The Temple Sanctuary

[JoshuaStone7]

It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.

I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.

Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?

What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.

Let me begin with this scripture,

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13

In order to take us out of the interpretation business, we must allow the flow of context to remain with the writer. The original writers wrote in streams of concepts rather than using punctuation as we use today.

When Hebrews says, "In speaking of a new covenant," it discusses God's words to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31. Next, the context must remain with the writer when he says, "he makes the first obsolete." Hebrews is saying the first covenant was made obsolete the moment God told Jeremiah there would be a new covenant.

Next, the context must continue in this same timeframe. "And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." This statement must remain in the same time frame as the moment when God speaks to Jeremiah about the new covenant that was to come. Therefore, the old had become obsolete at that moment, and from Jeremiah's time on, the old was ready to vanish away.

-------

The next question we might ask is: When did the old covenant vanish?

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning." Heb 9:8 (NIV)

To begin, I do not favor any translation and use many. I prefer using an interlinear; however, in discussions, I generally quote whichever translation best defines the originally intended context within any given text.

With that said, the NIV uses the word functioning for the Greek word stasis, and I would like to share the reason I believe the translators did.

--------

The keyword in Heb 9:8 is "disclosed."

Greek - phaneroó:  I make clear (visible, manifest), make known.

So the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been "known, shown, made visible," as long as... Now according to this verse, once that way into the Most Holy Place was made evident, that is the moment the tabernacle ceased functioning. So the question is, when was the way into the Most Holy Place made visible?

The Greek word stasis is a noun, not a verb. It carries the idea of a thing, rather than an action. Then properly, it can also be translated as position. Some translations render this Greek word as standing, and this is a breach of context and the very definition of the Greek word stasis. One only needs to look to our English word stasis and its meaning as an ideological position to understand its meaning within this text.

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still in its position." Heb 9:8

Stasis isn't saying the temple is standing as in action, it is standing as in position, as in its position as to its function. This is the context of which it is being spoken of in Hebrews. And this is the reason the NIV uses the term functioning.

-------

However, as absolute proof, we know the way into the Most Holy Place was made evident/visible long before 70 CE, and in fact, at our Lord's sacrifice.

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Mth 27:51

The way from the Holy Place into the Most Holy was made visible the moment our Lord died faithfully. Therefore Heb 9:8 is saying when Jesus died, and then later ascends to Heaven, the way into the Most Holy was disclosed. We know this because Hebrews continues on and tells us Jesus did in fact fulfill the High Priest role the moment the way into the Most Holy was disclosed.

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation." Heb 9:11

The writer of Hebrews is disclosing here he knows the way into the Most Holy Place, and that was Jesus. So by his definition, the tabernacle could not still be in its position at that moment. The physical temple in Jerusalem could no longer have any ideological position within God's plans or prophetic fulfillments.

The writer goes on in great detail on how Christ entered the Most Holy Place.

"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption." Heb 9:12

So then, one must accept that the writer of Hebrews at that moment knew the way into Heaven, and by extension, since that information was visible, the tabernacle no longer stood in its position as the first.

And by all means, this harmonizes with all Scripture.

-------

"Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second." Heb 10:9

Once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the old covenant was done away with, and true believers were no longer under Law; the law was no longer valid.

"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" Rom 6:14,15

-------

This was also the moment a Jew and descendant of Abraham was no longer a matter of genealogy but one of faith. As well as the moment the courtyard, temple, and sacrifices all became the realities found in Christ.

"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Gal 3:7

"And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25,26

All love...

Joshua

[Athanasius]

I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.

Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?

What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.

I'm going to reply at this point because it's important to keep in mind the context of what I said, which you quoted.

To the question, I'd answer: if the flight to Pella as recorded is historically accurate, then whatever we think of the role of Jerusalem in prophecy, what did those early Christians think?

Eusebius reported:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

There's also Epiphanius:

,7 This sect of Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea37 near Coelesyria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called  Cocabe38—Khokhabe in Hebrew. ( For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it39 because of the siege it was about to undergo. And they settled in Peraea for this reason and, as I said, lived their lives there. It was from this that the Nazoraean sect had its origin.

Source: https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf, ch 29, 7,7.

But this is all I'm saying. I'm not making any definitive statements on what I think the abomination of desolation is. I'm not decided, and I'm certainly not firmly in the preterist camp. I would say that I'm suspicious of the idea that first-century prophetic utterances weren't relevant to the immediate years following Jesus' resurrection, as well as the idea that those utterances were exhaustively satisfied in those immediate years.

