The destruction of the temple in 70AD, how do futurists deal with this?

[Dorothy Mae]

You offer no historical account to prove that any desolation occurred in Herod's Temple.
Sorry, but your personal speculation adds nothing at best in terms of established historical proof.

This is how you offer something of real peer reviewed historical account where the Temple is concerned.
And please note that this is not Caesar who is being spoken of here doing the desecrating:


Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus (the Abomination of Desolation). In seeking to prohibit Judaism and Hellenize the Jews, Antiochus forbade their religious practices and commanded that copies of the Law be burned, all of which is related by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews (XII.5.4).

Can you please offer us an historical paper peer viewed that certifies that Jesus was the Christ? And let’s have one that is peer reviewed certifying Peter’s manner of death. How about a peer reviewed paper that verifies Jesus was born of Mary who was a virgin at the time. These are much more important matters and so surly you have peered reviewed papers verifying these.

By the way, where is the “google researched” piece you offer peer reviewed?

You can reject the impeccable logic that insists that the command to leave Judea when they saw that and they left and avoided destruction is vastly superior to the idea (for which you have zero evidence) that this is future when
1) there is no temple for this to take place in,
2) leaving Judea is only a local matter affecting no one else in the whole world
3) no nations beside militarily weak Muslim nations have any interest in attacking a nuclear power.
4) no sacrifices are made today at all

That you don’t like my rational evaluation is clear. That you refuse to think about it is sad but understandable as it is fairly solid logically.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The abomination that causes people to be desolate might have been the murder of the high priest in Jerusalem. It fits in with the timing of the believers in Jesus leaving and watching your high priest murdered can certainly lead to desolation. Must be on a par with having the national president or prime minister murdered.

It is supposed to be a sign to leave town and all the christians did. They certainly thought that what transpired was the fulfillment and obeyed Jesus’ warning, whatever futurists think.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Can you please offer us an historical paper peer viewed that certifies that Jesus was the Christ? And let’s have one that is peer reviewed certifying Peter’s manner of death. How about a peer reviewed paper that verifies Jesus was born of Mary who was a virgin at the time. These are much more important matters and so surly you have peered reviewed papers verifying these.

By the way, where is the “google researched” piece you offer peer reviewed?

You can reject the impeccable logic that insists that the command to leave Judea when they saw that and they left and avoided destruction is vastly superior to the idea (for which you have zero evidence) that this is future when
1) there is no temple for this to take place in,
2) leaving Judea is only a local matter affecting no one else in the whole world
3) no nations beside militarily weak Muslim nations have any interest in attacking a nuclear power.
4) no sacrifices are made today at all

That you don’t like my rational evaluation is clear. That you refuse to think about it is sad but understandable as it is fairly solid logically.

Let's just stay on subject why don't we.
I don't believe that anyone would consider the fact that if a desecration was set up for forced worship in Herod's Temple. by Caesar of all people, there would be a credible account of it to be a stretch.

Especially considering that when the same thing happened in Solomon's Temple that is exactly what we have.
Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus (the Abomination of Desolation). In seeking to prohibit Judaism and Hellenize the Jews, Antiochus forbade their religious practices and commanded that copies of the Law be burned, all of which is related by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews (XII.5.4).

Do you really think that such a circumstance could have happened after Christ Himself prophesized it , and nobody bothered to make note of it ?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Let's just stay on subject why don't we.

If you demand peer reviewed pieces for what I believe it’s only reasonable to expect you have them for your position. I gather you don’t. So you have two standards, one for you and a more strict one for others. Just wanted to make that clear although I personally think it was just a kind of knee jerk response to an argument you find difficult to counter. We all do that from time to time.

I don't believe that anyone would consider the fact that if a desecration was set up for forced worship in Herod's Temple. by Caesar of all people, there would be a credible account of it to be a stretch.

It doesn’t say anything about forced worship which no man can enforce anyway. Bowing down one can force. Adoration one cannot. The abomination spoken of says nothing whatsoever about worship. Stick to the scriptures ok?

