fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

I did posit some fulfilled prophesies:The return [re-establishment] of Israel. Here, amazingly, someone disputed that this well known item was prophesized, and I gave its refs in the OT.The other prophesies I posited were:'THAT ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS/RELIGIONS'And, concerning Jerusalem, that it will be 'A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS'.The above are written, declared displays in the OT, and have been already fulfilled. But these are constantly in dispute owing to its occurences being seen as a contradiction/affront to the premises held by other religions. Israel and Jews are always ever controversial issues, and thus not given equal or objective appraisals. Here, there is also a pointed prophesy that, 'THIS NATION [ISRAEL] SHALL STAND ALONE' - declared by a non-Israelite Prophet named Bilham, from the tribe of the Medianites, a nation which is not around anymore.

IaJ, quit dancing and provide the data.Do you even know what Beatification is?Are you really so ignorant that you think someone can Beatify themselves?Since you have been shown to have no credibility on ANYTHING you say, is there any reason anyone should believe anything you say about Christianity? I'm sorry but that is simply a stream of nonsense, not even jabberwocky.Now provide the data.What is Beatification?What is the process for Beatification?List the Popes that have been Beatified.Please show which ones Beatified themselves.IamJoseph, your posts are simply an embarrassment to Christianity.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

The differences between beatification and saintly hood is hardly the issue here. The point is only, that a person who did great evils, is accorded a status of great esteem, whether ritually or otherwise designated. You do not address the point made, and demand technicality in the irrelevent.

The point is you make false assertion after false assertion and when you are called on it you try to change the subject. You have been shown to make up things and then claim they are quotes as well as making absolutely stupid assertions like someone can beatify themselves. in Message 113You simply have NO Credibility on anything.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

What false assertion: I altogether disproved your assertion with regard the Pope making those statements, my description being wholly validated in its reference. You do not deny it, but deflected I used different wordage and that I presented it as a 'quote' rather than a legitimate description vindicated by my link. I showed you, the word 'quote' was not used in my original description - yet you use strong words to accuse me of something which is your error.The link you provided here, is also only my response to you of same, not an example of a false assertion. The Pope did say what my description said: he would not support Jews returning to their homeland because they did not accept jesus hello - what is false, other than your accusing me of 'quote' instead of descriptive reporting of an historical factor?! There is no other issue here for debate, and you have ignored the only relevent factor. You should not have questioned my reporting - the false charge rests with you.

Paul, I have kind of lost your line of reasoning here. And I am not sure you yourself understand what your're saying.But starting from this objection please quote the passages of the gospel which you say I am denying.What in the Gospels are you saying I am denying ?My point was that the teaching that Jesus would be destroyed and rise again in three days was a prophecy made by Jesus. He fulfilled it.You can say "I don't believe Jesus rose." Fine, in that case it is likely that no prophecy can satisfy you as having been fulfilled by Jesus. You simply respond with an argument that He never did thus and such.For my part, I have no doubt that He refered to the temple of His body when He spoke of the destruction of the temple. And His body was resurrected on the third day. In the previous chapter He taught that He was the reality of Bethel the "house of God," applying the vision of Jacob of Bethel in Genesis 28, to Himself.It is not to what extremes I am going to prove fulfilled prophecy. It is to what silly extremes you are going to provide rational not to believe that Jesus never made such a prophesy. Didn't your synoptics tell you that He spoke in parables often to the people?Why do you reject that principle in the case of the temple of His body being raised in three days after they destroyed Him? What makes this teaching unlikely to be a parabolic teaching ?So what in the Gospels exactly am I denying please ? Quote it. And how did I deny it?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And here is the problem. There is this little thing call evidence, which is asked for in the OP. You can say all the biblical prophesies are true, but without some real proof you hardly sound convincing.

It's really quite simple. According to you the Jesus who predicted the destruction of the Temple (the synoptics) and who was thought to be predicting that he would rebuild the Temple in three days (John) is a "Jesus of my own making". Since in fact these points come directly from the Gospels you must deny all four of them.

quote:

---

My point was that the teaching that Jesus would be destroyed and rise again in three days was a prophecy made by Jesus. He fulfilled it.

---

Then you've got to prove that Jesus made the prediction and that it was fulfilled. The particular example you chose was a non-literal interpretation made after the fact with no solid evidence that that was what Jesus meant, which is not good enough even on the first point.

quote:

---

You can say "I don't believe Jesus rose." Fine, in that case it is likely that no prophecy can satisfy you as having been fulfilled by Jesus. You simply respond with an argument that He never did thus and such.

---

And there you concede the point. If there really were good examples of fulfilled prophecy your statement would be clearly false. THe only way it can be true is if there are no good examples.So it's not a case of "you can always doubt, if you really want to". The situation is that doubt is the rational position.

quote:

---

It is not to what extremes I am going to prove fulfilled prophecy. It is to what silly extremes you are going to provide rational not to believe that Jesus never made such a prophesy. Didn't your synoptics tell you that He spoke in parables often to the people?

