Third temple being build in Jerusalem right now

[Timtofly]

1) His followers should not be trying to figure out when the end is, to that end He tells them that wars, rumors of wars, disease and natural disasters, etc are not signs of the end, but merely the labor pains of a suffering world. It's also why He warns against false messiahs and false prophets, telling them that if anyone claims something to not listen to them. Anyone who says "it is the end" or "this means it is the end" or "He is over here" etc should not be listened to.

This should be applied to the AC as well. Claiming an AC is here or there is the exact same thing, Jesus warns about. Saying Nero was an AC is claiming a false messiah, and doing exactly what Jesus said not to do.

 

[Jamdoc]

No, it is not.

when He links together the abomination of desolation, the Great Tribulations, and His second coming by saying He'll appear in the clouds in power and great glory immediately after? Yes it is.

Because the abomination of desolation involves the temple, and because Jesus didn't appear in 70AD, is why there WILL be a third temple. Because there right now is no temple for the abomination to make desolate.

 

[Hammster]

when He links together the abomination of desolation, the Great Tribulations, and His second coming by saying He'll appear in the clouds in power and great glory immediately after? Yes it is.

Because the abomination of desolation involves the temple, and because Jesus didn't appear in 70AD, is why there WILL be a third temple. Because there right now is no temple for the abomination to make desolate.

He did appear, but not in the way you think.

 

[klutedavid]

All the events from verse 4 to 31 are connected.
Separating them to fit a preterist narrative is false teaching.
again. immediately after the tribulations of those days
That is not "changing gears" that is giving context for His return. The context being all the things He had just talked about.
Not AD70.

I am not sure what verses you are referring to?

There are two interpretations within Preterism; Full Preterism and Partial Preterism.

I hold no position in eschatology, so it is impossible for me to have a false teaching.

Please read the following.

Luke 21:20-22
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

So when Jerusalem is surrounded know that HER DESOLATION is near!

That desolation of the temple could well be the abomination of desolation.

Those in Judea MUST FLEE, no mention of Gentiles needing to flee.

Finally, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

 

[klutedavid]

when He links together the abomination of desolation, the Great Tribulations, and His second coming by saying He'll appear in the clouds in power and great glory immediately after? Yes it is.

Because the abomination of desolation involves the temple, and because Jesus didn't appear in 70AD, is why there WILL be a third temple. Because there right now is no temple for the abomination to make desolate.

Strange interpretation you have there.

You seem to see the word "abomination" as meaning some living entity. The "abomination of desolation" means that the destruction of the temple is an abomination.

 

[klutedavid]

Why do you need to define it?

Do you deny God's Word as it applies to your own life?

Is that "God's Word", meaning Jesus Christ or God's word, meaning what is written?

 

[Berean Tim]

Strange interpretation you have there.

You seem to see the word "abomination" as meaning some living entity. The "abomination of desolation" means that the destruction of the temple is an abomination.

Jesus said, " When you see the AOD standing in the Holy Place". Paul said, " takes his seat proclaiming to be God"
Proclaiming to be God is not the destruction. Standing in the Holy Place also isn't destruction.

 

[Berean Tim]

I am not sure what verses you are referring to?

There are two interpretations within Preterism; Full Preterism and Partial Preterism.

I hold no position in eschatology, so it is impossible for me to have a false teaching.

Please read the following.

Luke 21:20-22
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

So when Jerusalem is surrounded know that HER DESOLATION is near!

That desolation of the temple could well be the abomination of desolation.

Those in Judea MUST FLEE, no mention of Gentiles needing to flee.

Finally, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

You always take a Preterist position. You give yourself an out with statements like "I hold no position in eschatology, so it is impossible for me to have a false teaching".
You do in fact hold a position, it's clear to anyone reading your posts.

 

[Timtofly]

Is that "God's Word", meaning Jesus Christ or God's word, meaning what is written?

You are replying to a post that is referring to the definition of soon in God's Word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus said, " When you see the AOD standing in the Holy Place". Paul said, " takes his seat proclaiming to be God"
Proclaiming to be God is not the destruction. Standing in the Holy Place also isn't destruction.

Why should we take what Paul says to be the same thing Jesus was talking about?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

I am not sure what verses you are referring to?

There are two interpretations within Preterism; Full Preterism and Partial Preterism.

I hold no position in eschatology, so it is impossible for me to have a false teaching.

Please read the following.

Luke 21:20-22
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

So when Jerusalem is surrounded know that HER DESOLATION is near!

That desolation of the temple could well be the abomination of desolation.

Those in Judea MUST FLEE, no mention of Gentiles needing to flee.

Finally, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

I was referring to Matthew 24. Which Luke 21 is talking about the same events.
Matthew 24:4-31 is 1 sequence of events.

