fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

Then again you may not have had an experience consistent with what Jesus taught. You see the resurrection is far from just an objective fact of history. We believers were regenerated through the resurrection. He promised to manifest Himself
to His discples after His resurrection in this manner: I admit that this miraculous manifesting of Himself to His believers yet not to the world gives me a justified bias. It is God's good pleasure to manifest the risen Son within those who obey the gospel. So you mean the gospels are biased against the enemies of Jesus but not against all the Jews. Okay.Would a sign of unbiased recording be that the enemies of Jesus believed in Him and did not oppose His words and deeds?What would unbiased treatment of the enemies of Jesus look like? Certain dramatic occurences in life are remembered with accuracy. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when President Kennedy was shot. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when 9/11 happened.The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was not some humdrum affair that faded in the memories of otherwise preoocupied people. Those on whom it had cataclysmic impact remembered the specifics surrounding this event.Aside from this, I give place to Christ's prediction that the Holy Spirit would bring to mind to the disciples the things which He had said: You see this whole matter is well thought out by God. It was all accoding to the outworking of His eternal purposes. We don't count these events as a lot of miscellaneous and unrelated and perculiar tricks done by an otherwise bored God for the amusement of people. The life, death, resurrection of Christ plus the record of it, the record of His teaching, and the spreading of the gospel are cared for by a God of purpose.One of the differences in your way of reasoning and mine is that I include in my reasoning process the power and personality of God. I make room for that. I think you make your initial assumptions - without taking God into account. You develop your reasons - without taking God into account. And finally you come to your conclusions - without taking God into account.I include God in my reasonings about how these things came about. To predict the destruction of the temple is one matter. To say that in three days He would raise it up is another. By refering to what Jesus may have taught about the Jerusalem temple's destruction only gets you half there.Though there is the strong implication of a rebuilt temple in the end times there is nothing about it being rebuilt in three days. The specific mention of three days not only in John but in the synoptics as well I think always refers to Christ rising from the dead.I think you have to work hard at misunderstanding that. How many evangelists have to say so before it becomes likely to you that He said it? Do you insist TWO have to mention it? Do you insist THREE have to mention it? Or is it FOUR?Do you have a rule that things mentioned in only one of the gospels are more unlikely to not have been true? Maybe I don't follow you here. The mentioning of Him rising in three days in not only in John.I really don't know what your beef is anymore. Maybe your saying:"Yes Jesus mentioned in the synoptics that He would rise in three days. But John hijacked the three day reference and wrongly (deceptively or otherwise) applied it to the rebuilding of a destroyed temple."I don't call that unbiased. I call that laboring extra hard to find an excuse to charge the gospel writers with deception. It is possible that not being able to refer back and forth to these posts is making it hard for me to follow your thought.I don't think there is anything significantly in favor of any anti-resurrection argument of yours because I believe that what Jesus said was recorded in John's gospel. What the false witnesses twisted and charged Him with is found in Mark's.How that makes your case any stonger is lost to me. Well, here's where I think we are:Jesus alluded to His death and resurrection in His teaching that if they destroyed the temple (referring to His body) He would raise it again in three days.Now you can say. "I don't believe He rose." But I think I don't see you saying that. I think I see you saying that He never made those statements and He never prophesied that way.Is that the position you're taking? Or are you really not taking a position? Of course no position is the easiest to defend.I think you are saying that Jesus never said what John records in the second chapter of John: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."Is John then trying to deceive us or what? Reasoning without taking into account the power of God, the personality of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God - yes, agree, the resurrection is unlikely.My reasoning includes the factor of God and what He can do and what He may desire to do. Then it not only fits. It is very consistent in style to other things which the Bible says God did. If He wanted to demonstrate that He is of a indistructible righteous life, what better way that to rise from the dead after a brutal attempt to destroy Him? We have more reason to believe that the writing were attributed to those men then we have for Homer having written the his Illiad, Thucydides having written his histories, Tacitus having written his annuls, Caesar having written what he wrote.There are 643 ancient copies of the writings of Homer. His actual writing took place in the 9th Century B.C. Compare that with 5,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, the writing of which occured from around 50 -100 A.D.So we have much greater reason to believe that the New Testament is an accurate representation of what the apostles wrote than the next most widely revered and memorized ancient writings of Homer.There is no other ancient book which comes in at a close second on either the number or early dating of copies. The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books. The New Testament has a fragment copy within one generation of the original writing. It has whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autographs. Most of the New Testament can be found in MSS less than 200 years of the original writings. And the entire NT can be found in a copy within 250 years of the autographs. 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 didn't have time yet to go over all your comments Paul. However let's talk about some of the many copyists' errors which are admitted by textural critics to have occured in the transmission of the New Testament.There are thousands of them. Scholars acknowledge that. I acknowledge that.Now could you point out to me which cases of copyists' corruptions renders doubtful one the following tenets of our Christian faith.1.) The Jesus was the Son of God
2.) That He lived a righteous life and performed miracles.
3.) That He died a redemptive death for the sins of mankind.
4.) That He was resurrected on third day.
5.) That He became the indwelling life giving Spirit imparting the Holy Spirit into His believers.
6.) That He will come again physically.
7.) That He has an eternal kingdomGive me examples of copyist's errors which seriously effect one of these teachings.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think that the disciple John was said to have been known to the high priest and was there. See John 18:15.Secondly, the gospel writers could have gotten information from persons who WERE there and latter became disciples. Many of the Pharisees latter believed and became disciples as the book of Acts says.They could have filled in for the evangelist and historian Luke what happened at the trial.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think this is only attributable to a Jesus of your own making.If for three and one half years He had taught about the temple then maybe you'd have a case. He spoke of His Father and Himself. He pointed to Himself.And He said that something "greater than the temple" was here. That something greater was Himself as the Son of God.Yours is the case which collapses.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay, you don't trust the temple prophesy. I gave you about four other instances where He said He must suffer and be raised on third day.So like a mouse on a spinning wheel, you've made zero actual movement forward. You still have Jesus prophesying that He would die and be raised on the third day.Of course I expect equally weak conspiracy theories about each of the other passages that I quoted to 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.