Another thought --

Regarding the broader point you've outlined: could it be possible that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the final event regarding Jerusalem, removing it from prophetic consideration going forward? That's a question, not a position. It seems a pretty definitive end though, right?

I will say that Jesus' utterances seem quite clearly to me to obsolete the temple, which was, of course, offensive to the religious Jews of the day.

[JoshuaStone7]

Regarding the broader point you've outlined: could it be possible that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the final event regarding Jerusalem, removing it from prophetic consideration going forward? That's a question, not a position. It seems a pretty definitive end though, right?.

Greetings brother,

So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11

"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2

If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.

"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." Heb 8:5

"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17

You see what I mean? If the temple and Law ceased through Jesus, prophecy could not apply to that physical temple afterward because it no longer existed after Jesus did away with it, right? Scripture tells us He did away with the first covenant, fulfilled the Law, ceased the temple, etc. If the Israelites had excepted Christ there would have been no further sacrifices at the temple.

Prophecy from the past that had not yet been fulfilled must apply to the realities found in Christ because Christ did away with the previous, right? According to scripture, there was no such thing as a physical temple in Jerusalem after 33 CE. (Of course it still stood, but isn't scripture stating it no longer held any stasis in God's works?)

The real established in Christ:

The daily sacrifice in Heb 13:15,16.
The temple of our bodies 1Cor 3:16.
Jesus put away the Law, to establish the second, faith in Him Heb 10:9.
A Jew is an offspring of Abraham through faith Gal 3:7.
Jesus was the High Priest and entered the true Most Holy.

-------

What was in Jerusalem after Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role?

"Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist," 1Jhn 4:3

Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?

In my humble opinion of course, dear brother...

All love.

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?

It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant. The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11

"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2

If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.

You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.

The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.

[JoshuaStone7]

Greetings,

You stated:

Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .

I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!

I offered merit to a Futurist view, and then I stated I had many Preterist friends, and you didn't correct me. So are you a Preterist, or aren't you?

Well, I guess I'll continue as though you are, and you can correct me or not. But let me correct you on a couple of things you've misunderstood.

I've already posted my reasons, and I haven't heard any rebuttal from you.

While I appreciate your response, you'll just have to allow me time to reply. I was out with the family.

It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant.

Respectfully, and I do mean with all Christian love: You failed to grasp what I presented.

The temple did indeed "cease functioning" at Jesus' ascension, according to Hebrews. Now we don't have to guess what that means. If we know it stood physically till 70 CE, that means Hebrews could only be talking about the temple's stasis in God's Word.

I mean, does it not say that the temple no longer held any ideological position once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role? I'm not the one saying it; it's there in Hebrews. There is no other interpretation available. It stood physically till 70 CE, but Hebrews says its status ceased after Jesus. There is only one status it held; its functions as the shadow in God's plans. Right? Then once Jesus established the new temple in His body, you tell me where any prophecy after could apply to a false antichrist religion in Jerusalem in 70 CE.

The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.

Was there a single Jew in Jerusalem in 70 CE? What would you say if I said, no? No Jews died in 70 CE.

Could prophecy pertaining to God's people have been fulfilled in 70 CE if no Jews died? Were any Jews killed or "punished" in 70 CE?

I say, no... What do you say?

You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.

You assumed I was connecting them as the same event; I never said that. I was just picking two prophecies that first came to mind, which I believe are still future, pertaining to the abomination being set up in the Holy Place and the courtyard being trampled.

Again, is God's Word saying the Holy Place was still there in 70 CE? Hebrews says it was no longer functioning in that stasis after Christ. So.......? Are you saying the temple was still the Holy Place and Most Holy Place in 70 CE in contradiction to Hebrews? Asking for a friend...

The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.

Well, actually there were two rooms in the sanctuary. Only the Most Holy Place represented Heaven and God's throne. The Holy place was where the priests/elect worked on earth, and the courtyard was where all could come to be clothed in linen.

I could go into great detail on what each item in the sanctuary was a shadow of, but I'm sure you're well familiar with these things.

Instead, you want me to read your view and figure out how that rebuts my view?

From what I understand, you are a Preterist, right? I just wanted to know I understood you correctly when you quoted Luke.

You know, if Hebrews says the temple no longer plays any part in God's Word after Jesus, I would think that would be a problem for the Preterist. At least none of my Preterist friends could respond to Hebrews once they understood what it was actually saying.

And if you're not a Preterist, be kind and polite to me, and simply let me know...lol Just take this information I have presented as someone sharing what they have been given through the Holy Spirit.

