This or That

[Zao is life]

Your false assertion is that Jesus ignored the first question and only answered the second question. Funny thing is, the 2nd question isn’t about “when”, but the first question is. But you Claim Jesus provided an answer to “when” for the 2nd question even the disciples didn’t ask “when” in the 2nd question, and then completely ignored the “when” to the first question? Lol…..ok……

So did Jesus answer the question of “when” the temple would have not one stone upon another? Yup, sure did- “this generation will not pass away until these things occur”. And guess what? the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation! That’s a crazy, but objective fact.

Read the text properly. Though they asked Jesus when the temple was going to be destroyed, they did not ask Him when He was going to return or when the end of the Age would come. They asked for the sign of His coming and the end of the Age.

@claninja Also provide evidence in the book of Acts and epistles of the apostles that they knew when the destruction of the temple would occur, and passed this information on, because without this evidence it means that Jesus did not answer that question.

 

[DavidPT]

.

Edit: the disciples asked “when will these things happen?” In regards to not one stone upon another. Is it your position that Jesus completely ignored that question?

Basically, I tend to agree with your point in regards to this since I don't see it making sense that the disciples first point out these things, then Jesus responds with what He did, keeping in mind no questions are being asked yet, not until they are in private, except none of the questions being asked were involving what Jesus said about all stones shall be thrown down. Why would the disciples not be asking about that as well? Of course they would be, and they did, the fact they never asked any questions prior to this private meeting on the mount of Olives.

Even though I agree with your point here, I still disagree with the Preterist interpretation involving this generation in the Discourse. I yet again try to show some reasons why via another post of yours I will be addressing following this one. And since I already typed all of that up, as soon as I'm done posting this post I will paste that into a different post of yours and then submit that one as well.

 

[DavidPT]

So did Jesus answer the question of “when” the temple would have not one stone upon another? Yup, sure did- “this generation will not pass away until these things occur”. And guess what? the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation! That’s a crazy, but objective fact.

Actually though, before we even get to that part Jesus already tells them when this will occur, except He never says what century it might be involving.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This is the sign to look for. Where does Jesus then say that this is meaning within their generation? Look at it from their perspective at the time, not hindsight like you have.

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.



You and other Preterists insist that it is in verse 32 that He indeed tells them when this is meaning in verse 20---the desolation thereof. Since we all agree, thanks to hindsight, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, let's insert 70 AD into the text above and see whether it makes sense throughout.

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God that comes to pass in 70 AD is nigh at hand.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled by 70 AD.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away in 70 AD : but my words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that the events pertaining to 70 AD come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall the events pertaining to 70 AD come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass pertaining 70 AD, and to stand before the Son of man.

Obviously, it doesn't make sense throughout. It doesn't make sense, period, no matter how you look at it since none of the verses surrounding verse 32 could possibly be pertaining to what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Therefore, the surrounding verses do not support that verse 32 is involving the first century and 70 AD. The same way, for example, the verses surrounding verse 4 in 2 Thessalonians 2 do not support that verse 4 is involving a literal brick and mortar temple in the literal city of Jerusalem, in any era of time. Not the first century before the 2nd temple was destroyed, nor in the 21st century via a rebuilt brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem.

Does that mean we should throw 2 Thessalonians 2:4 out the window since nothing in that chapter supports it is involving a literal brick and mortar temple in Jerusalem? Of course not. It just means we need to seek a different way to understand it. This being where Matthew 24:15-26, among other passages elsewhere, provide us with another way to understand this.

Getting back to Luke 21. Unless I'm wrong here, Jesus was talking to His disciples in private here. Obviously, in verse 34, for example, He can't be meaning unbelieving Jews since He is not adressing unbelieving Jews, period. He's adressing His disciples, His disciples meaning the church. And that He is then telling the church in verse 34, not unbelieving Jews instead, take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. If that day is meaning what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD, how could it come upon anyone unawares if they already did the following below before that day even arrives?

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

I don't know how highly intelligent people, such are Preterists typically are, that they are generally highly intelligent people for the most part, can then reason the things the way they do sometimes when their interpretations are making utter nonsense of some of the texts involved, rather than perfect sense instead?

 

[keras]

Matthew 24:32-34 – Christ tells us to learn from the fig tree, when it breaks into leaf, we can know that the end is near and this present generation will live to see it all.

Obviously, it was not that generation who heard His prophecy, but He means the last generation before these things take place. They ‘will live to see it all’, means it can happen within a persons lifetime.
The prophecy in:
Ezekiel 12:25-28 ....it will be put off no longer, you rebellious people [the Jewish people, symbolised by the fig tree] in your lifetime, I will do what I have planned......these prophecies are for a time far off.....the Lord says: there will be no more delays, it will be done.

This tells us that within ‘your lifetime’, when the fig tree ‘breaks into leaf’, that is when Judah again has control of the Land and makes it productive, the Lord will act once more in His creation. Therefore within a lifetime of a person born on or after May 1948, even a little before; we can expect the commencement of the many prophecies about the end times.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, the issue is your personal interpretation of Christ’s words, which is not supported by any clear scripture where Christ calls himself or the church the “hieron”, and ignores the objective reality that the temple complex (hieron) was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

Come back if you have any objective evidence where Christ called himself or the church a “hieron” or proof that the temple complex (hieron) was not actually destroyed by the Roman armies in 70ad.

Here is what you do not understand...

If you look at the passage in John 2 where Jesus "spiritualizes" temple to refer to His body, you will see "temple (G2411 - hieron)" used interchangeably with "temple (G3485 - naos)":

John 2:13-21

2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
2:14 And found in the temple G2411 those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple [G2411], and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple [G3485] , and in three days I will raise it up.
2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple [G3485] in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
2:21 But he spake of the temple [G3485] of his body.

The Jews, as well as preterists, understanding is limited to the "literal" physical temple here, obviously, and they refer to it in verse 20 as G3485 - naos, the same word Our Lord used of His body.

Clearly, one can't say that Scripture exclusively uses G2411 - hieron when the reference is to the physical temple, since G3485 - naos is used interchangeably with it within context to refer to the physical temple in this passage. You will see that the Jews were talking about the PHYSICAL temple, yet Christ was talking about his body, the congregation.

Your theory of separation of the temple between hieron and naos has been thrown out of the window.

And when G3485 - naos is later used to refer to the Christians as the "temple," For example:

2 Cor 6:16

6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple [G3485 - naos] of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Really... you CAN'T say it's speaking of something different from G2411 - hieron, the physical temple, since naos also is used to speak of the physical temple, and applied in the Word to Christians or the Church.

@sovereigngrace

 

[Zao is life]

Here is what you do not understand...

If you look at the passage in John 2 where Jesus "spiritualizes" temple to refer to His body, you will see "temple (G2411 - hieron)" used interchangeably with "temple (G3485 - naos)":

"you will see "temple (G2411 - hieron)" used interchangeably with "temple (G3485 - naos)":

You are very mistaken, and it's because you have made a false assumption. So I hope you will actually read this below rather than making another false assumption (without reading properly what is below), i.e the false assumption that you are right and I am wrong about this (I say so because that's what you normally do with me when we disagree about something):

So let's start with taking note firstly of the definition Strong's gives of the words G2411 hieron and G3485 naos:

[Strongs Greek Dictionary] 02411 (English: Temple)
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts, whereas 3485 [naós] denotes the central sanctuary itself (of the Temple in Jerusalem, or elsewhere).

G2411 hieron refers to the entire temple complex (the physical structures), and (note) whenever you read about Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem, the word used is G2411 hieron, and this is because Jesus was not a priest according to the law of Moses and was not allowed to enter the G3485 naos.

Throughout the gospels G3485 naos is only used in reference to the holy place and most holy place of the temple in Jerusalem, EXCEPT when Jesus refers to His body as the temple (which makes sense because Jesus' body indeed was/is the holy place and most holy place - God's sanctuary).

This does not mean that G2411 and G3485 are used "interchangeably" - they are not - and I list all the verses below for you.

But first note that the very last time that G3485 naos is used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, is in the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the holy place when Jesus died on the cross.