---

But I'm not going to extremes at all. I'm just not accepting your opinion backed only by inadequate evidence and a very selective use of the Bible. That isn't extreme at all.

quote:

---

Why do you reject that principle in the case of the temple of His body being raised in three days after they destroyed Him? What makes this teaching unlikely to be a parabolic teaching ?

---

The parables are extended stories, clearly metaphorical. Neither applies to this case. The literal reading makes perfect sense, is consistent with the allegedly "false" accusations in Mark (which cannot be false if Jesus really said it !) and the fact that all three synoptics agree that Jesus did predict that the Temple would be destroyed. Why should I assume that it was a parable, and if it was that John's explanation of it is correct ? Rememrb thatr YOU are the one with the burden of proof here

PaulK, There is a difference in the two predictions.1.) For Jesus to predict that the temple will be destroyed refers to the ENEMIES of the Jewish nation and not to the Jews as the destroyers.2.) The challenge that if they (the Jews) destroy the temple (of His body) He would raise it in three days is that, a challenge to His own countrymen.The only thing that the two concepts have in common is that they each involve the destruction of a "temple".In the first case Jesus refers not to God's house, but "your house" The rebuke of " your house " signifies that His Father is not implicated in the purpose of the temple as it is used in Israel's degradation and unbelief. "That's YOUR house there not God's house" is what Jesus is saying in essence.In the second example He clearly refers to His Father's house, meaning its holy standing and consecration to God: This is a challenge to the Jews to destroy "this temple" as a "sign" that Jesus is able to raise it up in three days. The other is a prophecy that others, not the Jews, will come to destroy their temple.It is clever of you to try to associate the two concepts together to try to deny that Jesus taught about the resurrection of the temple of His body. But the discerning reader should be able to see the difference. Denying that that is what Jesus meant, I think, requires more labor than accepting the evangelists testimony. When Jesus was raised from the dead they remembered that He had said this concerning the raising of the temple in three days. And they believed not only the word Jesus spoke in parabolic form, but the believed also the Scriptures from the Old Testament which spoke of the Messiah rising from the dead.Other than pure suspicion of falsehood, I see no reason to dounbt that John knew that Jesus was refering to Himself being destroyed and raised in three days. He was one of the twelve disciples. He was one of the three inner circle disciples apparently trusted particularly above the rest.Furthermore, when Jesus speaks again of His Father's house in chapter 14 He is indicating that the great news is that not only He can be a man filled with the Father, but the disciples also can be. That is after He prepares a place for them by His redemptive death and resurrection: Jesus teaches that He is the abode of the Father. And if it were not possible that the disciple to be abodes of the Father He would have told them so. But He goes away into death and comes again in resurrection to receive His disciples to Himself that they may enjoy the same reality that He enjoys - namely of being abodes of His Father in His Father's house.This interpretation of the disciples being the enlargement of the Father's house is proved by the words of Jesus in verse 23 of the same chapter: The Father's house therefore is initially the being of Jesus which must be destroyed in death. He will raise it in resurrection and then He and His Father will come into His believers to make an abode with them filling out the "many abodes" in the Father's house. I don't follow these two sentences. I don't know if there is a typo or what. But I don't follow you.I concede no point to you here, particularly I concede no such point falsely asserting that Jesus was NOT speaking of His body which would be destroyed and raised in three days. That was a prophecy. His resurrection fulfilled it.When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he mentioned that most of 500 people were still alive who had witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:6) Sure it is. You can set your will to believe. Or you can set your will to disbeleive. It is not only a matter of evidence. It is a matter of what you choose to do. My point with the choosing to doubt was that God will not usurp the freedom of your will to decide one way or the other.In fact after His resurrection some of His discples doubted it: When Jesus tells a parable to the effect that God will punish the rejecting Israel by bringing in destruction upon the "vinekeepers" (See Matt. 21:33-46) the evangelist Matthew helps us to understand what happened -"And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables they perceived that He was speaking concerning them."Do you trust Matthew's comment? Do you trust that Matthew was keen to the intent of the parables of Jesus and the reaction they generated ? This particlar parable surely includes the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple under the hands of Titus in 70 AD.Jesus allows the Pharisees themselves to interpret His parable: If you trust Matthew's commentary but do not trust John's commentary, then it is YOU who are being selective.Matthew comments that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking of their destruction, including thier priesthood and all that was related to temple worship. John comments that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body which He resurrected.You're selective if you trust Matthew's commentary but reject John's.And once again, there is a difference between Jesus predicting that enemies of the Jews would destroy the temple and His challenge to His countrymen that THEY destroy the temple of His body so that He can demonstrate the vindication of His resurrectrion. Do you except the metaphorical teaching in Matthew 21:33-46 as was intended to predict the destruction of the priestly functions ? And that a prediction which came true in the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD under the Roman general Titus?If so then why do you not accept the metaphorical teaching intended to predict that Jesus would vindicate the destruction of His body in a three day resurrection?Excuses based on the metaphorical style of some of Christ's teaching's exposes your selectiveness. Sure it makes perfect sense because you do not believe that God can perform a miracle? Is that the "perfect sense" you are appealing to?I have to include the Person and Power and Plan of God in my reasoning process. And the demonstration of the indistructible nature of the life of the Son of God makes perfect sense to me in this context. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us what Jesus said, how it was taken, and what He meant - "And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking concerning them" (Matt.21:45; compare Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19), and you trust it.John tells us what Jesus said, how it was taken, and what He meant - "But He spoke of the temple of His body" (John 2:21), and you distrust it.Why don't you just be honest about your anti-John bias? Do you think that the parabolic teaching of the vinedresser sending in armies to destroy the vinekeepers was not meant to refer to the temple's destruction with the priesthood and the city of Jerusalem then?You have not only an antt- John bias. You have an anti-miracle bias. With ordinary people it is understandable that one would have an anti-miracle bias, or at least not be quick to assume a miracle has taken place. But with someone like Jesus Christ a miracle is really rather consistent with the power of His words and teaching.His total absoluteness to not saving His own skin but performing the will of His Father does call at least demand that an extraordinary vindication, such as a resurrection from the dead, should be looked into with some seriousness.Any misinterpretation of a metaphor John 2 changes little as far as Christ's prediction of His resurrection is concerned. Thuis is because there are clear words of un-metaphorical nature which prophesy the same matter. Jesus will be destroyed and He will resurrect on the third day. This is important because most of the really crucial truths of the New Testament were not only told to us repeatedly by also in more than one way.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1.) For Jesus to predict that the temple will be destroyed refers to the ENEMIES of the Jewish nation and not to the Jews as the destroyers.