All love...

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

It's not just that the abomination of desolation generally wants to get rid of God, but does something specific, like demand to be exalted in the place of God (Antiochus IV). Rome besieged Jerusalem in 70 CE, perhaps that is a good candidate? There were plenty of Christians who fled once they saw the Roman armies, probably with Jesus' words in mind.

I wanted to share something interesting with you, brother.

Question: What role did Jerusalem play in prophecy in 70 CE?

What I am about to explain is; I believe the text tells us that once Christ Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, Jerusalem and its temple no longer played any part in prophecy.

Let me begin with this scripture,

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13

In order to take us out of the interpretation business, we must allow the flow of context to remain with the writer. The original writers wrote in streams of concepts rather than using punctuation as we use today.

When Hebrews says, "In speaking of a new covenant," it discusses God's words to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31. Next, the context must remain with the writer when he says, "he makes the first obsolete." Hebrews is saying the first covenant was made obsolete the moment God told Jeremiah there would be a new covenant.

Next, the context must continue in this same timeframe. "And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." This statement must remain in the same time frame as the moment when God speaks to Jeremiah about the new covenant that was to come. Therefore, the old had become obsolete at that moment, and from Jeremiah's time on, the old was ready to vanish away.

-------

The next question we might ask is: When did the old covenant vanish?

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning." Heb 9:8 (NIV)

To begin, I do not favor any translation and use many. I prefer using an interlinear; however, in discussions, I generally quote whichever translation best defines the originally intended context within any given text.

With that said, the NIV uses the word functioning for the Greek word stasis, and I would like to share the reason I believe the translators did.

--------

The keyword in Heb 9:8 is "disclosed."

Greek - phaneroó:  I make clear (visible, manifest), make known.

So the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been "known, shown, made visible," as long as... Now according to this verse, once that way into the Most Holy Place was made evident, that is the moment the tabernacle ceased functioning. So the question is, when was the way into the Most Holy Place made visible?

The Greek word stasis is a noun, not a verb. It carries the idea of a thing, rather than an action. Then properly, it can also be translated as position. Some translations render this Greek word as standing, and this is a breach of context and the very definition of the Greek word stasis. One only needs to look to our English word stasis and its meaning as an ideological position to understand its meaning within this text.

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still in its position." Heb 9:8

Stasis isn't saying the temple is standing as in action, it is standing as in position, as in its position as to its function. This is the context of which it is being spoken of in Hebrews. And this is the reason the NIV uses the term functioning.

-------

However, as absolute proof, we know the way into the Most Holy Place was made evident/visible long before 70 CE, and in fact, at our Lord's sacrifice.

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Mth 27:51

The way from the Holy Place into the Most Holy was made visible the moment our Lord died faithfully. Therefore Heb 9:8 is saying when Jesus died, and then later ascends to Heaven, the way into the Most Holy was disclosed. We know this because Hebrews continues on and tells us Jesus did in fact fulfill the High Priest role the moment the way into the Most Holy was disclosed.

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation." Heb 9:11

The writer of Hebrews is disclosing here he knows the way into the Most Holy Place, and that was Jesus. So by his definition, the tabernacle could not still be in its position at that moment. The physical temple in Jerusalem could no longer have any ideological position within God's plans or prophetic fulfillments.

The writer goes on in great detail on how Christ entered the Most Holy Place.

"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption." Heb 9:12

So then, one must accept that the writer of Hebrews at that moment knew the way into Heaven, and by extension, since that information was visible, the tabernacle no longer stood in its position as the first.

And by all means, this harmonizes with all Scripture.

-------

"Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second." Heb 10:9

Once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, the old covenant was done away with, and true believers were no longer under Law; the law was no longer valid.

"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" Rom 6:14,15

-------

This was also the moment a Jew and descendant of Abraham was no longer a matter of genealogy but one of faith. As well as the moment the courtyard, temple, and sacrifices all became the realities found in Christ.

"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Gal 3:7

"And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25,26

All love...

Joshua

Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:
Let me just take a guess--you think that because Christ fulfilled the Law and the temple at his death that no NT prophecy can involve the physical temple, including its destruction in 70 AD? If that's what you think, it wouldn't make sense to me, because Jesus specifically said this would happen as a *punishment* to the Jewish People for not properly obeying God. If they had properly followed the Law they would've accepted Christ's death for their sins, and there would've been no further need to make sacrifices on the altar in Jerusalem.