G2411 hieron however, is the only one of the two words that continues to be used (multiple times) after this point in reference to the Jerusalem temple.

After the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word G3485 naos 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.

After Acts, G3485 naos is then only used in reference to the bodies of individual Christians as the temple, the church and the temple in heaven:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21:21; 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.

You will not find G3485 naos being used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem again after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil. But you will continue finding G2411 hieron being used in reference to the Jerusalem temple.

The two words are most certainly not used "interchangeably" in the gospels, either. G2411 hieron is always referring to the temple complex - the physical structure, but G3485 is always only referring to the holy place | holy of holies except where Jesus refers to His own body as the G3485 naos:

Hieron: the physical structure/temple complex:

Before the tearing of the veil:

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.

After the tearing of the veil:

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.

Remember that each and every verse talking about Jesus in the temple in Jerusalem uses the word G2411 heiron because Jesus was not a priest and was not allowed into the G3485 naos.

Naos:

Before the tearing of the veil:

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

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

The tearing of the veil in the G3485 naos:

Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

After this, only the verses I quoted earlier in Acts and in the epistles and the Revelation use the word G3485 naos.

Note also that when Paul wrote his letters to the churches at Corinth, Ephesus and Thessaloniki, he used the word G2411 hierón in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing) in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

However Paul consistently used the word G3485 naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, and the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22).

So if Paul was referring to a physical, man-made structure in Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 when talking about the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God, there is no reason why Paul would not use the word G2411 hierón.

Paul used the word G3485 naós in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Only once in the entire New Testament is G3485 naos referring to a different sanctuary - when it refers to the shrine of Diana as the G3485 naos of Diana in Acts 19:24. Otherwise the word is only used in reference to God's sanctuary.

Strong knew what he was talking about when he said:

[Strongs Greek Dictionary] 02411 (English: Temple)
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts, whereas 3485 [naós] denotes the central sanctuary itself (of the Temple in Jerusalem, or elsewhere).

And G3485 naos is only used once in the New Testament in reference to the sanctuary of a pagan deity.

 

[TribulationSigns]

This does not mean that G2411 and G3485 are used "interchangeably" - they are not -

Yep. They are according to Christ himself.

It is interesting that you got triggered by my post and tried to move earth and heaven to make them not interchangeably especially when Christ was actually talking about the destruction of the temple of the body (when the Jews thought Christ was talking about the physical temple) which is the congregations of Israel that was fallen (old Testament) and rebuilt in three days (new testament). But it seems like the Jews, were stuck with Jewish fables and the physical temple.

Spiritual discernment.

So if Paul was referring to a physical, man-made structure in Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 when talking about the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God, there is no reason why Paul would not use the word G2411 hierón.

Paul used the word G3485 naós in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

OF course, because the temple where the man of sin sits (rule) is New Testament CHURCH prior to Second Coming, not the temple in Jersualem, nor Diana's sanctuary.

 

[Zao is life]

Yep. They are according to Christ himself.

It is interesting that you got triggered by my post and tried to move earth and heaven to make them not interchangeably especially when Christ was actually talking about the destruction of the temple of the body (when the Jews thought Christ was talking about the physical temple) which is the congregations of Israel that was fallen (old Testament) and rebuilt in three days (new testament). But it seems like the Jews, were stuck with Jewish fables and the physical temple.

Spiritual discernment.



OF course, because the temple where the man of sin sits (rule) is New Testament CHURCH prior to Second Coming, not the temple in Jersualem, nor Diana's sanctuary.

Well whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the New Testament makes a distinction between a made-with-human hands building (G2411 hieron) and the (G3485 naos) sanctuary of God, where God's Spirit dwells, because there are two major differences between (G2411 hieron) and (G3485 naos) in the New Testament:

1. Whereas in all the verses where the word is found, (G2411 hieron) refers to the made-with-human-hands temple complex in Jerusalem, which includes the structure of the (G3485 naos),

(G3485 naos) on the other hand never refers to the entire temple, but always only refers to the holy place/most holy place in the (G2411 hieron), except when Jesus speaks of His own body as the (G3485 naos: holy place/most holy place/temple of God); and

2. Whereas (G2411 hieron) is used in reference to the made-with-human-hands temple in Jerusalem throughout the New Testament and the Greek N.T does not stop using this word after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the (G3485 naos),

(G3485 naos) on the other hand completely stops being used in reference to any part of the (G2411 hieron) after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil.