---

Does it ? The Olivet Discourse, while about the predicted destruction of the Temple, never mentions the actual event of the destruction. And therefore it does not indicate who will do it. Indeed - since the destruction is not mentioned - the only sensible reading is to put the destruction at the end of the events. It seems like to me therefore, that Jesus meant that he - or the Son of Man if he meant that to be a seperate entity - would destroy the desecrated Temple.

quote:

---

It is clever of you to try to associate the two concepts together to try to deny that Jesus taught about the resurrection of the temple of His body. But the discerning reader should be able to see the difference.

---

It's not especialy clever at all. It's the obvious reading. The cleverness comes in the reinterpretation offered by John. After all Jesus was just speaking about the Temple. There is nothing in the text to indicate any change of subject. John is saying that we shouldn't take the obvious interpretation - but offers no reason why.

quote:

---

I don't follow these two sentences. I don't know if there is a typo or what. But I don't follow you.

---

Then you can't reads in context. It's realy quite simple. A GOOD example of a fulfilled prophecy wewould not be so easy to deny. YOu could provide better evidence that Jesus said it, instead of choosing a statement that has to be reinterpreted after the fact. You could choose an event that definitely happened rather than one that is itself in doubt.If there really are good examples of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible the fault is yours for choosing such a worthless example.

quote:

---

Sure it is. You can set your will to believe. Or you can set your will to disbeleive. It is not only a matter of evidence. It is a matter of what you choose to do. My point with the choosing to doubt was that God will not usurp the freedom of your will to decide one way or the other.

---

But it isn't a matter of choice. The evidence IS inadequate. This theology of reducing free will to making a lucky guess by the way is just another count against Christianity. One more desperate excuse to try to evade the fact that the evidence isn't good enough.But if you'd rather demean your God than admit to a problem in your religion that's up to you. It's just one more reason why I wouldn't want to join your religion.

quote:

---

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he mentioned that most of 500 people were still alive who had witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:6)

---

An event that never appears in the Gospels or Acts - or at least there is no clear reference to it - and likely refers to some sort of vision. If it happened at all.

quote:

---

Do you trust Matthew's comment? Do you trust that Matthew was keen to the intent of the parables of Jesus and the reaction they generated ? This particlar parable surely includes the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple under the hands of Titus in 70 AD.

---

As a matter of fact I don't trust "Matthew"'s comment. The linking of the Saducees and the Pharisees - two religious factison that were at odds - is certainly questionable. And of course the reaction is convenient for "Matthew"'s purposes.And no, it doesn't speak of the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple. There's nothing in that parable that even hints at it. Rather it says that God will destroy the priests.

quote:

---

Do you except the metaphorical teaching in Matthew 21:33-46 as was intended to predict the destruction of the priestly functions ? And that a prediction which came true in the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD under the Roman general Titus?

---

No, I don't. It says that the priests will be destroyed and replaced. It doesn't indicate that there will be no replacement or that their functions will be abolished. Nor does it indicate that the city will be destroyed. In fact it suggests that the destruction will occur with the coming of the Kindom of God.

quote:

---

Sure it makes perfect sense because you do not believe that God can perform a miracle? Is that the "perfect sense" you are appealing to?

---

Since rebuilding the Temple in three days would be a miracle, that obviously is not the reason ! No, it simply makes sense in context. As I state aboved there's nothing in the immediate text to indicate otherwise, only an interpetation after the fact.

quote:

---

Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us what Jesus said, how it was taken, and what He meant - "And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking concerning them" (Matt.21:45; compare Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19), and you trust it.

---

That's an assumption on your part - and an incorrect assumption - because I DON'T trust it.

quote:

---

Do you think that the parabolic teaching of the vinedresser sending in armies to destroy the vinekeepers was not meant to refer to the temple's destruction with the priesthood and the city of Jerusalem then?

---

There's no mention of armies. At least not in the NASB rendering of Matthew 21:33-46 which I am looking at right now. There's no suggestion of property damage, either. Just the death of the vinegrowers, and their replacement.

quote:

---

You have not only an antt- John bias. You have an anti-miracle bias. With ordinary people it is understandable that one would have an anti-miracle bias, or at least not be quick to assume a miracle has taken place. But with someone like Jesus Christ a miracle is really rather consistent with the power of His words and teaching.

---

As usual your accusation of bias only menas that I don't share YOUR bias. And you're likely just as biased against miracles as I am, except when they fit into YOUR personal beleifs.

quote:

---

Any misinterpretation of a metaphor John 2 changes little as far as Christ's prediction of His resurrection is concerned. Thuis is because there are clear words of un-metaphorical nature which prophesy the same matter. Jesus will be destroyed and He will resurrect on the third day.

---

Which only goes to show what a lousy choice you made. Personally I doubt the lot of them. I don't think that Jesus expected to be killed and resurrected at all. But I'll be generous. If you can prove the resurrection happened I'll give you that one.

It will be interesting to see if jaywill can come up with an example of a clear prophecy of Jesus death and resurrection that was written before the fact.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Firstly, the chapter 24 of Matthew does mention the destruction of the Temple: The stones which Jesus predicts will be thrown down are the stones of the buildings of the temple. Pulling the stones down means the destruction of the temple.Now who do you suppose Jesus is predicting will pull the stones down, the Jews or the enemy of the Jews?It requires a greater "leap of faith" to suppose He was teaching that the Jews would pull down the stones of the temple. Surely, the Jews, who are rejecting Jesus throughout the Gospels, would not change their mind and decide that they should obey Jesus and destroy the temple. Why would they do that?We have to reject any scenario suggesting that when Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" that the Jews decided to call His bluff. So then they pulled down the stones of the temple in obedience to Jesus, just to see if He could really rebuild it in three days.The more sensible interpretation is that the enemies of the Jews would be the ones to pull the stones of the temple down. In fact "guess work" is not needed because Jesus tells us plainly that "your enemies"(meaning His Jewish countrymen) will be the ones to encircle the city and throw down the city: It is the prediction of Jesus that the enemies of the Jews will bring in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Obvious reading? When you say that the destruction of the temple is not mentioned in the Mt. Olivet discourse I can only wonder if you read it at all.Of course you could excuse yourself on the technicality that the destruction of the buildings of the temple is mentioned in verse 2 and the Mt. Olivet Discourse starts in verse 3. well, back up one verse and notice that Jesus clearly mentions the stones of the buildings of the temple being thrown down. That is nonsense. You want to force no spiritual meanings in the gospel of John intended by Jesus. That is your sorry attempt to read John in some "de-mythosized" fashion which you think it the more obvious way to read the Gospel of John.The net effect is that we have to take even a greater "leap of faith" to believe your "de-spiritualized" or "de- mythosized" interpretations. It requires much less mental gymnastics to just trust Christ's disciple that "But He spoke of the temple of His body." (John 2:21)You have no positive word contradicting that that is what Jesus meant. We just have to take a wild leap that your so-called "more sensible" understanding should be trusted over the insight of one of His twelve disciples. There is nothing particularly wrong about my choice. There is no "reinterpreting". When Jesus said "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" at that moment, not latter, He was refering to the temple of His body. The impact of the truthfulness of the promise did not fall upon the disciples in full force until He had actually risen from the dead. On your say so? Nope. Its a good example. Maybe the best example it is.When Jesus does latter speak about the temple destruction, He mentions "your enemies". Are you going to propose that His instructions for the Jews to destroy the temple meant that they should invite their enemies to do it for them?Then again, it says that the enemies would do quite a lot more damage then just throwing down the stones of the temple. He said nothing about the destruction of the children. That was not needed to demonstrate that He could raise the temple in three days, was it? You're faking PaulK. How is turning around and accusing me of deaming God going to help the tissue of irrational thinking concerning the record of the Gospels?I think you'e bluffing and I question that you even read Matthew 24 or the first two or three chapters of John lately.Concerning the 500 hundred minus some contemporaries to Paul who were witnesses to Christ's resurrection you say: Just because an event was not mentioned five times, in each one of the gospels plus the book of Acts, does not mean that it could not have happened.Luke tells us that many had taken up the task to write a narrative of the history of the Gospel. They probably overlapped in some details and some omitted detals which others recorded: It is practical that Luke could not write everything but selected the events that he thought would accomplish his purpose. John says that the world itself could not contain all the books about what Jesus did. So Paul mentioned that 500 hundred brothers witnessed the resurrected Christ, and that most of them were still around to confirm or refute it to the Corinthians is credible. It need be insisted it is not because the event was not mentioned five times from Matthew to Acts. You are really ignorant here. They had a common enemy in Jesus. A common enemy can cause divided people to temporarily unite to counter a common threat. One gospel tells us plainly that they sent two opposing factions of people to question Jesus in the hope to catch Him one way or the other. The temple was the whole physical realm of the service of the priests. Punishing the priests would logically include desecrating or destroying thier sphere of service the temple.Also in the parable, the vinedessors son is cast out of the vineyard and killed. This probably refers to the Son of God being taken outside of the walls of Jerusalem to be crucified - a definitive rebuke for the rejected Messiah.The precise mention of the temple destruction is an arbitrary
requirement on your part. In the next chapter in another parable Jesus continues the them of punishment coming to the religonists who oppessed God's Son. And He says:"And the king became angry and he sent his troops and destryed those murderes amd burned their city" (Matt. 21:7)No explicit mention of the temple is there. But putting all of the passages together it is rather reasonable that in so many different ways Jesus predicted the tearing down of the stones of the temple along with the persecution of the citizens and the buring of the city. Their functions were replaced and given to the new testament believers who believed in Jesus. And from there God sought the fruits of righteousness.The physical temple was destroyed. And the church as the building of God was looked to for the producing of the fruits of righteousness. The believers are a kingdom of priests assigned to bear the fruits which come out of abiding in the resurrected Christ (See John 15).I anticipate that you will respond with accusations against the church or boastings how you do not want to be a part of her. So you don't want the gospel and you don't want to be a constituent of Christ's church. But that doesn't excuse your twistings of the teachings to pretend that they mean something else. It makes more sense that Jesus was predicting that what He came for would be carried out with thier help. They would kill Him and He would rise on the third day to demonstrate that the Father would totally vindicate His indestructible and eternal life.It is far less likely that Jesus simply wanted to show He was powerful for its own sake by re-building a temple in three days.
He said concerning Himself that something was now there among them that was geater than the temple: Therefore Jesus is changing the focus of the nation to Himself.
His teaching is not that the temple is indestructible but that He as the Son of God is indestructible. He is eternal life.Do you think that the parabolic teaching of the vinedresser sending in armies to destroy the vinekeepers was not meant to refer to the temple's destruction with the priesthood and the city of Jerusalem then? True. Look at the next chatper where Jesus continues His rebuke of the opposing religionists - "And the king became angry and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderes and burned their city" (22:7)Reading the two chapters together will help. In more ways then one Jesus predicts that discipline is coming to Jerusalem and her religous opposers because they reject the Messiah - the Son of God. And I already quoted a number of passages where Jesus specifically told the disciples that in Jerusalem He would suffer, be killed, and be raised on the third day. Not only Jesus expected to be killed and resurrected, even John the Baptist at least expected Him to be killed. He called Him the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. Both were from God, Jesus and His forerunner. The Lamb of God was a clear referenence to the slain lamb of the passover whose blood saved the people from the judgment of God (See Exodus 12:3-4)John may not have known how it was going to all happen. But he apparently knew that Jesus would be a sacrifice as the atoning paschal lamb was.It is also clearly evident that He attached His death to the establishing of the new covenant promised by God in the Old Testament. On the night He was turned over to torture and death He established the Table Meeting of His disciples including these words: He was refering to the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31.
And in Luke's recording of the meeting Jesus specifically refers to His act of death as the "new covenant": So Jesus was expecting to have to die in order to establish the new covenant for which He came. And He expected to be raised from the dead to be the Executor of that New Covenant.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think so. When you cannot acknowledge OPEN prophesies vindicated - how would a shrouded one convince!

quote:

---

Now who do you suppose Jesus is predicting will pull the stones down, the Jews or the enemy of the Jews?

---

As I already explained, my best guess is "The Son of Man" referred to in the Discourse. Since the destruction itself is not described or even mentioned in the list of events the best interpretation is that it comes after all the described events.And since Jesus is supposed to have referred to himself as "the son of man", it's not stretching far to suppose that Jesus meant himself. Just as the supposedly "false" accusations referred to in Mark said.

quote:

---

The more sensible interpretation is that the enemies of the Jews would be the ones to pull the stones of the temple down. In fact "guess work" is not needed because Jesus tells us plainly that "your enemies"(meaning His Jewish countrymen) will be the ones to encircle the city and throw down the city:

---

The Olivet Discourse - as per Matthew and Mark - doesn't mention any such thing. Luke rewrote the Olivet Discourse (or used a rewritten version from elsewhere), so trusting Luke on this point (it doesn't seem to appear in the other synoptics) is questionable. Quite likely Luke wrote based on his knowledge of the actual events of the fall of Jerusalem.

quote:

---

Obvious reading? When you say that the destruction of the temple is not mentioned in the Mt. Olivet discourse I can only wonder if you read it at all.

---

The Olivet Discourse is ABOUT the destruction of the Temple, as I said. However the list of events in the Discourse proper does NOT include the destruction. You must either be misreading the Bible or misreading my posts because I've made that quite clear.In Matthew 24 the destruction is mentioned in verses 1-2. The disciples ask Jesus to explain WHEN the Temple will be destroyed (verse 3). The Discourse proper starts when Jesus answers that question and occupies verses 4-51. The destruction of the Temple os NOT mentioned in those verses. Go on read it, and you'll see that I am right.

quote:

---

There is nothing particularly wrong about my choice. There is no "reinterpreting". When Jesus said "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" at that moment, not latter, He was refering to the temple of His body. The impact of the truthfulness of the promise did not fall upon the disciples in full force until He had actually risen from the dead.

---

You're contradicting yourself. Of course there is a reinterpretation, as you clearly admit.
The literal reading IS obvious, which is why John needed to add his after-the-fact reinterpretation explicitly.

quote:

---

On your say so? Nope. Its a good example. Maybe the best example it is.

---

You can't show that Jesus said it. You have to rely on an after-the-fact reinterpretation (and you can't even be honest about that !). And you can't show that the allegedly predicted event even happened. That's a lousy example by any standard.

quote:

---

I think you'e bluffing and I question that you even read Matthew 24 or the first two or three chapters of John lately.

---

Then you're going to have to explain how I knew that the Olivet Discourse rwas about the destruction of the Temple when you were busy denying it. And how I knew that the destruction is not given in the list of events in the Discourse proper when you apparently didn't.And you're going to explain why I had to correct you on Matthew 21:33-46. Didn't you read it before talking about it ? [quote] Just because an event was not mentioned five times, in each one of the gospels plus the book of Acts, does not mean that it could not have happened.
[.quote]I didn't argue that it wasn't mentioned five times. I argued that it wasn't mentioned EVEN ONCE in ANY of those books.

quote:

---

You are really ignorant here. They had a common enemy in Jesus. A common enemy can cause divided people to temporarily unite to counter a common threat. One gospel tells us plainly that they sent two opposing factions of people to question Jesus in the hope to catch Him one way or the other.

---

I'm hardly ignorant since I'm aware of the problem. And if your only source is the Gospels then I'd say that you don't have much of a case. Just a circular argument.

quote:

---

The temple was the whole physical realm of the service of the priests. Punishing the priests would logically include desecrating or destroying thier sphere of service the temple.

---

Of course it is possible to kill the priests without destroying the Temple. And it's possible to reconsecrate the Temple after it has been desecrated without destroying it either.

quote:

---

The precise mention of the temple destruction is an arbitrary
requirement on your part. In the next chapter in another parable Jesus continues the them of punishment coming to the religonists who oppessed God's Son

---

So telling the truth is now an "arbitrary requirement". You're allowed to add whatever you like to the test of the Bible and woe betide anyone who points out the fact that it isn't there !

quote:

---

No explicit mention of the temple is there. But putting all of the passages together it is rather reasonable that in so many different ways Jesus predicted the tearing down of the stones of the temple along with the persecution of the citizens and the buring of the city

---

There's no special reference to the priests either. And isn't it interesting that you object to a literal reading of a statement that is NOT part of a parable while insisting on literally reading a statement IN a parable. Of course in the parable you now quote (Matthew 22:1-14) the King is God, So if the armies were literal they would be God's armies, not those of pagan Rome.

quote:

---

The physical temple was destroyed. And the church as the building of God was looked to for the producing of the fruits of righteousness. The believers are a kingdom of priests assigned to bear the fruits which come out of abiding in the resurrected Christ (See John 15).

---

According to Christian doctrine. However, you don't deal with the fact that the replacement is linked to the coming of the Kingdom of God.

quote:

---

Not only Jesus expected to be killed and resurrected, even John the Baptist at least expected Him to be killed. He called Him the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.

---

As if we could trust the Gosepl of John of all the Gospels not to put Johannine theology into the mouth of John the Baptist !

quote:

---

It is also clearly evident that He attached His death to the establishing of the new covenant promised by God in the Old Testament. On the night He was turned over to torture and death He established the Table Meeting of His disciples including these words:

---

Again I can't trust any such saying. The Gospels were written decades after the fact with plenty of time for reinvention. And that is what I believe happened.And let us note that you don't even attempt the essential task of proving that Jesus really as resurrected. That's the most important issue in the post. Much more important than trying to pretend that I fail to understand the Bible while trying to excuse your own misrepresentations.Well, I'll be away for a week so any further responses will be delayed. I suggest you take the time to think about it and to try to deal honestly with the issues.

To my question of who it was that Jesus was indicating would pull down the stones of the temple buildings PaulK writes: I don't know why he answers this way. The passage I am asking about reads:But He answered and said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall by no means be left here a stone upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down. (Matt. 24:2)The Son of Man is not mentioned until verse 27. It might help Paul to read the chapter again. The destruction of the temple is mentioned in the passage I just quoted - Matthew 24:1,2 The stones that Jesus predicts will be theown down are the stones of "the buildings of the temple" which the disciples were trying to impress thier Master with - "His disciples came to show Him the buildings of the temple."Rather than be impressed with their beauty, Jesus predicts that all the stones will be thrown down in verse 2. The word "But" means implies in contrast to. Jesus is emphasizing the coming destruction of the temple over the beauty of the temple.Maybe Paul doesn't want to see it so perhaps he doesn't look at that part of the chapter. He seems to prefer to jump over to verse 27 and say something about "the Son of Man".Does PaulK mean the Son of Man is the one who is going to pull down the stones of the temple? This would contradict his theory that He was telling the Jews to do it. Not definitely taking a stand is the easiest position to defend. That is why it appears that PaulK is not clearly commiting to any definite interpretation. He can dodge the issue for ever talking about what is not stretching and so forth.He doesn't want to commit himself. I will commit myself that as John said Jesus was refering to the destruction of His own body in John chapter 2. And in Matthew 24 He is refering to the enemies of the Jews coming to destroy the temple.PaulK's reference to "the Son of Man" doesn't help his half commited theories. That is because the Son of Man gathering the nation of Israel in verse 31 refers to Messiah coming to save and vindicate Israel rather than punish her. This appears to be Christ's promise that He is the one who fulfills these promises to Israel in the Old Testament:(Deut. 30:3-5; Isa. 43:5-7, 49:9-13, 22-26, 51:11; 56:8; 60:4; 62:10-12; 27:13; Ezek. 34:13; 37:21; 28:25)The pulling down of the stones of the Jewish Temple is attributed to national enemies of Israel. At that time it would have been the Roman Empire. In the parable in chapter 22 "his troops" must refer to the worldly armies that God will indirectly employ to discipline Israel for their rejection of Christ: The throwing down of people and the city is attributed to the enemies of Israel ... "your enemies" who "will not leave a stone upon a stone in you ..." (Luke 19:43,44)The overwhelming weight of evidence is that those imperial powers who are antagonistic to Israel will destroy the city and the temple stones. False. Back up to the sentence immediately before the words in Matt. 24:3 - And as He sat on the Mount of Olives. In the immediately previous verse we read "There shall not be left here a stone upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down." That's probably another discussion. But it doesn't help your unexplanable inability to notice that the stones of the buildings of the temple would be thrown down in Matt. 24:2. I lost track of where you said it. I thought you were saying that the Discourse doesn't mention it. So PauK now hopes by limiting his discussion to whatever his bible states is the "proper" Mt. of Olivet Discourse, he can exclude the destruction of the temple reference.Won't work PaulK. Why? Because from the sentence when Jesus is said to have sat on the Mt. of Olives the disciples are asking Him precisely about the things which Jesus has JUST PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.Let's look at the two passages together: What does PaulK suppose "THESE THINGS" refers to?
I say they definitely include the destruction of the Temple - with her stones being thrown down (v.2). It is possible. I am reading your posts quite carefully though. Then you are suggesting that Jesus is not answering the QUESTION to which His disciples put Him. I don't accept that.I would rather argue that "When" involves a longer period of time then we might expect. Many of the things which occur in His answer have been occured down through the centries. And He did imply that certain suffering were "only the beginning of birth pangs" (24:8). The implication to me is that Jewish disciples should be in it for the long haul. The "when" may be an extended time.One of the things which will occur in that extended time of when is the destruction of the temple. I believe that from verse 4 Jesus is addressing and elaborating on the question of "WHEN WOULD THESE THINGS BE", which of course included the throwing down of the stones of the temple. I am seeking to retain a polite attitude with Paul today. However, he will have to point out his so called contradiction.It is an obvious FACT that many of the things Jesus taught did not have thier total IMPACT on the disciples UNTIL after He had been tortured, killed, and raised from the dead. Then they REMEMBERED that He had said this or that, and they ALL agreed "NOW we know what He meant."Look, John said He was refering to His body. In the previous chapter He refered to Himself as Bethel the house of God. If this went over the peoples heads at that time it doesn't change that fact that this is what His teachings meant in chapters 2 and 3.I will be the first to admit that one needs a revelation from God to fully comprehend the words and ministry of Jesus.PaulK on the other hand, I think, is laboring under the assumption that a DIVINE book is impossible or unlikely. So he wants to read John DE-DIVINIZING everything he can, especially the helpfull comments of His faithful apostle.So we end up doing more mental gymnastics trying to make PaulK's De-Mythosized