"It is...interesting to me that the Lord refers to the Holy Place when speaking of the last days abomination."
BT
Approved replied;
"Not necessarily."
"What else would the prophet call it when he was prophesying it in his day?".....
Firstly you lost me. What else would the "prophet" say? This was the Lord Jesus speaking; God in the body of man, not a prophet.
Secondly it is about what He did not say. He did not say that the anti-Christ would sit at the "Holy of Holies in the Temple", did He?...He said "The Holy Place"...which in my thinking refers to that one and only ancient place where Isaac was offered, David saw Jesus and Solomon built the Temple over it as the Holy of Holies.
Is there a Holy Place today? Yes, but it is not on Earth, nor will it ever be again. The Ark of the Covenant is in Heaven, and that veil of the ancient Temple has been forever torn. Jesus and His sacrifice now possess the Holy of Holies; it is He Himself. Even if the temple were to be rebuilt, the Holy Place would still be a location on Earth, not an actual Spiritual identity.
The holy place, as an Earthly location, the threshing floor of Ornan, now rests under the wicked temple unto Allah on the former temple mount...but for identification purposes, it is called yet the holy place, and that by the Lord Jesus Himself.
Yes, Jesus knows that there is no longer a spiritual temple in Jerusalem that He dwells in....but yet he referred to the Anti-Christ as sitting there, proclaiming himself as God; Jesus called it the Abomination that makes desolate!...and identified the location as "the holy place."
I am laboriously pointing this out maybe, but I do not want it misunderstood again, that's all. It could well be that there NEVER will be a Temple built, but the Muslim anti-Christ could proclaim himself God right there; The Al-Aqsa Mosque: The Dome of the Rock...with his talking statue and fire commanding prophet right beside him.
These are but signs anyway, and "when they come to pass", you will know. Just offering my perspective. There may indeed be another temple built, but I doubt it; the secular Jews seek peace too hard, and know that war would come down on them 100 times more than they have it now. I am pointing out, as I see it, that it is not imperative that the temple be built for the anti-Christ to possess it; the holy place is already in their possession.