It's a case of simply studying the words used in the text of each verse in the New Testament talking about the temple of God. Strong knew what he was talking about when he said:

[Strongs Greek Dictionary] 02411 (English: Temple)
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts, whereas 3485 [naós] denotes the central sanctuary itself (of the Temple in Jerusalem, or elsewhere).

When you argue against facts in order to maintain your stated theology, all you are doing is showing that you have first built your over-spiritualized theological premise in your mind, and are now attempting to force scripture to comply - which doesn't show a greater level of "spiritual discernment" than all the people who you keep telling "lack spiritual discernment" .

@TribulationSigns The only people who lack spiritual discernment are:-

(a) Those who do not believe in the One God, the Father and in the One Lord Jesus Christ, who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was crucified for our sins, died, was buried and rose again on the third day, and who do not believe that He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father and will come again in bodily form to judge the spiritually alive and the dead, and who do not believe in the Holy Spirit; and

(b) Those who do believe all the above and yet falsely accuse others who also do, of lacking spiritual discernment merely because they disagree with your own interpretations of various parts of biblical scripture. It's no wonder your own interpretations are questionable.

 

[claninja]

I shouldn't answer you on this, because unfortunately you have already proved repeatedly that you cannot hear God's counsel on this, since you make it obvious by your question that you refuse to leave off ignoring the fact that the context of what Hebrews 8:13 says is the comparison between the Old Covenant and its Mosaic law which was abolished in the flesh of Christ in A.D 30 and the New Covenant in the blood of Christ - and you instead want to make the disappearance of the law about a different savior (i.e the destruction in 70 A.D of a building in Jerusalem that had ceased having anything to do with God and His covenant in 30 A.D).

Wow 2 logical fallacies in your argument:

ad hominem and a strawman. Try to avoid those if you can……

The passage says the first covenant “was made obsolete”. that’s a perfect tense verb. That means the old covenant was made obsolete in the past, prior to the book of Hebrews being written. I have no disagreement that the cross made the old covenant obsolete.

BUT the passage says the first covenant, that had been made obsolete, is NEAR vanishing.

The book of Hebrews was written somewhere between 63 and 70ad, almost 40 years after the cross.

“Near” vanishing can’t refer to the cross because that was almost 40 years in the past.

What does “Near” vanishing mean, if it doesn’t refer to the obsolete temple practices being near to ending?

 

[claninja]

Read the text properly. Though they asked Jesus when the temple was going to be destroyed, they did not ask Him when He was going to return or when the end of the Age would come. They asked for the sign of His coming and the end of the Age.

@claninja Also provide evidence in the book of Acts and epistles of the apostles that they knew when the destruction of the temple would occur, and passed this information on, because without this evidence it means that Jesus did not answer that question.

Right, they asked WHEN the temple would be destroyed. So where does Jesus answer that question?

Hmm let’s see, he said “this generation will not pass away until these things occur”, and what do you know, the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

Also, already provided the passages in Hebrews, where the obsolete first covenant was “near” vanishing.

Hebrews 8:13.

Now that which decayeth, &c. — That which is antiquated, and of no further use; is ready to vanish away — As the Mosaic dispensation did soon after, when the temple was destroyed. - benson

Paul concluded, therefore, that the Jewish system must soon disappear. - Barnes

which if they did not, must end in the total destruction of them, their temple and city, which came to pass not many years after the apostle wrote this Epistle. - Matthew Poole

and in fact it quite vanished away, when the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed, which was in a little time after the writing of this epistle; so that the apostle, with great propriety, says, it is "ready to vanish away". - gill

Now that which is becoming antiquated and waxing aged, is near obliteration.” The expression “near evanescence “again shows that the Epistle was written before the Fall of Jerusalem, when the decree of dissolution which had been passed upon the Old Covenant was carried into - Cambridge

 

[TribulationSigns]

It's a case of simply studying the words used in the text of each verse in the New Testament talking about the temple of God. Strong knew what he was talking about when he said.