verson make sense. I take correction when correction is due PaulK.The parable of 21:33-46 and the parable of 22:1-14 are both talking of God's reaction to the rejection of the Jewish nation of the Son of God. Though no temple is mentioned per se in 21:33-46 the discipline upon the priests is mentioned. In the parable of 22:1-14 the destruction of the city is mentioned.The two parables are confirmed with Christ's words in chapter 24 about the stones of the temple buildings being thrown down. It is the same subject matter PaulK. That is WHAT will be the consequences of the nation of Israel and her priests rejectig the Son of God and His gospel message? It was mentioned in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. And the recipients were informed that most of these people were still alive at the moment Paul was claiming this fact. I bet that many of the Corinthians took it upon themselves to find out.The 500 witnesses may have been mentioned indirectly in Acts where Luke says that Jesus presented Himself with "many irrefutable proofs" over a period of 40 days.You're a good one for suggesting this or that was a possiblity. So why not agree with me now that this was a possibility? There is more involved then just considering objectively evidence.A recognition that Jesus rose from the dead is a recognition that Jesus is Lord. Some people do not want to recognize that Jesus is Lord. It would be inconvenient.Some of the Jews circulated a story that His disciples stole His body in the night. Everybody has a vested interest in what they want or do not want to believe about Jesus Christ. What is your single strongest reason for believing that Jesus was not speaking of Himself when He said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" and was refering to Himself?I am no longer interested in your backup reasons, your auxillary reasons, or your secondary reasons. Tell me what is your single strongest argument against Jesus refering to Himself in John 2:20,21.What is your strongest argument to the accuracy of John's comment? In cutting and pasting I may lose track of what is being refered to. So I will refrain from addressing the first sentence about no reference to priests. I am not sure what you are refering to.However, the opposing priests are the brunt of these parables about God's reaction to their rejection of Him sending His Son.The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner (Matt. 23:42). This the explanatory word Jesus gives to His parable in 21:33-40.The Jewish leaders, including some of the priests are implicated in the parable. They are jealous of the Messiah because of wanting to maintain their false position. The vinedressors in the parable and the builders are one. And the priests certainly are intended. But opposing scribes and lawyers also would be included. In short all who would be considered leaders in Israel or builders of the kingdom that God had with Israel. Verse 45 confirms as this time Matthew helps us to understand: Now "his armies" does refer to God's armies. But in this case they are world armies that God is employing to do a disciplinary work over Israel. This was commonly parelled in the Old Testament with Assyria and Babylon.If it sounds harsh it is meant to sound harsh. I am willing to deal with anything important here. This objection is to sparse for me to know what you mean. You think Paulk's theology or lack thereof is more accurate?
Why should I trust you to be a better interpreter of the teaching of Jesus and John the Baptist? That is also leading into another discussion.The disciples were very deligent to look out that the gospel was NOT tamplered with and mixed with false ideas. We see this in Acts. We see this in each of the letters of Paul, and Peter, John, and Jude. They were watchful for possible corruptions.It surpises me that some skeptic thing that they ALONE would be concerned that the original message of Jesus would be preserved. They trust that NO ONE ELSE of course could have done the job of keeping Jesus' message pure.These are excuses to not accept the Gospel. Whenever I hear this kind of talk:"Well of course I would be the first one to accept EVERYTHING Jesus taught without any problems. But you see those disciples and apostles they messed it all up. So I can't accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc ... It has all been through so many variations from when Jesus originally taught these things.I mean Jesus really probably didn't say - I am the way the truth and the life,. No one comes to the Father except through me.'What Jesus really probably said was "Hey Peter, pass me a piece of fish." I have been pretty busy just getting you to see that your distrust of John's explanation of the meaning of his Master's words can be relied upon.Besides. Proving the resurrection is any mathematical certainty kind of sense is not likely to happen here. It always has been a matter of receiving the living Jesus into one's heart and knowing that He is alive and knowable, hence He must have resurrected.Plus historically, the miracle of the resurrection is based on solid evidence. It is noted that you don't want to acknowledge even that it was a prophesy out of His own mouth that He would rise from the dead.This seems to me to be having three or four sceen doors on your house before you even get to the main door. All of them firmly locked just in case. And I suggest to you that you don't adopt a knee jerk reaction to Christians so that whatever they say about a passage you hunt for an alternative meaning. PaulK says "No, He did not speak of the temple of His body."You can put your trust in PaulK's skepticism or one of the twelve disciples' honest and faithful recollection of his Master's words and deeds. I stake my belief on what the Apostle John wrote.PaulK's warped alternative analysis is not to be trusted by this reader of the Gospel.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.