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.

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.

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.

The specific prophesy of Jesus in chapter 24 is that of the stones that the disciples with Him could "see," there would not be one left standing. I deem it possible therefore, that portions of the temple which at that moment they were not able to "see," some may have been left standing. That is one possible explanation.The words concerning Jerusalem's destruction occured within 40 years of the speaking of Jesus. This destruction occured in 70 A.D. And Josephus the Jewish historian wrote that the site looked like it had never been inhabited.This is a portion of some of the information I am seeing:"Jewish Wars, in revolt against Rome, began in A.D. 66. Titus with his Roman Army arrived before the walls of Jerusalem on the day of Passover, A.D. 70. Banks and earthwork were built, battering rams were placed, and the seige began.

​

The Roman Army numbered 30,000; the Jewish Army, 24,000. The city was crowded with 600,000 visitors, according to Tacitus. After 5 months the walls were battered down, the Temple burned, and the city left ruined and desolate, except for Herod's three great towers at the northwest corner, which were left standing as a memorial of the massive strength of the fortification which Titus had demolished.

​

The Roman Army moved down to Caesarea. Over 1,000,000 Jews were killed. 95,000 captives were taken, among them Josephus. Eusebius says that Christians, on the appearance of the Roman Army, through Porphetic warning, fled to Pella.

​

For the 50 years following, Jerusalem disappeared from history. In A.D. 135, Barcocheba, a pretended Messiah, led a revolt, got possession of the city, and attempted to rebuild the Temple. The revolt was suppressed by the Roman Army. 580,000 Jews were killed, and Judah was desolated. Jews were forbidden to reenter Jerusalem, on pain of death. A temple of Jupitar was erected where the Temple of God had stood." This From Halley's Bible Handbook published by Zondervan.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.

Before I respond please point out to me specifically what Solomon said which forms the basis of your opinion.You know that the temple was destroyed more than once, I am sure. Anyway, show me the specific utterance of Solomon that you are refering to. I see no such "lusting" of the Son of God for genocide. I see this no more than a lusting on the part of Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, or Isaiah or any other of the minor prophets.In fact it says twice in the New Testament that Jesus wept. A stronge word for weeping is used in Luke 19:41 - "And as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, Saying, If only you knew in this day, even you, the things that are for your peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes."This is a stronge Greek word showing Jesus crying over the coming judgment of Jerusalem. I see no lusting after the punishment of His countrymen.And the Apostle Paul wrote that he was willing to be "accursed" and cut off from Christ for the sake of his Jewish brethren (Romans 9:3) The writer of 13 or so of the New Testament books desired to be cut off from Christ as a curse for the sake of his Jewish brethren. There is no lusting for thier punishment here. There is no denying that there is anti-Jewishness in the history of the Christian church. But let's go back to the New Testament to see the attitude of Christ and the apostles. I would be a fool to try to deny that what I would call "Christiandom" has had terrible times of persecuting Jews. How many of those were really Christians will be sorted out at the judgment seat of Christ. And those Christians who did so should remember Peter's warning that "judgement begins at the house of God".No one is getting away with anything. No Christians gets away with remaining the same kind of person forever. No Christian gets away with saving his soul life or retaining his fallen nature out of which such prejudice would come. I don't know about that. There were also lots of sacrifical acts and heroism on the part of first century disciples of Jesus which were not reported in the New Testament either. In another discussion we can talk about the New Testament's prophesies concerning the degradation of the Christian church, her predicted apostasy, and her recovery.In Revelation chapters two and three Jesus has some very heavy words concerning His own church.For example:Left their first love,
Dead,
Dwelling where Satan's throne is,
Lukewarm,
Spiritually Naked and Blind, and in need of eyesalve,
Married to the world instead of married to Christ,
Having the deep teachings of Satan,In every instance He calls for those who have an ear to "overcome" the surrounding degradation.And of course the vision of the Harlot, Babylon the Great in the book of Revelation is related to the apostate historic Christianity.The Bible is pretty balanced in exposing religious hypocrisy where ever it needs to be exposed. But God always also has a way that his people can overcome and rescued from degradation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I consider myself a friend of Israel. You probably have a point that for me to quote someone that for the next 50 years Jeusalem disappeared from history is not true. I'll give you that point. I really don't know that that is true. I do not know that much about the history of Jerusalem from the 2nd century onward.God knows how often in our prayer meetings we pray for Israel and her prosperity.But this does not change the fact that many of us are convinced that she missed the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. But her misstep has become our salvation under God's sovereignty.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There is no "pink fit" here Joseph. I think the emotions are showing strong from your side though.I know that in the Babylonian captivity the house of God was torn down. I know that in Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah there is the return of a remnant from captivity and the rebuilding of the city, and I beleive the temple. This was not the end of the history of the temple though.These important developments do not nullify or render trivial that Jesus spoke of the destruction of the buildings of the temple in Matthew. I didn't place the text there at a whim. It is in the Greek New Testament.Incidently, that is not the only thing Jesus prophesied about Israel as if He had only negative things to say. There is quite a bit He predicted which is glorious in nature. The fact that prophets of old spoke similiar things both negative and positive, does not nullify that the Messiah spoke such things. You can rest your case all you want. You cannot "rest away" the following: And on a pink whim of yours we are not going to say "Jesus never said that" or "this has nothing to do with the Gospel".In fact verse 37 is of particular interest to us because it indicates that Jesus is that Jehovah God of the Old Testament come as a man: It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young [b](Isaiah 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Therefore when the Lord Jesus Christ said, "I desired to gather your children together, the wat a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself.In verse 38 Jesus refers to "house" singular, not "houses". So the best interpretation is that this must denote the house of God which was the temple (Matt.21:12-13). The "house" mentioned in 23:38 must mean the temple. It had been the house of God, but now it was called "your house" because the Jews had made it a den of robbers (21:13)Many of us believe that the fulfillment of the prediction of the desolated temple which Jesus refered to as "your house" occured when Titus and the ROman army destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.This does not mean that there were not heroic acts performed by Jews during that destruction or afterwards. The discipline of God upon Israel in the past did not mean that some ones like Daniel and his companions would not rise to be heroes of faith.I think part of your reaction, Joseph, is emotionally motivated. Perhaps you are a Jew and you think all Christians want to do is make Jews look bad. I told you that I consider myself a friend of Israel. And I think Jesus cared more about that temple than you or I ever will.Latter I will give samples of the Apostle Paul's warning to Gentile Christians not to be proud or highminded against the Jews. I want to spend more time to consider how to address this objection. However, if Jesus was that much different from Jeremiah, in terms of convicting people, why did some of the people think that Jesus was Jeremiah: When some of the Jews heard Jesus preaching they thought it was Jeremiah coming back to them and preaching again. Others thought is was Elijah and still others, John the Baptist.This indicates that there was something in the messages of Jesus which reminded them mightily of the book of Jeremiah. Of course both Jeremiah and Jesus the Son of God were of God. Hold on here. Who said I was defending Europe or European Christianity or the Vatican? I have been discussing the New Testament and prophecy fulfillment.Nothing I have written here is meant to excuse real instances of historic Christianity's begotry towards the Jews. I am studying here the Bible for the most part. Now Paul is part of the New Testament. So what Paul wrote is relevant to the subject.Okay, I did refer to the writings of Josephus a little. But for the most part I am discussing the Bible's content. I am not here to justify the Vatican or European geo-political attitudes over the last 2,000 some years. I am not interested in the "saving" of Christianity in the sense you probably suspect. I am interested in Jesus Christ as a living Person, resurrected, become the life giving Spirit and can be known today. He is the Messiah and He fulfilled many prophesies as well as spoke some which have or will be fulfilled.Christianity is like Israel, she too degraded and became deformed towards God. Just as there was a Babylonian Captivity there was a "Babylonian Captivity" of the Christain church which took her far away from the reality of Christ for centries.Both Israel and the Christian church have had their problems of apostasy. They are both vulnerable to the failings of human nature. Basically man is simply not for God. This is man's biggest problem. Man is not for God. Man is always for something else besides God and His pure will.At the same time, both with the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saint God preserves for Himself a remnant who will overcome the surrounding degradation. This is really another full subject for discussion. Okay. That is very interesting. And I do not say that there is no truth to that.However, I'm just saying that Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the house of God, the temple in Jerusalem in the Gospel of Matthew. I believe that His prophesy came true. That is all I am really concerned with here. I have no comment about this Joseph. I agree that wayward religionists are not getting away with anything. It is to Christ Himself that all Christians must give an account to one day.When I write or talk to people my Gospel warns me that I will one day have to give an account for every careless word that I uttered.
I expect to stand before Christ and be asked to give an account of my behavior as a Christian.For Jesus taught us the disciples: Speaking to Christian disciples, the Apostle Paul wrote: And the Apostle Peter also warns us that God begins His examination with those who should know better first. 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 showed you that Jesus wepted over His prediction of the misfotune of Jerusalem. It doesn't say He gloated. It says that He wept.Why did Jesus weep if He was lusting after Israel's chastizement?Have you read the book of Zechariah ? It is very interesting. There God says that He is angry with the nations that he brought against Israel. It says that He was only a little angry with His people and the nations furthered the disaster.Now this is a repeated theme in the Old Testament. God has His way to discipline. That does not justify the excesses of the nations He used to discipline Israel. Look at the book of Amos.That is why your king David said "Let me fall into the hands of God because He is merciful. But don't let me fall into the hands of man."More than one place ( and I will have to look them up to be specific), God says in essence ( My discipline over Israel or another nation did not justify the excesses of the punishing nation. And now He will take those nations aside and punish them.But the specific passages I would have to find. Do you recall such passages ?Am I Anti-Jew because I believe that the Babylonian Captivity was God's answer to Israel and Judah's apostacy?Am I Anti-Semetic because I believe that Yahweh kept the Hebrews 40 extra years in the desert where the first generation of Exodus members died in the wilderness, and only Joshua and Caleb and the younger generation came into the Good Land? If I believe that does that mean I gloat over the misfortune of the Jews and am Anti-Semetic? Oh come on Joseph. We're not in a discussion Mel Gibson's movie here !I have to discontinue for a while. Further response will have to wait until latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There was no guile in Jesus Christ. There is no deceit anywhere in His whole being. Christ did not revile. He did not threaten. And Peter shows that He behaved as Isaiah predicted the Messiah would in Isaiah 53, going before His tormentors as a speechless lamb.So His tears for Jerusalem were genuine. I know He cares more for the welfare of Israel than you ever will, but in righteousness, not in fleshly favoritism or drunken national pride. No. YOU take the Pope and throw as many stones at him as you wish. You are not going to morph the Messiah Jesus into the Pope.I am ignoring your geo-political on popes, UN, European history, and what not, from here on out. I think you have diverted the subject matter to other arguments.We are talking here about fulfilled prophesies. Take your beef with the Pope to a forum where supporters of the Pope are debating the political attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church. Your arguments are misplaced in this discussion. And if this is all you have left to talk about, then I suppose we have come to the conclusion of our dialogue.As for me I noticed that Matthew 24:2 was by far not the only prophesy Jesus spoke about Jerusalem or Israel. He spoke of the gloriousness of her kingdom and how His disciples would see it. And some who should have been there, but rejected the Messiah, will be in the outer darkness, away from the realm of His glory: And He spoke that the twelve disiciples (not counting Judas who was replaced) would sit on twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel: The first Jewish disciple did inquire when Jesus would restore the kingdom of Israel 40 days after His resurrection. He told them that those plans were in the Father's timing. But in the mean time they should preach the gospel of the new covenant to all the world: Lastly, in His second coming He will restore the kingdom of Israel, reward His saints who believed in Him. But I will end with His prophesy that He will fulfill these promises to gather up the Jews to enjoy thier inheritance under their true Messiah: In the end times false Messiahs, false prophets and false Christs will be thought to have come to deliver Israel. The heavens and the earth also will be in supernatural calamities. Christ will come in His Second Coming and fulfill these OT prophecies as indicated in Matt. 24:31:Deut. 30:3-5;
Isa. 43:5-7; 49:9-13, 22-26; 51:11; 56:8; 60:4;
Isa. 62:10-12; 27:13;
Ezek. 34:13; 37:21; 28:25 Jerusalem will be the capital of the earth. And the Messiah Christ will establish the 1,000 year millennial kingdom as a prelude to the eternal age. Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit. And the earth will be restored to an Edenic situation.And the Jews will lead the nations to worship God as the Son of God reigns on His throne of glory in Israel.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.