This generation

[Zao is life]

What you miss is that the temple and the holy place (that when Jesus was talking) were still standing and functioning. What is more, He was still attending it. He called it as "my house" after this and just before His death. There is no discrepancy and my posted argument still stands.

That's OK. I knew it would. So Jesus called the temple destroyed in 70 A.D the holy place in your opinion, and you're not interested in whether or not that contradicts Orthodoox Christian doctrine and New Testament doctrine. In your opinion it' remained "the holy place" after Christ's death when the veil in it was torn in two. Just for a while (i.e another 40 years).

Preterist doctrine has it the same way.

 

[sovereigngrace]

That's OK. I knew it would. So Jesus called the temple destroyed in 70 A.D the holy place in your opinion, and you're not interested in whether or not that contradicts Orthodoox Christian doctrine and New Testament doctrine. It' remained "the holy place" after Christ's death when the veil in it was torn in two. Just for a while (i.e another 40 years).

Preterist doctrine has it the same way.

So it is going to become "the holy place" in the future and be the place of more blood slaughter?

 

[Zao is life]

What you miss is that the temple and the holy place (that Jesus is talking about) were still in fact standing and functioning. What is more, He was still attending there in person to fulfill the festivals and old covenant traditions. He (notably) called it "my house" after this and just before His death. This negates your argument. There is no discrepancy and my posted argument still stands.

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.

 

[Zao is life]

What you miss is that the temple and the holy place (that Jesus is talking about) were still in fact standing and functioning. What is more, He was still attending there in person to fulfill the festivals and old covenant traditions. He (notably) called it "my house" after this and just before His death. This negates your argument. There is no discrepancy and my posted argument still stands.

Jesus did not call it "My House" or "God's house" after His death.

He was repeatedly mocked while He hung on the cross for saying the temple would be destroyed and in 3 days He would build it up.

Christian doctrine. Orthodox doctrine.

 

[Zao is life]

So it is going to become "the holy place" in the future and be the place of more blood slaughter?

Christians are going to be overcome and killed.

Jesus said so (Matthew 24:9). Are you saying He did not know what He was talking about?

Because that's what your ridiculous protest above implies.

 

[DavidPT]

What you miss is that the temple and the holy place (that Jesus is talking about) were still in fact standing and functioning. What is more, He was still attending there in person to fulfill the festivals and old covenant traditions. He (notably) called it "my house" after this and just before His death. This negates your argument. There is no discrepancy and my posted argument still stands.

And you miss the fact that when the AOD affects the holy place meant, this is meaning after Jesus died and rose. No Christian should think the 2nd temple was still the holy place once Christ died and rose, and no Christian should think Jesus thought the 2nd temple was still the holy place up until it was finally destroyed. An AOD involving an obsolete useless temple does not make any sense.

Assuming the Luke 21:20 account and the Matthew 24:15-16 account are involving the same events, does this mean Jesus was trying to confuse ppl? In the former account He said to flee when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies. In the latter account He said to flee when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. When should one flee if both accounts are involving the same events? When they see armies surrounding Jerusalem? Or when they see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place?

 

[Zao is life]

When should one flee if both accounts are involving the same events? When they see armies surrounding Jerusalem? Or when they see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place?

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.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Christians are going to be overcome and killed.

Jesus said so (Matthew 24:9). Are you saying He did not know what He was talking about?

Because that's what your ridiculous protest above implies.

Please address my point, and stop sidestepping.

 

[Zao is life]

Please address my point, and stop sidestepping.

There was no sidestepping. Either you never bothered to read what David and myself have both being saying about this or you're willfully ignoring it.

So it is going to become "the holy place" in the future and be the place of more blood slaughter?

For the 10th time, the New Testament temple became the holy place of the presence of God after Jesus died and rose again. It forever replaced the Jerusalem temple as the holy place the same day and hour and year that the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn in two.

The final son of perdition seating himself up in it (in the New Testament temple) will constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Christians are going to be killed. Jesus said so. That's blood in the New Testament temple, shed by betrayers who had apostatized, whom Jesus said in Matthew 24:10 would betray their brethren.

You're twisting what we have said by asking if the holy place (the New Testament temple) will become the holy place.

It's yet another preposterous question you are using as a red herring.

@Sovereign Grace PS: It's perfectly fine for you to disagree, but not when you start twisting what David and myself have been saying about the holy place. Rather just leave it at the fact we disagree. It's not necessary to twist what I have been saying about the holy place.

 

[Hammster]

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.

The only other temple He ever talks about is Himself.

 

[DavidPT]

(let the reader understand)

This right here is the solution except some interpreters are ignoring this or they are simply not understanding this though the reader is encouraged to understand. Why add that to the text if this was simply in regards to what was about to happen to the 2nd temple in the near future? Wonder why that is missing in the Luke 21 account--- (let the reader understand) ? I wonder why the Luke 21 account is not telling anyone to consult the book of Daniel?