Especially considering that when the same thing happened in Solomon's Temple that is exactly what we have.
Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured Jerusalem in 167 BC and desecrated the Temple by offering the sacrifice of a pig on an altar to Zeus (the Abomination of Desolation). In seeking to prohibit Judaism and Hellenize the Jews, Antiochus forbade their religious practices and commanded that copies of the Law be burned, all of which is related by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews (XII.5.4).

No worship mentioned. What is the point of this? You’ve mentioned it twice now. (This isn’t peer reviewed btw.)

Do you really think that such a circumstance could have happened after Christ Himself prophesized it , and nobody bothered to make note of it ?

Well do you know that the city was under siege and all those who knew of Jesus’ teachings had left? They were eating their belts and children. Recording something they had never heard about wouldn’t have occurred to them and the written records were burned in any case. No was left in the city who knew Jesus’ teaching.

That the fall of Jerusalem was recorded is gory detail is an arrangement of God. We don’t generally have the details of sieges from the inside when the city was burned to the ground and inhabitants sent into slavery.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Consecrated Life, you’ve gotten me thinking. I’m starting to suspect the Abomination was the murder of many high priests around 63 AD. That would be an abomination that would be very desolating for the Jews. And 3 or 4 were murdered in 63-64 AD.

It has to be in a timeframe whereby it is a sign to leave town if you live in Judea. Affects no one else in the world according to Jesus. For my position, it would have to be before the Romans closed off the city. No leaving after that. For your position that, of course, plays no role.

I would ask you to poke holes in the theory but you think the whole is implausible.

 

[Consecrated Life]

If you demand peer reviewed pieces for what I believe it’s only reasonable to expect you have them for your position. I gather you don’t. So you have two standards, one for you and a more strict one for others. Just wanted to make that clear although I personally think it was just a kind of knee jerk response to an argument you find difficult to counter. We all do that from time to time.

It doesn’t say anything about forced worship which no man can enforce anyway. Bowing down one can force. Adoration one cannot. The abomination spoken of says nothing whatsoever about worship. Stick to the scriptures ok?

In biblical times it was common practice for conquered populations to be required to worship the god of their conquers or be executed .
That is the concept behind the conquers erecting an idol of their god in the face of those they have defeated.
This is common knowledge of life in the ancient middle east .
I'm a little surprised I am having to walk you thru it ?
Same forced or die practice is going on today with the radical muslims in the middle east when they overtake a population.
I am surprised you are not at all familiar with the accounts occurring in scripture .
Check it out in the book of Daniel.
Daniel is very clear as to what is meant by "forced worship" from the biblical perspective.
You got me curious now about terminology , what term do you use for describing conquered population given the alternative to worship or be executed as it occurs in scripture?
I'll be glad to use that descriptor next time, just let me know?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In biblical times it was common practice for conquered populations to be required to worship the god of their conquers or be executed .

References for this please. And you’ll to provide evidence that Romans did this to Jews because all information I ever had including scripture was that Jews were exempt from having to be worshipping other gods. Now you alone say that isn’t so.

That is the concept behind the conquers erecting an idol of their god in the face of those they have defeated.
This is common knowledge of life in the ancient middle east .

Again the Jews were excluded.

I'm a little surprised I am having to walk you thru it ?

I’m surprised you think the Jews were compelled to worship roman gods.

Same forced or die practice is going on today with the radical muslims in the middle east when they overtake a population.

No it’s not. They aren’t allowed to have good jobs but they’re not forced to worship Allah.

I am surprised you are not at all familiar with the accounts occurring in scripture .

I’m surprised you’re unaware of what the Romans did regarding Jews and what the Muslims do.

I’m fairly sure I know scripture better than most here. For example, I don’t need the reference in bold with flashing lights to recognize scripture. Most here don’t even recognize scripture and few quote it freely. (They have to look it up.) Even “senior” members ask for the references because they don’t recognize scripture by what is said. I ask when I know there isn’t one.

Check it out in the book of Daniel.
Daniel is very clear as to what is meant by "forced worship" from the biblical perspective.

Please tell me where Daniel spoke of Romans forcing worship. But i see you’re unfamiliar with Daniel. They weren’t required to worship. They were required to bow down. They were forbidden from prayers. Read the book again.

You got me curious now about terminology , what term do you use for describing conquered population given the alternative to worship or be executed as it occurs in scripture?

Give me a text where the requirement from a tyrannical government is NOT perform a physical act but have devotion in your heart. Do you know the concept of their lips speak but they’re HEARTS are far from me? That for God is a lack of worship.

I'll be glad to use that descriptor next time, just let me know?

No man can force another to worship or love or cherish or admire. A man can force another to bow down or marry or say words. But the heart, which is part of a man that does these, is off limits.

 

[Consecrated Life]

References for this please. And you’ll to provide evidence that Romans did this to Jews because all information I ever had including scripture was that Jews were exempt from having to be worshipping other gods. Now you alone say that isn’t so.

Again the Jews were excluded.

I’m surprised you think the Jews were compelled to worship roman gods.

The fact that no roman worship was established in Herod's Temple is a fact now agree on.

And by this we know Jesus was not referring to Herod's Temple when He prophesized :
Mat 24:15
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

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The fact that no roman worship was established in Herod's Temple is a fact now agree on.

Well the abomination was not connected with worship, not according to scripture. Why do you keep thinking it means worship?

And by this we know Jesus was not referring to Herod's Temple when He prophesized :
Mat 24:15
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

No reference to worship. None at all. But since the reason for the matter was so that the believers should leave town(s,) worship isn’t necessary. Something that cause believers to be very sad (desolate) would’ve been in the temple, Herod’s temple. There has been no temple since and there is no holy place on earth any more in any case. But we agree that no worship of anything vain occurred in Herod’s temple.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Well the abomination was not connected with worship, not according to scripture. Why do you keep thinking it means worship?

. Something that cause believers to be very sad (desolate) would’ve been in the temple, Herod’s temple.

Well then at least we agree this worship of the image will have to take place somewhere.

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Why don't you say where you believe this worship of the beast will happen ?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well then at least we agree this worship of the image will have to take place somewhere.

Yes we agree. Definitely!

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Why don't you say where you believe this worship of the beast will happen ?

It happened in the first century. I guess we could say you were right in evil requiring “worship” of something besides God. I was thinking of the word as God means it but I see it is also used for outward homage. So I stand corrected. You’re right.

Your question I will answer.

 

[eddif]

2 Kings 18:4 kjv
4. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

When a symbol or type has become an item of worship, it is time to remove the item. (?)

The temple IMHO was removed, because it was no longer needed.

John 4:21 kjv
21. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

I don’t need a wrecking crew to destroy. I just look at the fact the temple is destroyed/gone and look for where the worship takes place.
John quoted what Jesus said. This is new covenant information repeated by a born again Jew. One day my flesh will be changed and what I am now will not exist.

Just kind of forget about what lies behind and press forward. There is a prize of the high calling.

Is this a futurist view? Pragmatic view?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Consecrated Life, I think the beast was Rome. The Romans literally adored their culture. It was dealt a mortal blow from which it was thought it wouldn’t recover.

Now I had an interesting experience on a tour through Rome. The tour guide showed us the remains of a statue that she said could speak. I thought of the verses in Revelation.

So those who refused to worship Rome we’re christian’s and they were killed, hundreds for 3.5 years. There’s more but that sufficient.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Well then at least we agree this worship of the image will have to take place somewhere.

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Why don't you say where you believe this worship of the beast will happen ?

Yes we agree. Definitely!

It happened in the first century. I guess we could say you were right in evil requiring “worship” of something besides God. I was thinking of the word as God means it but I see it is also used for outward homage. So I stand corrected. You’re right.

Your question I will answer.

You say it happened in the "first century" ?
Why would Jesus be showing John a vision of something that has already happened ?

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You say it happened in the "first century" ?
Why would Jesus be showing John a vision of something that has already happened ?

Jesus showed John the events soon to take place in 60 something AD. And they started a few years later. Why do you think it was over? Do you believe the nonsense that John got this vision as in his 9th decade? He couldn’t even walk at that point.

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

That’s what the Roman citizen said of the statue, it spoke.

