't even reach day 1335 without it first involving the 1290 days recorded in verse 11. That's just common sense, right?

Not only does Matthew 24:15-31 involve an AOD with a time of trouble that has no equal, a resurrection from the dead event(Matthew 24:31), so does Daniel 12. I find it to be utterly preposterous to just chalk that up as merely coincedental.

One last point. Matthew 24:records that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains at the time. Therefore, according to interpreters, such as you, this AOD is involving a literal temple and that only the 2nd temple makes sense of the text.

Consider the following then.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


How should we assume they are to come out of her? By literally leaving one geographical region and entering into another geographical region? Or is this meaning in another sense, a sense where it is not required to literally leave one location and enter another location? Assuming you agree that this is not literally meaning leaving one location and moving to another location, why can't the same be true regarding what is recorded in Matthew 24 about fleeing to the mountains? Just because it is literally true in Luke 21, why does it have to also be literally true in Matthew 24, especially if Matthew 24:15 is involving the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving?