jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
Right but that's a trivial observation the thing being disputed is whether those events are bolted together in such a way that they should play out at approximately the same time.Isn't Jesus' response also given in the context of him being asked two questions?
"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
¹“Tell us, when will these things be? ²And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: ..."
Matt 23 : 3-4
Superscripts added by me for emphasis.
So he isn't bound by responding in reference to one event only.
Jesus remarks that the Great tribulation starts at the abomination of desolation.
Daniel for tells the end of the Great tribulation will be the resurrection of the Dead and since it seems Jesus intends a literal fulfillment of Daniel it seems that Jesus does intend to tie these events together.
Daniel's prophecy has the evil one set up the abomination of desolation rule during a period of Great tribulation that ends with the resurrection of the Dead both Good and evil.
In order to provide a real defeater for the atheists position we need positive reasons to disbelieve his account of what Jesus is doing.
The atheist position has Daniel to back him up.
It seems the atheist is right however that Jesus is predicting the coming of an event that was already foretold in graphic detail by the prophet Daniel
So far the reasons posted here as responses are arguments from the grammar of the olivet text read in isolation.
We (team Jesus )are reading the text as if it is not commenting on anything that is known before.
It seems we have two credible options for defeating his position.
We either need to deny Daniel already laid out the framework for the olivet discourses' subject matter
or
we need to find a reason why Jesus is not specifically talking of the second temple.