 

[sovereigngrace]

There was no sidestepping. Either you never bothered to read what David and myself have both being saying about this or you're willfully ignoring it.

For the 10th time, the New Testament temple became the holy place of the presence of God after Jesus died and rose again. It forever replaced the Jerusalem temple as the holy place the same day and hour and year that the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn in two.

The final son of perdition seating himself up in it (in the New Testament temple) will constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Christians are going to be killed. Jesus said so. That's blood in the New Testament temple, shed by betrayers who had apostatized, whom Jesus said in Matthew 24:10 would betray their brethren.

You're twisting what we have said by asking if the holy place (the New Testament temple) will become the holy place.

It's yet another preposterous question you are using as a red herring.

@Sovereign Grace PS: It's perfectly fine for you to disagree, but not when you start twisting what David and myself have been saying about the holy place. Rather just leave it at the fact we disagree. It's not necessary to twist what I have been saying about the holy place.

You cannot address any of my points. That is telling!

 

[Hammster]

This right here is the solution except some interpreters are ignoring this or they are simply not understanding this though the reader is encouraged to understand. Why add that to the text if this was simply in regards to what was about to happen to the 2nd temple in the near future? Wonder why that is missing in the Luke 21 account--- (let the reader understand) ? I wonder why the Luke 21 account is not telling anyone to consult the book of Daniel?

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.

 

[Zao is life]

This right here is the solution except some interpreters are ignoring this or they are simply not understanding this though the reader is encouraged to understand. Why add that to the text if this was simply in regards to what was about to happen to the 2nd temple in the near future? Wonder why that is missing in the Luke 21 account--- (let the reader understand) ? I wonder why the Luke 21 account is not telling anyone to consult the book of Daniel?

Yep. Because Luke is talking about the tribulation of the saints in Luke 21:12-19, and the saints' redemption in Luke 21:25-28, but in Luke 21:20-24 he interrupts this theme to tell the reader about the wrath of God that was to come upon the unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem in the day the Romans armies attacked the city. So it's pretty clear why Luke doesn't say (let the reader understand) because Luke doesn't even talk about the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

 

[Zao is life]

You cannot address any of my points. That is telling!

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

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I post the way I post.

Yes, you do. I agree.

 

[Zao is life]

The only other temple He ever talks about is Himself.

The only other temple the New Testament talks about is the church, indwelled by the Holy Spirit Whom Christ sent after His ascension.

Jesus did promise to send the Holy Spirit when He told His disciples He was going away and going back to the Father.

Nice try but the holy place has been the New Testament temple since the year and month and day and hour that the veil was torn in the Jerusalem temple.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In order to be able to answer that, doesn't it seem reasonable to first consider all possible relevant passages? If we only look at these things in a vacuum, so to speak, thus only from the perspective of what is recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, what about what is recorded in Luke 17? While I do admit, that on the surface, the fleeing appears to be literal, meaning what is recorded in Matthew 24, therefore, it is is perfectly reasonable to assume first century events are meant, if the text is meant to be taken literally. But, if we consider Luke 17 as well, is that what we should really be concluding about the fleeing in Matthew 24, that is meaning in the first century and involves 70 AD?

Let's bring Luke 17 back into the mix for a moment.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

In Matthew 24 most of us, including you, take this to involve what happens to the lost once the coming in Matthew 24:30 has taken place. But what about this in Luke 17?

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

What would be the purpose of doing that once Christ has bodily returned? This sounds like something one would be doing before He actually returns. Look at verse 33. Where have we heard something along those lines before? How about the following?

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The context is involving discipleship, something relevant to before He returns in the end of this age, not after He returns. Therefore, Luke 17:33 doesn't fit with after He has returned, which means neither does Luke 17:31, and keeping in mind, in Matthew 24, what is recorded in Luke 17:31 involves the fleeing into the mountains.

It's fine to bring in other passages to help determine the answer, of course. I always talk about the importance of interpreting scripture with scripture, so I would never have an issue with that. So, you referenced other scripture. Okay, great. But, what is your answer to my question? I can't find it in anything you said here.

For the third time, what do you think is the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? I'm asking that question in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.

Can you maybe paraphrase Matthew 24:16 for me so I can see exactly how you interpret the verse? You apparently are interpreting it figuratively rather than literally, so what does it mean exactly then? And what does verse 19 mean when Jesus said woe to nursing mothers and pregnant women there? What does that have to do with His future return?

Once you explain exactly how you interpret Matthew 24:16 (and I'd appreciate you telling me your understanding of verse 19, also) then I will address the things you said regarding Luke 17.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

By the same token He would have referred to "Judea" when talking about the abomination of desolation because the church of God did not exist in all nations yet.

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?

 

[Hammster]

The only other temple the New Testament talks about is the church, indwelled by the Holy Spirit Whom Christ sent after His ascension.

Jesus did promise to send the Holy Spirit when He told His disciples He was going away and going back to the Father.

Nice try but the holy place has been the New Testament temple since the year and month and day and hour that the veil was torn in the Jerusalem temple.

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