I'll go from 15-31 because that shows the connection of the event of the Abomination of Desolation to Jesus coming down from Heaven. Because those events are connected, you really shouldn't separate them to make it be about the 70AD destruction of the temple because.. We're not living in a new world without sin and death, and Jesus didn't appear in the clouds then. If He did, it'd be all over the writings of people like Josephus. Jesus' second coming is going to be the most observed event in all human history, it would not be lost in history.

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
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
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.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

You can't divide the events by 2000 years when we're talking immediately after

 

[Jamdoc]

He did appear, but not in the way you think.

Strange that it's not in every history book ever written since AD70 then because
Revelation 1:7

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

You'd think if we had the 2nd coming of Jesus in AD70 it'd have been written about quite a bit, it's only the most significant event in human history.

 

[Hammster]

Strange that it's not in every history book ever written since AD70 then because
Revelation 1:7


You'd think if we had the 2nd coming of Jesus in AD70 it'd have been written about quite a bit, it's only the most significant event in human history.

Why do you keep assuming that I’m referring to the second coming? I’ve said no such thing.

 

[klutedavid]

Jesus said, " When you see the AOD standing in the Holy Place". Paul said, " takes his seat proclaiming to be God"
Proclaiming to be God is not the destruction. Standing in the Holy Place also isn't destruction.

Which is it, standing or seated?

Jerusalem is surrounded by armies and the Jews are fleeing to the mountains. What use is fleeing to the mountains if it's the end of the world?

Do the armies intend to invade Jerusalem and desolate the temple, why else is Jerusalem surrounded?

 

[klutedavid]

I was referring to Matthew 24. Which Luke 21 is talking about the same events.
Matthew 24:4-31 is 1 sequence of events.

I'll go from 15-31 because that shows the connection of the event of the Abomination of Desolation to Jesus coming down from Heaven. Because those events are connected, you really shouldn't separate them to make it be about the 70AD destruction of the temple because.. We're not living in a new world without sin and death, and Jesus didn't appear in the clouds then. If He did, it'd be all over the writings of people like Josephus. Jesus' second coming is going to be the most observed event in all human history, it would not be lost in history.



You can't divide the events by 2000 years when we're talking immediately after

Your favoring Matthew over Luke.

Matthew 24:15-16
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

There are two ways to read that verse. The first is that the AOD is the Antichrist. The second way to read that verse is that the temple is desolate.

Luke 21:20
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.

The clarification by Luke favors the idea the temple is desolate, 'her desolation'.

Also consider that the Gospel of Luke was probably written after Matthew.

Luke 1:1-2
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

Luke may have witnessed or heard of the desolation of the temple and that explains why Luke includes the following.

Luke 24:21
...and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Matthew makes no mention of the era of the Gentiles and so Matthew's account should be regarded as incomplete.

 

[Jamdoc]

Why do you keep assuming that I’m referring to the second coming? I’ve said no such thing.

You said He came back in 70AD.
His first coming was from His birth until His ascension. The next time He came would be...
His second coming.

 

[Jamdoc]

Your favoring Matthew over Luke.

Matthew 24:15-16
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

There are two ways to read that verse. The first is that the AOD is the Antichrist. The second way to read that verse is that the temple is desolate.

Luke 21:20
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.

The clarification by Luke favors the idea the temple is desolate, 'her desolation'.

Also consider that the Gospel of Luke was probably written after Matthew.

Luke 1:1-2
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

Luke may have witnessed or heard of the desolation of the temple and that explains why Luke includes the following.

Luke 24:21
...and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Matthew makes no mention of the era of the Gentiles and so Matthew's account should be regarded as incomplete.

I'm saying both are referring to the same thing, and that because they are different viewpoints of the same life and ministry and sermons and discourses, they have to be in agreement with each other.
I'm not taking Matthew over Luke I am simply saying that they are in agreement with each other but your interpretation of Luke requires discarding Matthew or being very liberal with your interpretation of immediately after

 

[Hammster]

You said He came back in 70AD.
His first coming was from His birth until His ascension. The next time He came would be...
His second coming.

I didn’t say He came back in 70AD as a second coming. I do agree with Him when He said
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:30

 

[Jamdoc]

I didn’t say He came back in 70AD as a second coming. I do agree with Him when He said
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:30

and yet no record of it in history, something every eye on the earth would see and mourn and no mention anywhere.
We're talking about something global.
Not a localized skirmish.

 

[Hammster]

and yet no record of it in history, something every eye on the earth would see and mourn and no mention anywhere.
We're talking about something global.
Not a localized skirmish.

There was a record in history. The temple was destroyed.