Jesus said the temple had become hypocritical and was about to be torn down. Knowing that many Jews were ignorant of what they were doing he was not willing to destroy the temple and Jerusalem immediately. He gave time for the Gospel to be preached as a continuing warning to them. But he knew they wouldn't listen, and so prophesied that it would all be torn down.

Since this is what the Olivet Discourse records, no amount of logic can render this otherwise, in my opinion. It says what it says. None of this takes away from the fact Jesus was the true heavenly temple, and the fulfillment of the Law.

[JoshuaStone7]

Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:

No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...

You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.

[Athanasius]

Greetings brother,

So, if the temple in Jerusalem ceased functioning the moment Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, and the Law was done away with, and a Jew became one of faith, and the daily sacrifice became the preaching work; what does that do to prophecies such as in Daniel and Revelation?

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11

"But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." Rev 11:2

If these prophecies had not yet been fulfilled before Jesus, then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself? He did away with the Law and shadows that the temple was.

"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." Heb 8:5

"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Col 2:17

You see what I mean? If the temple and Law ceased through Jesus, prophecy could not apply to that physical temple afterward because it no longer existed after Jesus did away with it, right? Scripture tells us He did away with the first covenant, fulfilled the Law, ceased the temple, etc. If the Israelites had excepted Christ there would have been no further sacrifices at the temple.

I'm not sure that I do see what you mean, but if I understand what you're saying then I don't find it compelling. Christians may well have been aware of the temple's newfound inefficacy, but that doesn't mean religious Jews would have taken the same view. They would have continued worshipping at the temple up until its destruction in 70 CE. It was still a physical structure up until then. It existed, and it was in use. Would they have viewed the Roman siege as a, or the, abomination of desecration? The destruction of the temple was no trivial event. (I'm aware you're not suggesting the temple wasn't physically present; I'm emphasising that it was and that it was is relevant.)

So, to your question "then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself?" I would consider whether it's appropriate to consider those things that Jesus "did away with" as specifically, shadows removed from relevance/prophetic relevance.

You may need to clarify.

Prophecy from the past that had not yet been fulfilled must apply to the realities found in Christ because Christ did away with the previous, right?

Why should that be the case? Wouldn't this have made those past prophecies unintelligible to those who received them (or is the suggestion that those past prophecies were misunderstood as applying to X when really they applied to Y, which would not have been something the recipients could have known)?

Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?

I don't think I would, no.

[RandyPNW]

Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:

No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...

You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.

I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!

All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.

[JoshuaStone7]

Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:

No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...

You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.

I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!

All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.

Okay we'll do this in two different threads I guess....lol

So you answered post #4 here where I answered all of your questions and where I said no Jews died in 70CE?

If you can point me to your response I would appreciate it....

[RandyPNW]

Since you want me to answer this post in this thread here it is again:

No, I didn't. I was directing you to my response to you above in post #4 that you've clearly missed...

You can delete your post #5 here, and post #29 in Chronology.

I'm ensuring that you see I *have indeed* answered, even though you claim I've "missed" it. I haven't missed anything. But you are not even trying to answer my points, even though I've posted them in two different threads!

All this talk is minutia to me--just tell me what your response is to my points, or admit you're disinterested. But if you're disinterested than don't cover the subject.

Okay we'll do this in two different threads I guess....lol

So you answered post #4 here where I answered all of your questions and where I said no Jews died in 70CE?

If you can point me to your response I would appreciate it....

Yes, this is why we need to deal with each issue in its own thread. I'll go back to post #4 and answer your specific questions now. Thanks.

[JoshuaStone7]

Christians may well have been aware of the temple's newfound inefficacy, but that doesn't mean religious Jews would have taken the same view. They would have continued worshipping at the temple up until its destruction in 70 CE.

Okay, let's put aside what the people might have believed for a moment. I think we can both agree that the people had a hard time following YHWH's guidance and direction.

Let's say we want to answer a simple question: Did the destruction in 70 CE fulfill Jesus' words here, "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—." Mth 24:15

We know the temple was the shadow, not the realities established in Christ. So the temple served as the Holy Place until Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role, at which point the temple no longer held its position as the shadow Holy Place because Jesus brought the realities.

We want the mind of scripture, right? We want the mind of Christ, the Word. So let's think like God's Word. Could Jesus have been calling the physical temple in Jerusalem the Holy Place in 70 CE if it no longer held that title, no longer fulfilled that role, and no longer was functioning in any way in God's Word?

How about the daily sacrifice?