Strongs? We better pay attention to Christ - the only authority we get our understanding from. Not a man. You both think God was talking about a physical temple but deny knowledge it is a spiritual temple that Christ talked about.

Regardless, like I said in my new thread, you can ignore the facts, and argue the Hebrew, Greek, or Strongs nuances all day, and yet neglect the most important part of interpretations -- which is they belong to God. Not Strongs. I did not privately interpret the stones of the temple to represent God's people, Christ did. The idea is not what the Jews, Discciples, or strongs thought at that time, but what Christ says all throughout Scripture.

 

[claninja]

Most of us would also have asked both about when the destruction of the temple was going to happen and what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age.

Not all of us assume like you do that the disciples believed that Jesus' return | end of the Age would occur at the same time as the destruction of the temple. That's a Preterist mindset, which causes people to assume that the disciples believed that the two would occur at the same time. Preterists are fond of mind-reading the apostles as to the reason they wanted to know both what the sign would be of Jesus' return | end of the Age and when the temple was going to be destroyed.

It's your question above that makes zero sense, because it would defy logic that after Jesus had told the disciples that the temple would be destroyed, they would not want to know when this was going to happen. Logically they now had two questions, whereas until the news that the temple was going to be destroyed, they only had one: what would be the sign of His return | end of the Age.

It’s absolutely not logical that the disciples asked 2 completely unrelated questions in regards to Jesus’ - not one stone upon another will remain. It’s absolutely not logical that Jesus didn’t answer the first but only answered the 2nd.

but we can demonstrate that the disciples didn’t in fact ask 2 completely unrelated questions, when we use Marks parallel passage.

“Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

 

[Zao is life]

Wow 2 logical fallacies in your argument:

ad hominem and a strawman. Try to avoid those if you can……

The passage says the first covenant “was made obsolete”. that’s a perfect tense verb. That means the old covenant was made obsolete in the past, prior to the book of Hebrews being written. I have no disagreement that the cross made the old covenant obsolete.

BUT the passage says the first covenant, that had been made obsolete, is NEAR vanishing.

The book of Hebrews was written somewhere between 63 and 70ad, almost 40 years after the cross.

“Near” vanishing can’t refer to the cross because that was almost 40 years in the past.

What does “Near” vanishing mean, if it doesn’t refer to the obsolete temple practices being near to ending?

"In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away."

Continue to make what you want to of the above statement, because it simply means that anything that waxes old is ready to vanish away. Like a rotten banana peel.

The statement is not related to the temple just because some Christian dudes were later going to assume it was, and in any case, the author of Hebrews had no idea how much time would pass between his writing and the destruction of the temple, whether a month, two months, two years or two hundred years (or even more).

 

[Zao is life]

Strongs? We better pay attention to Christ - the only authority we get our understanding from. Not a man. You both think God was talking about a physical temple but deny knowledge it is a spiritual temple that Christ talked about.

Regardless, like I said in my new thread, you can ignore the facts, and argue the Hebrew, Greek, or Strongs nuances all day, and yet neglect the most important part of interpretations -- which is they belong to God. Not Strongs. I did not privately interpret the stones of the temple to represent God's people, Christ did. The idea is not what the Jews, Discciples, or strongs thought at that time, but what Christ says all throughout Scripture.

But you're insisting that we better pay attention to you. I'd rather pay attention to the scriptures than to you, to Strongs than to you, and to Christ rather than Strongs, @TribulationSigns but thanks for the advice, anyway, though you're obviously not taking your own advice.

What you say about naos and hieron being used interchangeably in reference to the temple complex does not agree with the N.T use of the two words, in any verse where the words are found.

I've read each and every verse in the N.T that uses the word naos, to see whether it was referring to the temple complex, or only to the sanctuary inside the temple complex. I did the same with hieron, to see whether it was referring to the entire temple complex, or only to the sanctuary inside the temple complex. Not only am I sure you have not done the same effort in your research, I know you have not done the same effort in your research, because the N.T does not ever use naos in the same way it uses hieron, i.e it never uses the two words interchangeably for the entire temple complex as you claim.

So therefore, please do this: Excluding the one and only N.T verse where the word naos is not referring at all to God's temple but to a heathen temple, and excluding the two exceptions after the tearing of the veil where naos is used to inform us that God does not dwell in naos made with human hands, name an example (verse reference) please where the word naos is not referring either only to the holy place / sanctuary inside the temple complex in Jerusalem, or to the body of Christ, or the bodies of believers in Christ (individually and corporately), or the the temple in heaven.

Also name an example where naos is referring to the temple in Jerusalem after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the naos.

Then name an example please (verse reference) where hieron is not referring to the entire temple complex, but only to the sanctuary inside the temple complex.

 

[Zao is life]

It’s absolutely not logical that the disciples asked 2 completely unrelated questions in regards to Jesus’ - not one stone upon another will remain. It’s absolutely not logical that Jesus didn’t answer the first but only answered the 2nd.

but we can demonstrate that the disciples didn’t in fact ask 2 completely unrelated questions, when we use Marks parallel passage.

“Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

We can demonstrate that that the disciples asked two unrelated questions when we use Matthew's parallel passage.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world?

Sorry, what was your point again?

 

[Christian Gedge]

That's a Preterist mindset

Someone ought to mix this substance with cement. It would make the best concrete ever invented!

 

[Zao is life]

Here is what you do not understand...

If you look at the passage in John 2 where Jesus "spiritualizes" temple to refer to His body, you will see "temple (G2411 - hieron)" used interchangeably with "temple (G3485 - naos)":

John 2:13-21

2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
2:14 And found in the temple G2411 those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple [G2411], and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple [G3485] , and in three days I will raise it up.
2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple [G3485] in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
2:21 But he spake of the temple [G3485] of his body.

The Jews, as well as preterists, understanding is limited to the "literal" physical temple here, obviously, and they refer to it in verse 20 as G3485 - naos, the same word Our Lord used of His body.

Clearly, one can't say that Scripture exclusively uses G2411 - hieron when the reference is to the physical temple, since G3485 - naos is used interchangeably with it within context to refer to the physical temple in this passage. You will see that the Jews were talking about the PHYSICAL temple, yet Christ was talking about his body, the congregation.

Your theory of separation of the temple between hieron and naos has been thrown out of the window.

And when G3485 - naos is later used to refer to the Christians as the "temple," For example:

2 Cor 6:16

6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple [G3485 - naos] of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Really... you CAN'T say it's speaking of something different from G2411 - hieron, the physical temple, since naos also is used to speak of the physical temple, and applied in the Word to Christians or the Church.

@sovereigngrace

[Strongs Greek Dictionary] 02411 (English: Temple)
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts, whereas 3485 [naós] denotes the central sanctuary itself (of the Temple in Jerusalem, or elsewhere).

Whenever you read about Jesus in the temple in Jerusalem, the word used for that temple is - G2411 hieron - because Jesus was not a priest in accordance with Mosaic law and only the priests were allowed to enter the - G3485 - naos - the holy place, and only the high priest was allowed into the G3485 - naos - holy of holies, and only once a year.

The New Testament consistently makes a very clear distinction between the G2411 hieron - the entire temple complex - and the G3485 naos - the holy place and holy of holies which was inside the temple complex (inside the hieron).

Only 1. The holy place and holy of holies, 2. Jesus own body, 3. the bodies of individual Christians, 4. the church, and 5. The temple in heaven are called the G3485 naos in the New Testament.

John 2:13-21 that you quote above is 100% consistent with this fact:

It would be very strange if the verses in the gospels telling about Jesus entering into the temple - G2411 hieron - in Jerusalem denoted that He entered into the holy courts - G3485 - naos when we all know that He was not a priest in accordance with Mosaic law and only the priests were allowed into the G3485 - naos - the holy courts (holy place and holy of holies).

