Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible.

Hi Paul,I noticed you mixed up Mark 13;1-4. It can get messy when you take things out of context, so let's try not to disturb the time lines. There are two topics to take interest in here

• When these things will happen
• What will be the sign of their completion

My spouse is yellin' at me, so I have to get off the computer, but I'll be back ASAP to finish ------------------
love,
weary"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

Since I went back to Mark 13:2 to EXPLAIN the context of Mark 13:3-4 I don't see how any suggestion that I was mixing up the context can carry any weight.Indeed it is your explanation that ignore the context. How can "these things" mentioned in Mark 13:4 refer to anything other than the events mentioned in Mark 13:2 ? There is no other referent within context.The fact that Jesus made his statement in reply to a statement made by one disciple does not mean that it was not generally made to all the disciples - any more than the initial statement would have been supposed to be for Jesus' ears only.It is the summary you quote that seeks to distort the context by alleging that the statements of Mark 13:1-2 are part of a private conversation (although there is nothing in the verses as I read them to suggest that at all) and using that to deny the reference back to that conversation in Mark 13:4. But that goes against the context as well as against a natural reading of the earlier verses - there is no other referent for "these things" within the context.In short, the summary misrepresents the text.

Paulmeister,
Your missing the point; Jesus talked to Mark in Mark 13:1, otherwise the disciple would be named.
He spoke to Mark about the destruction of the temple a good twenty minutes before he started talking to Peter,James, John, and Andrew privately about the time and signs of the fulfillment.
So why would the destruction of the temple have anything to do with the signs and time of the fulfillment of prophecy?
Why would a conversation Jesus had with one person be a response to a question four other people asked him twenty minutes later?

Verse four takes place twenty minutes after verse two.
Read a little slower------------------

What is this point I am supposed to be missing ?It seems that you are simply ignoring my point and insisting that these are two seperate and unrelated conversations despite the clear indications to the contrary in the text.My post already answers what you said by pointing out that there the statements in Mark 13 1-2 appear to be general statements made to the group and that Mark 13:3-4 refers back to those statements (there is no other referent for "these things"). Ergo your claim that these are two seperate and unrelated conversations is based on assumptions not supported by the text, and opposed to a natural reading of the text.

Maybe not, but either way you look at it, Jesus talked about the destruction of the temple twenty minutes before they asked him (maybe he's a mind reader). ------------------

Ok Paul. Suppose Jesus was trying to tell the disciples they were the generation that would certainly not pass away until all these things had happened; why would he tell them not to be alarmed?------------------

It's a simple literal interpretation based on the context of the characters and the timeline------------------

Eh ? It is perfectly clear that Jesus made his statement concerning the destruction of the Temple in response to the statement made by a disciple given in Mark 13:1 - not in anticipation of the question in Mark 13:3-4. Indeed the question is a request for Jesus to add more details to his prediction of the Temple's destruction. No need for any mind reading at all.The suggestion that they should not be alarmed occurs in the reference to "wars and rumoours of wars" (13:7) - it is not a general statement covering the whole prophecy as you would have it. The intent seems to be that the wars are not the immediate prelude to the end (13:8 "These are the beginning of birth pains").

A simple literal interpretation ? Certainly not - the idea that the conversation in Mark 13:1-2 is unrelated to that in Mark 13:3-4 is based on assuming that the earlier conversation is private (when a simple literal interpretation says otherwise) and in ignoring the clear reference in 13:3-4 back to the statmenets in 13:1-2. No, you do not have a simple literal interpretation - you reject the simple literal interprtation. Want to explain why ?

Hi Itsme,If you are intending to use this as a signature: Could you please edit you final phrase into something a bit more acceptable for a public forum.Many Thanks for you help.AdminBrian.

Sorry AdminBri...didn't mean to be distasteful ------------------

I'm not saying they are not at all related. I am saying Mark 13:2 is not a direct response to Mark 13:4. I am saying that the fortelling of the destruction of the temple was not a direct response to the disciples inquiry of the "signs". Although I'm sure it sparked a keen interest in the disciples to ask for the time and signs. Let's review

• JC and Mark share a conversation in regards to the destruction of the temple(for Paul's sake, let's assume people were ease dropping
• Twenty minutes or so later, JC is asked the when and what question concerning the completion of the prophecies by the other four disciples.

Even if you make an inference towards the two, it seems obvious the "signs" relevant to the disciples have to do with them being flogged for "his names sake". This is a prophecy concerning them, no doubt. This is what they are to be on guard against. That's probably why he told them not be alarmed about the other things. They had little to do with them. Paul, do you know when the temple was destroyed? You have my apologies...in my defense, I was taught to read from left to right....from the top of the page to the bottom. When I read Mark, I don't start reading Mark 13 from verse 3 and 4, then jump to verse 2, and totally disregard verse 1 (you do in message 75). This is a common practice by evos and creets alike, when trying to bolster their misconceptions.------------------

Although I never did use the directive to not be alarmed as a general statement to cover the whole prophecy, I do thank you for an otherwise reiterative post. ------------------

Well of COURSE Mark 13:2 is not a response to Mark 13:4. Mark 13:4 is a request for more information on the statement Jesus made on Mark 13:2.What I want to know is why you feel the need to refute an idea that nobody - apart from you - has even suggested.So lets get some facts straight - first the statements made in 131-2 seem to have been made to the entire group so there is no question of eavesdropping. Second - and this is the point you seem to have great trouble grasping - is that the question in Mark 13:3-4 refers back to the statement made by Jesus in 13:2. Perhaps YOU think the disciples are asking about something Jesus has not even mentioned yet (I guess you think that they are mind-readers) but that cannot be derived from the text.And yes, I do know when the Temple was destroyed - in 70 Ad by the Romans. In fact within a generation of Jesus' death (sometime between 3o and 36 AD).And I was taught to read the text as it appears, not to invent my own fantasies. Like your deluded idea that I am suggesting that Mark 13:3-4 comes before 13:1-2. And no, I didn;t disregard vers 1 I just didn't quote it since it was irrelevant to my point in post 75 which was to explain what the "these things" referred BACK to. There was no reason to quote the statement that Jesus was replying to.