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11

"They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days." rev 11:2,3

(Now I know others here believe Dan 12:11 was fulfilled in Maccabees; however, I argue Rev 11 is speaking of the same event. Keep in mind Rev was written in the first century, and Maccabees isn't even part of the cannon. And lastly, no one can prove there were exactly 1290 days between any events from 167-160 BCE. Trust me; I tried at one point. As well, Jesus repeats the prophecy.)

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

It was still a physical structure up until then. It existed, and it was in use. Would they have viewed the Roman siege as a, or the, abomination of desecration? The destruction of the temple was no trivial event. (I'm aware you're not suggesting the temple wasn't physically present; I'm emphasising that it was and that it was is relevant.)

Let me show you something, brother.

Why does Jesus say in Mth to flee when they see the abomination standing in the Holy Place, but in Luke, He says to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded? According to Josephus, these two events were three years apart. The temple was also the last thing destroyed, so wouldn't it have been too late to flee once Roman reached the temple?

I'll let you consider that one for a moment...

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Mth 24:15,15

"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains," Luk 21:20,21

So, to your question "then how can they apply to the shadows that Jesus did away with when establishing the realities in Himself?" I would consider whether it's appropriate to consider those things that Jesus "did away with" as specifically, shadows removed from relevance/prophetic relevance.

You may need to clarify.

See, that's the whole point. If Hebrews tells us the temple ceased functioning, we ask what its function was. Its function was everything it was. It was not still there because YHWH wanted it to be; there was no further use for it.

So if we have the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word, then would we not understand that as far as God's Word sees it, that temple no longer pertained to anything in prophecy? How can we apply scriptures talking about the Holy Place and the sacrifices to that physical temple if it no longer housed or functioned as those items?

Do you see what I mean? According to Hebrews, it was no longer the Holy Place, no longer the sacrifices. Christ did away with the first by establishing the second, the realities in Him. He fulfilled the Law; Christians were no longer under the Law.

Should we not conclude that the only thing in Jerusalem in 70 CE was an antichrist false religion?

I don't think I would, no.

Okay, brother, let's look at this rationally for a moment.

Were there any Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE? Well, what was a Jew after Jesus?

"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7

"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b

"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7

So, if Christians would have listened to Jesus, there would be no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE, right? A Jew at this point is by faith. An offspring of Abraham is through faith, not genealogies. This is why Paul admonished not to be caught up with foolish debates about genealogies because they were irrelevant at that point.

Again, we want the mind of Christ, the mind of God's Word. So if we think like God's Word, then there was no Holy Place in Jerusalem, there were no sacrifices to be ceased, there were no Jews in Jerusalem in 70 CE.

What was in Jerusalem in 70 CE?

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." 1Jhn 2:22

Brother, is there anything more detrimental to uncovering truth than confirmation bias? This is our biggest hurdle. Over the years, I have constantly had to keep my confirmation bias in check every step of the way. I've come to leap for joy when I discover I was wrong about something and have learned to really relish in those moments. Why? Because it meant I was one step closer to the truth, and our Lord allowed me to understand and to be corrected. I  don't mean this toward you or anyone else; I was just sharing how I approach scripture.

So at one time, I believed the Holy Place and the Sacrifices at the temple in 70 CE were ceased in fulfillment of prophecy until I realized that none of those things were in Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Again, I would ask for your assistance, and maybe you can change my mind. Is there any reason to believe that Jerusalem in 70 CE was anything other than an antichrist false religion where no Jews died?

All love...

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

Greetings,
You stated:

Futurists today are irrationally trying to make this about the Reign of Antichrist, and ignore anything that involves less than endtime material. .

I can't tell you how many times and how many forums I have posted this on in the last couple of years. And yet there is no response to it of any merit, because it's the truth! These Christians just don't like to be told different from what they want to believe. But I'm sorry--it's God's truth that matters, and not what we *want* to believe!

I offered merit to a Futurist view, and then I stated I had many Preterist friends, and you didn't correct me. So are you a Preterist, or aren't you?

No, not a Preterist. A Preterist believes that most prophecy, including the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation, was fulfilled in the 1st century or thereabouts. I believe the "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and continues throughout the present age. And I believe there will be a literal Antichrist with 10 kings and 7 states at the end of this present age.

Like most Christians I believe some prophecies were fulfilled in history, and some will be fulfilled in the future. The fall of Jerusalem, the AoD, was fulfilled in history, in 70 AD. The Return of Christ will be fulfilled in the future, on the last day of the age.

It depends on how you interpret Daniel and Revelation. The temple in Jerusalem did not "cease functioning" at Jesus' death, though it did render null and void the sacrifices that were offered there, or perhaps redundant.

Respectfully, and I do mean with all Christian love: You failed to grasp what I presented.

The temple did indeed "cease functioning" at Jesus' ascension, according to Hebrews. Now we don't have to guess what that means. If we know it stood physically till 70 CE, that means Hebrews could only be talking about the temple's stasis in God's Word.

Heb 8.13 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.


Mention that the temple covenant was obsolete did not mean it ceased to exist or be used. It says it will "soon disappear." That means the Jews continued to worship in vain at a place that had been rendered "obsolete," or redundant, by the sacrifice of Christ.

Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.


Since the way into the Most Holy Place had already been disclosed by the resurrection of Jesus, it's clear that the "first tabernacle" was  no longer "functioning," in the sense of providing a dispensation of grace to Israel for sin. But its worship was still in play since unbelieving Jews continued to worship there. And that's what Heb 8 referred to by suggesting it would "soon disappear." In other words,  temple worship, though illegitimate by God's standards, continued to exist. And that was the temple Jesus said would be destroyed in the generation of his apostles.

I mean, does it not say that the temple no longer held any ideological position once Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role?

Yes, again, the temple was no longer functioning with a legitimate priesthood since the priesthood of Christ had been established in place of that failed covenant. But it continued to exist and had not yet passed away, as Heb 8.13 suggests.

The Law continued to be practiced by Jews that didn't believe in Jesus, but it was, as you indicate, a dead letter. Nothing indicates that Christian Gentiles were "spiritual Jews." To be Jewish is an ethnic designation, and cannot be spiritualized away.

Was there a single Jew in Jerusalem in 70 CE? What would you say if I said, no? No Jews died in 70 CE.

I would say there were a lot of dead Jews in Jerusalem after the Romans went in in 70 AD and destroyed the city and the sanctuary. The prophecy of the AoD was that an abominable, pagan desolator would approach the city and ultimately destroy both the city and the sanctuary. That happened from  70-135 AD.

Could prophecy pertaining to God's people have been fulfilled in 70 CE if no Jews died? Were any Jews killed or "punished" in 70 CE?

Sounds like you're trying to re-invent history?

You need to look at these two prophecies separately, because they are different prophecies. One has to do with the reign of Antiochus 4, whose period of tormenting the Jews was 1290 days.

You assumed I was connecting them as the same event; I never said that. I was just picking two prophecies that first came to mind, which I believe are still future, pertaining to the abomination being set up in the Holy Place and the courtyard being trampled.

A lot of people join the two prophecies together. I don't. History has Antiochus 4 as operating his "reign of terror" against the Jews for 1290 days. You may or may not agree, but I think that the book of Revelation has the 3.5 years of Antichrist being only 1260 days. The 1290 day period is different from this. I'm just explaining my own view. I do *not* see the 1290 days as future.

The prophecy in Rev 11 refers to the temple as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is what it always was. That symbol was used for worship in the OT under the Law, but in the book of Revelation it is used not for worship, but strictly as a symbol of the heavenly temple, which is God's dwelling among His people.

Well, actually there were two rooms in the sanctuary. Only the Most Holy Place represented Heaven and God's throne. The Holy place was where the priests/elect worked on earth, and the courtyard was where all could come to be clothed in linen.

I could go into great detail on what each item in the sanctuary was a shadow of, but I'm sure you're well familiar with these things.

Yes, have studied them for many years. Have books on the subject of the tabernacle furniture. The *entire temple* was patterned after the heavenly temple. I don't believe you can therefore separate one piece of furniture from another in this regard.

You know, if Hebrews says the temple no longer plays any part in God's Word after Jesus, I would think that would be a problem for the Preterist. At least none of my Preterist friends could respond to Hebrews once they understood what it was actually saying.

And if you're not a Preterist, be kind and polite to me, and simply let me know...lol Just take this information I have presented as someone sharing what they have been given through the Holy Spirit.

All love...

Joshua

Thanks for your generous attitude. We can be kind to each other--I have no wish to generate any kind of hostility. I enjoy the back and forth--sometimes I have to give, and at other times I expect others must give. But that's between God and individuals. I just want to share from whatever experience I have. I'm trying to help with stuff that has helped me.

No, I'm not a Preterist, as I said. And I do agree the NT supplants the OT. There is no longer any physical temple. But Jesus said, in his Olivet Discourse, that the physical temple would soon perish precisely because the Jews did not recognize the old covenant had died on the cross. None of that means Jesus isn't the final temple. I don't believe there will ever again be a physical temple built of stone and wood.

Thanks for the conversation...and the patience.

[JoshuaStone7]

Heb 8.13 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.


Mention that the temple covenant was obsolete did not mean it ceased to exist or be used. It says it will "soon disappear." That means the Jews continued to worship in vain at a place that had been rendered "obsolete," or redundant, by the sacrifice of Christ.

Greetings, friend, and thank you for your kind Christian words as well. The written word is difficult sometimes to portray understanding, so patience is indeed needed.

Tell me: Why do you separate Hebrews 8:13 into hundreds of years? You're saying Jehovah told Jeremiah there was a new covenant coming, and then you say Christ made it obsolete, and then it disappeared in 70 CE. That's six hundred years, right?

I prefer to allow the context to remain with the writer. So if the writer in Hebrews 8:13 is talking about when God spoke to Jeremiah, I believe the very next sentence must remain in that same timeframe as well, unless the writer clearly indicates for themselves they are changing the time frame spoken of. That takes us out of the interpretation business.

Using your method, I could spread Hebrews 8:13 over 2500 years if I wanted. Only the writer of Hebrews can give us the context, right? So, please share how you separate his statement in Heb 8:13 over 600 years. Please, no interpretation of events, because someone could do the same thing and say the temple will vanish still future. Can you show your understanding by using only Heb 8:13?

When allowing the context to remain with the writer, he is saying God told Jeremiah a new covenant was coming, and by telling him that He made the old obsolete, and from that point on, it was ready to vanish. All in the same moment with Jeremiah.

Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.


Since the way into the Most Holy Place had already been disclosed by the resurrection of Jesus, it's clear that the "first tabernacle" was  no longer "functioning," in the sense of providing a dispensation of grace to Israel for sin.

Can you share with me how you connect in scripture the tabernacle no longer functioning specifically to the sacrifices, yet its other functions still remain? I mean, using that method you use, I could say its ceasing function could just be the Most Holy Place. Or I could say the temple was no longer functioning, but the courtyard was because Jesus is the real temple. Do you see what I mean? If you use that type of interpretation, you must take it to its extreme and discover whether or not you are interpreting or allowing the text to speak for itself.

I prefer to allow the text to speak for itself that it no longer functioned, and that would mean everything it functioned as; and since all the realities were in Christ, we understand everything the temple was, was replaced in Christ. And, to be honest, all scripture agrees that there was nothing left on mount Moriah after Jesus. (Of course, the physical temple was still there, but we want the mind of Christ, the Word.)

I prefer to take myself out of the interpretation business and only obtain my understanding from direct scriptural connection. We are told the temple served as a shadow, and Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices, the Law, the High Priest, the gates, all of it. He also told us our bodies were the temple now, our sacrifices of praise are the daily sacrifice, and a Jew was one of faith.

So, if I were to say that the temple in 70 CE still housed the Holy Place, the Most Holy, the sacrifices, the High Priest, and so on, would I not be contradicting Jesus? I'm going to say yes.

Trust me; I mean only Christian love because I once believed as you. I believed less than a year ago that some prophecies were fulfilled in 70 CE until I realized Hebrews words in 8:13 can only apply to the moment God spoke to Jeremiah, and the temple ceased ALL functions when Jesus fulfilled the High Priest role.

But its worship was still in play since unbelieving Jews continued to worship there. And that's what Heb 8 referred to by suggesting it would "soon disappear." In other words,  temple worship, though illegitimate by God's standards, continued to exist. And that was the temple Jesus said would be destroyed in the generation of his apostles.

Again, I would ask: Can you please share with me how you came to scripturally separate Hebrews 8:13 over six hundred years rather than all in the same moment to Jeremiah?

I would say there were a lot of dead Jews in Jerusalem after the Romans went in in 70 AD and destroyed the city and the sanctuary.
Sounds like you're trying to re-invent history?

Am I trying to rewrite history, or is what I am saying always been history. Yes, I believe no Jews died in Jerusalem. Why?

"In the same way, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." Gal 3:6,7

"For Abraham is the father of all who believe." Rem 4:16b

"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly." Rom 2:28,29

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children." Rom 9:6,7

-------

A Jew is one through faith in Christ. If all Christians listened to Jesus and got out of the city, no Jews died in 70 CE. Now, according to Josephus, some one million people died in the city, but were they Jews according to scripture?

Remember, we want the mind of Christ, the mind of the Word. We should think like the Word. If I say someone is a Jew and they don't believe in Christ, am I contradicting scripture? Yes! Paul didn't leave allowances for genealogies; he fervently shot down those who tried to play the geneology card. Paul told us plainly that a Jew was not one of genealogy but faith through Christ.

