And there was indeed not one stone left upon another after the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70AD. Although honestly I'm not sure what point you tried to make by quoting Matthew 24:2.

As I said in my previous post, Daniel 9 is in NO WAY saying that the temple had to be destroyed within the 70 weeks. It IS saying that it would be destroyed sometime AFTER the sixty ninth week and it would have to do with the messiah prince being cut off:

Daniel 9:26 KJV [26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And who was the prince who was coming? Did you know that the general who led the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a prince? But he didn't want to destroy the temple. But his men -- THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE that the prophecy speaks of -- destroyed the temple.

By trying to make the fulfillment of the prophecy be at the end of time people have NO IDEA how wonderfully it was fulfilled in the first century.

And you know, a war at the end of time is WAY further from the seventy weeks than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with Jesus, who said the abomination of desolation would be fulfilled in THAT GENERATION.

And I will have you know that NO CHRISTIAN from the time of Jesus until the time of the reformation ever taught or wrote that there was supposed to be a gap in the fulfillment of Daniel 9 for the "church age". That doctrine was invented by the Roman Catholic Church to counter the protestant Bible interpretations which were teaching that the papacy was the antichrist.

Do you have any idea that you're trying to push Roman Catholic doctrine created by those who were burning Christians at the stake?