“An Idol being put in after the destruction is not what Matthew says.”
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement.
Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew weren’t about some future “third” temple event because he obviously knew that there is no “third” temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason — because Christ is the Temple.
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city — i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the “end of the world” as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement. Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew weren’t about some future “third” temple event because he obviously knew that there is no “third” temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason — because Christ is the Temple.
My goodness, you sound like a Roman Catholic appealing to a Church Father!
The Temple that is described in Matthew is not the Lord's Body since no abomination of desolation can stand in it!
As for the Temples mentioned in the Bible, the Temple (Herods) was the one that was started when the Jews returned to the Land (Haggi 2:9).
Now, as for a third temple that is the temple rebuilt during the Tribulation and the anti-Christ will sit in claiming he is God (2Thess) and that is what the Lord is referring to in Matthew 24.
There is 4th Temple, in the Millennial reign as well,where Christ will sit and the Son of David (Ezek.40-48)
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city — i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the “end of the world” as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Read what the passage actually say and stop trying to twist the readings into something the do not say.
The Lord points back to Daniel and the abomination of desolation (Dan.12:11) and when that is set up in the Temple, that causes the Temple to become defiled and sacrifices to cease.
Luke is talking about the events of 70AD, Matthew isn't.
They are talking about two different events and that is why they read differently, one making mention of the Abomination of desolation and one not.
One in the past, and one in the future.