So, what was in Jerusalem in 70 CE? The only thing that was there was an antichrist false religion and people of the world who followed the satan. That's what Jesus told them, there father was the satan. Should I contradict our Lord? Not me anyway...

Prove it wrong dear friend...

A lot of people join the two prophecies together. I don't. History has Antiochus 4 as operating his "reign of terror" against the Jews for 1290 days. You may not do so, but the book of Revelation has the 3.5 years of Antichrist being only 1260 days. The 1290 day period is different from this. I'm just explaining my own view. I do *not* see the 1290 days as future.

Jesus repeated this prophecy and said it was still future, did He not? As well, no one can prove there were exactly 1290 days between any events from 167-160 BCE. If you can, please let me know...

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." Dan 12:11

"So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand." Mth 24:15

Thanks for the conversation...and the patience.

There is no better subject in the world, brother. We here are going about the work our Lord left us to do! I hope we stand shoulder to shoulder at our Lord's arrival...

All love...

Joshua

[RandyPNW]

Tell me: Why do you separate Hebrews 8:13 into hundreds of years? You're saying Jehovah told Jeremiah there was a new covenant coming, and then you say Christ made it obsolete, and then it disappeared in 70 CE. That's six hundred years, right?

The Prophet Jeremiah predicted a time when *Israel* would enter into a New Covenant with God. It would be unlike the Law of Moses, but would survive the failure of the Old Covenant.

We know the New Covenant of Christ began on the Cross, but Israel, as a nation, never entered into covenant with Christ. Their covenant with God through the Law expired, or was nullified, and the nation, as a whole, never entered into a new covenant with God.

But Jeremiah predicted that at the end of the ages the nation Israel would once again enter into a national covenant with God. I believe this will be at the Return of Christ.

Jeremiah's prediction of a New Covenant does not detail when it would begin. It only details that it would involve the restoration of the nation to God through a new agreement, unlike the covenant of Law. So that was not when the New Covenant began with the Gospel of Christ, but only when it will bring in the nation of Israel as a Christian nation. That hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Can you share with me how you connect in scripture the tabernacle no longer functioning specifically to the sacrifices, yet its other functions still remain?

What I said was that even though the temple worship continued, the temple itself was outdated, and was soon to stop functioning altogether. Nothing about this separates sacrifices from the temple itself--it all was outdated, continued to be used, and was soon to be destroyed.

I quoted it for you. This verse suggests that despite the outdating of the temple worship, it had not yet "ceased."

Heb 8.13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

I prefer to take myself out of the interpretation business and only obtain my understanding from direct scriptural connection. We are told the temple served as a shadow, and Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices, the Law, the High Priest, the gates, all of it. He also told us our bodies were the temple now, our sacrifices of praise are the daily sacrifice, and a Jew was one of faith.

None of this is contradictory to my position. I agree that Jesus is the true temple. But this did not stop unbelieving Jews from continuing to worship in the temple until it was actually destroyed in 70 AD. That is just what Heb 8-9 implies.

Since Jesus was a better form of "temple worship," the old temple worship was invalidated. At any rate, the Jews had failed under the old temple system. And so God had brought into being a new one--one that the unbelieving Jews refused to recognize.

And so, the OT temple was later destroyed, after God allowed it to continue for 40 years, wanting to give the Jews more opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Am I trying to rewrite history, or is what I am saying always been history. Yes, I believe no Jews died in Jerusalem. Why?

Replacement Theology doesn't ignore the reality of the Jewish People. It may define a "spiritualized Jew" as a Christian, but it wouldn't deny physical Jews, I should think? And yet, you seem to be doing that by denying there were any physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD??

For what it's worth I don't agree with Replacement Theology. I do not see Christians as "spiritualized Jews." But again, even if you do, you cannot dismiss the reality of physical Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

We have the problem often with understanding how flexible language is. Paul takes legitimate shortcuts all the time. For example, he says "there is neither Jew nor Gentile." If you stop right there he would be saying Jews and Gentiles don't exist.

But Paul isn't speaking in a vacuum. There is a context. There is no Jew or other *with respect to the OT divisions between them.*

In the same way, even though God temporarily cut off the nation as a covenant nation, Jews continued to exist. God said in Hosea that he would reinstate them as a covenant nation. They would be, once again, "My People." In the same way, Paul said, "God is able to reinstate them."

There is no better subject in the world, brother. We here are going about the work our Lord left us to do! I hope we stand shoulder to shoulder at our Lord's arrival...

So do I. Thank you.