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.
“My goodness, you sound like a Roman Catholic appealing to a Church Father!”
I’m sure you must know who Martin Luther was, but that remark doesn’t sound like you do.
“The Temple that is described in Matthew is not the Lord’s Body since no abomination of desolation can stand in it!”
That’s obvious. It was the temple that was still standing, not a “future third temple” mentioned only in the sensationalized, yet nonbiblical books written by the likes of people such as LaHaye and Lindsey.
Again, the physical temple was destroyed because Christ is the Temple.
place, any portion or space marked off, as it were from surrounding space
an inhabited place, as a city, village, district a place
(passage) in a book metaph.
the condition or station held by one in any company or
assembly opportunity, power, occasion for acting
In fact, truth be told, there's an abomination set up there now, and a third temple will just be another.
Somebody claiming to be a Christian and the head of Christianity on earth is another. Lots of examples past, present and future
“Luke is talking about the events of 70AD, Matthew isn’t.”
Luke 21:32: “I tell you the truth, THIS generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Matthew 24:34: “I tell you the truth, THIS generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
Jesus said “this” generation in Luke when He was speaking about what was going to happen in 70 AD, which makes perfect sense.
So in Matthew why did Jesus not say “that” generation will not pass away if He was speaking about what was going to happen 2,000 years later? Why did He still say “this”?
What’s more, how did His disciples take “this” to mean “this” in one sentence and “this” to mean “that” in another?
I believe you know the answer to those questions.