 

[Tweeter]

In case someone does not know, the temple in Jerusalem that Jesus predicted would be destroyed was in 70AD. The short version is the Jews had rebelled against Rome and their policy was that all rebellion was put down mercilessly and as swiftly as possible. So the Romans under General Titus attacked the city and inadvertently the temple furnishings caught fire and the whole thing was destroyed. The gold decorating the temple melted and ran down so that the soldiers afterwards upturned all the stones looking for the gold so that no literal stone was left upon another. Jesus said this would happen in Matthew 24 and so it happened as he predicted.

My question to the futurists (those who believe the events of Matter 24 and Revelation are to come) how you deal with this obvious fulfillment of those predictions. There is no denying that this event was fulfilled in the past.

To make matters worse for you, he told the believers that when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies to leave the city. He used the typical Hebrew what we call exaggeration of not even going back and getting some stuff if you are out in the field to impress upon them the imperative. It was actually quite some days before the surrounding armies left (for no known reason) and the destroying army returned. The christians living then thought that Jesus' prediction about the destruction was for them and they left town and went to Jabba, I believe. No christians were living in Jerusalem at the time the temple fell. Matthew 24 predictions were for them and they knew it and saved themselves by leaving (no one whisked them away out of danger.)

So do you look for a new temple to be rebuilt so it can be destroyed? Do you take part of Matthew 24 being fulfilled but not all (which is what I do as well just different parts?) Were you not aware that this prediction of Jesus was fulfilled in that generation?

I think most Futurists think Matthew 24 is divided into two time periods. The temple's destruction is 70 AD, but the destruction of Jerusalem is still our future (and, still, they believe something about God saving Jerusalem from attacking armies.). There's all sorts of problems with this. Trying to make sense out of Futurism is like trying to make since out of 2+2=5. And, if you question them, they're most likely just to chant 2+2=5, as if chanting their doctrine is somehow answers your question.

Some Futurists appear to think the entire chapter of Matthew 24 is our future. I remember reading J. Vernon McGee's commentary and he said something like Jesus pointed to the destruction of the temple of his day as foreshadowing events in our future, future destruction.

 

[Tweeter]

they will rebuild the temple about half way through trib.. we dont need a temple but the jews think they do

That Bible says the man of lawlessness has to be revealed before any anything else happens. That's a direct contradiction of your position that the temple (that originally took decades to build) will be built in the middle of the tribulation). Also, not that I think you'll listen, Jews don't think they need a temple. You think the Jews think they need a temple - you're dead wrong. And, your position about what the Jews want is irrelevant, as it is your doctrine that human hands will build the temple of God.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Rev 13:15
that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

That’s what the Roman citizen said of the statue, it spoke.

So after setting up this amazing image in the Temple for everyone to worship ,what then
made the romans decide to destroy it immediately ?

 

[Consecrated Life]

I think most Futurists think Matthew 24 is divided into two time periods. The temple's destruction is 70 AD, but the destruction of Jerusalem is still our future (and, still, they believe something about God saving Jerusalem from attacking armies.). There's all sorts of problems with this. Trying to make sense out of Futurism is like trying to make since out of 2+2=5. And, if you question them, they're most likely just to chant 2+2=5, as if chanting their doctrine is somehow answers your question.

Some Futurists appear to think the entire chapter of Matthew 24 is our future. I remember reading J. Vernon McGee's commentary and he said something like Jesus pointed to the destruction of the temple of his day as foreshadowing events in our future, future destruction.

Tweeter,
In this understanding of yours that it is all past , please tell me, a ballpark guesstimate would be fine, when God's prophesized period of the meek inheriting the earth occurred ?
I had not heard about it at all ?

Mat 5:5
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

I suspect it must have been a very short period indeed that the meek inherited the earth or I would have heard about it ?

Thank You .

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So after setting up this amazing image in the Temple for everyone to worship ,what then
made the romans decide to destroy it immediately ?

Why do you think it is/was in a temple?

14Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived. 15The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.

No temple mentioned.

The problem with all futurist predictions, all that I’ve read, is they have to ADD to the account in Revelation in order to weave a story. In your view a staute is to be set up in a temple. But that scenario in no where in the text.