It would be even more strange if, when telling the Jews that His body is the Temple of God, the word G2411-hieron was used, because G2411-hieron refers only to the physical made-of-human-hands temple structure in Jerusalem.

@Sovereign Grace

 

[claninja]

Here is what you do not understand...

If you look at the passage in John 2 where Jesus "spiritualizes" temple to refer to His body, you will see "temple (G2411 - hieron)" used interchangeably with "temple (G3485 - naos)":

John 2:13-21

2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
2:14 And found in the temple G2411 those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple [G2411], and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple [G3485] , and in three days I will raise it up.
2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple [G3485] in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
2:21 But he spake of the temple [G3485] of his body.

The Jews, as well as preterists, understanding is limited to the "literal" physical temple here, obviously, and they refer to it in verse 20 as G3485 - naos, the same word Our Lord used of His body.

Clearly, one can't say that Scripture exclusively uses G2411 - hieron when the reference is to the physical temple, since G3485 - naos is used interchangeably with it within context to refer to the physical temple in this passage. You will see that the Jews were talking about the PHYSICAL temple, yet Christ was talking about his body, the congregation.

Your theory of separation of the temple between hieron and naos has been thrown out of the window.

And when G3485 - naos is later used to refer to the Christians as the "temple," For example:

2 Cor 6:16

6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple [G3485 - naos] of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Really... you CAN'T say it's speaking of something different from G2411 - hieron, the physical temple, since naos also is used to speak of the physical temple, and applied in the Word to Christians or the Church.

@sovereigngrace

No, hieron and naos are not used interchangeably.

Again, the hieron is the whole complex - often referring to the outer courts.

The naos only refers to the sanctuary (holy place and most holy place)

Jesus and the apostles never taught inside the earthly sanctuary (naos), as they were not permitted by the law. They only taught In the temple courts (hieron). The money changers weren’t in the sanctuary (naos), they were In The outer courts (hieron).

Jesus and the apostles never refer to the body of Christ as the “hieron”.

 

[claninja]

"In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away."

Continue to make what you want to of the above statement, because it simply means that anything that waxes old is ready to vanish away. Like a rotten banana peel.

The statement is not related to the temple just because some Christian dudes were later going to assume it was, and in any case, the author of Hebrews had no idea how much time would pass between his writing and the destruction of the temple, whether a month, two months, two years or two hundred years (or even more).

This doesn’t answer the question. What does “near vanishing” mean? How was the first covenant “near vanishing” when Hebrews was written in 63-70ad?

 

[Zao is life]

This doesn’t answer the question. What does “near vanishing” mean? How was the first covenant “near vanishing” when Hebrews was written in 63-70ad?

There is an arrogant undertone in your bold type of your whole post in every post to me which seems to me to be betraying anger and frustration of your inability to prove the truth of your false premise.

The Old Covenant came to an end in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross, and the need for the temple sacrificial system came to an end AT THE SAME TIME - 40 years earlier than you say it did.

Understand the biblical type:

120 years before the flood God's judgment was handed down when He said,

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was angry to His heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. For I repent that I have made them." (Genesis 6:3, 5-7).

GOD'S SALVATION:

Genesis 6:13-14a
"And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make an ark of Cyprus timbers. You shall make rooms in the ark..."

God commanded Noah to build the ark 120 years before the flood came: The world was not judged and found guilty on the day that the floods came - the flood was just the carrying out of the decreed sentence which had already been passed when the world was judged 120 years earlier - as long as Moses was still building the Ark, there was still a chance to get into the ark.

Jesus:

John 12:31-32
"Now is the judgement of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself."

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23-24
"Just as it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." Romans 3:10.

The judgment was handed down 40 years before the Romans destroyed the temple. The Old Covenant came to an end in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross, and the need for the temple sacrificial system came to an end AT THE SAME TIME - 40 years earlier than you say it did. The banana peel had rotted 40 years before it was discarded. The earth was judged 120 years before the flood came.

@claninja Please don't ask me the same question again. It's answered. If you fail to understand the answer, so be it. I will not answer any more of your questions asking the same thing from different angles using different words. Your tactics have become obvious already. The question has been answered.