Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 181 of 262 (444817)
12-30-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
12-30-2007 10:07 AM


Re: Number 9, Number 9, Number 9...
quote:
IaJ, time after time at EvC you have been found to misrepresent truth, falsify data, misquote people and continue to repeat things that have been shown to be wrong. Whether talking about history or the Bible, the pattern is the same.
My understanding here is, I should not have applied 'quotation' marks on what I paraphrased and posited as a statement in context of the post. My further understanding is there was no misrepresent truth, falsify data, misquote people and continue to repeat things that have been shown to be wrong.
To summarise my input on this prophesy thread, I stated three - and no one else has been vindicated here. Next time, I will embarrass you by applying quotations and/or the term paraphrased. This will cause you to examine the essence of what is being said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 10:07 AM jar has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 182 of 262 (444818)
12-31-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by jar
12-30-2007 10:17 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
The name Palestinian predates the Balfour, and was resurrected by Rome, exclusively upon the Jews. I guess you are talking about another Planet?
quote:
Also note that the term "National Home" and not "State" was used. There is no intent for Jews to create a separate Nation State in the Balfour Declaration.
No sir. 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is nothing else but a sovereign state. It was affirmed by the UN as such, including the term 'JEWISH STATE'. Israel was re-established legally - more legally than any other M/E or European state. And there was no muslim Pals at this time [fact] till Arafat emerged. of co, I am referring to the 3rd rock from the sun only. I don't post falsehoods.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 10:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 262 (444881)
12-31-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by IamJoseph
12-31-2007 12:01 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
The name Palestinian predates the Balfour, and was resurrected by Rome, exclusively upon the Jews. I guess you are talking about another Planet?
Which has nothing to do with my post.
No sir. 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is nothing else but a sovereign state.
Sorry but you are once again simply making shit up. What is so amazing is I actually posted the content of the Balfour Declaration in Message 179 that you are currently responding to. Please point out where the term 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is found?
And there was no muslim Pals at this time [fact] till Arafat emerged. of co, I am referring to the 3rd rock from the sun only.
I'm sorry but that is more of your bullshit. Saladin was a Muslim Palestinian and there were many Muslims living in Palestine. Further, the Balfour Declaration specifically states "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 12:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 10:18 PM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 184 of 262 (444913)
12-31-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by jaywill
12-24-2007 10:45 AM


Re: You can always doubt if you really want to.
quote:
I don't know why he answers this way
Then you should read my posts, where it is explained. If you hvae problems with the explanation you should ask for clarification.
quote:
It might help Paul to read the chapter again.
No, it wouldn't because you're saying nothing that I do not already know. It WOULD help you to actually read my posts.
quote:
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".
It might seem that way to someone who didn't bother to read my posts. But quite obviously such a person's opinion caries no weight at all. There is no "skipping" Jay. THere is READING the text. THere is NOTING the fact that the list of events given as an explanation of WHEN the Temple will be destroyed nowhere lists the destruction itself. That is why we come to the end of that list - by reading it. Not by skipping it.
quote:
The pulling down of the stones of the Jewish Temple is attributed to national enemies of Israel.
In Matthew 24 ? No, it is not. It seems that you are the one who needs to read it !
quote:
False. Back up to the sentence immediately before the words in Matt. 24:3
No, True because 24:3 is NOT part of the discourse proper ! As I explained. Like I said, you need to read my posts. Instead of inventing excuses to dismiss them
quote:
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
So what we have Jay, is that you wish to include Jesus' initial remark, as part of the Discourse proper, because it allows you to falsely claim that I made an error. But all you are doing is trying to confuse the issue. Maybe you don't notice that yiour capitalised remarks confirm my point. That the Discourse proper is ABOUT the destruction of the Temple.
quote:
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).
If you'd been reading my posts carefully you'd know that I absolutely agree.
quote:
It is possible. I am reading your posts quite carefully though.
By my standards you are reading my posts very sloppily indeed. Not that your reading of the Bible seems to be much better.
quote:
Then you are suggesting that Jesus is not answering the QUESTION to which His disciples put Him. I don't accept that.
I am not suggesting any such thing. If you had read my posts you would know that I suggest that Jesus is giving a list of events that take place immediately PRIOR to the destruction. If, on the other hand you wish to suggest that the destruction has to occur during the listed events YOU would be suggesting that Jesus is not answering the question.
quote:
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.
So what you are suggesting is that the series of events would take place over an extended period of time and sometime during that the Temple would be destroyed. Which means that you are indeed suggesting that Jesus is not really answering the question.
quote:
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."
So you say that it is an obvious fact that the disciples WOULD reinterpret some of Jesus teachings. How exactly is this supposed to help your case that there is no reinterpretation in John 2 ?
quote:
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.
THe issue here is not the divinity of the Bible. The issue is how Jesus' statement was interpreted when he made it. IF he made it. And there is nothing in John 2 to suggest that anyone who heard it thought that it referred to anything other than the Temple - until much, much later. Hence the explanation given by John (whether he was a disciple or not - nobody really knows) is a reinterpretation.
quote:
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
If you take correction when it is due, why are you making up this excuse to avoid accepting a correction ?
quote:
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.
In other words, I am right and there is no identifiable reference to it in the Gospels or Acts. So all we have is a vague reference in one letter that you think somebody might check up on. Even though it doesn't give any names or places or anything to identify who these people were.
quote:
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?
The fact that there is no good reason for assuming that it meant anything other than the literal reading. You've tried and tried and come up with nothing of any weight.
quote:
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?
My theology doesn't enter into it. Nor indeed does interpretation of John the Baptist. Obviously I should prefer my opinion to yours because I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES - AND YOU DON'T. The question is whether John the Baptist said the remark attribute to him or whether it was inserted by some later writer, either the author of the Gospel of John or a the author of a source used in the writing of that Gospel.
quote:
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.
Essentially you are surprised that nobody attributes a superhuman accuracy to the Gospel authors, quite unlike any other ancient writings. You shouldn't be. Quite oviously you shouldn't be surprised in the least.
quote:
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.
Which sounds an awful lot like the way great artists live through their art. Except without any actual art attributable to Jesus himself. There seems no reason to believe that this "proof" would not occur if there was no resurrection at all.
quote:
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.
No, there's no "solid historical evidence" at all. Christians like to pretend there is, but that's all it is - a pretense. Nor have you got any good confirmation that Jesus made such a prediction. Your only sources were written decades after the event, after the whole resurrection legend and got itself solidly established.
It's like imagining you have locked screen doors, when in fact there is nothing but air.
quote:
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.
SInce I'm not doing that, your suggestion has no value.
quote:
PaulK's warped alternative analysis is not to be trusted by this reader of the Gospel.
Let us note that to Jaywill an honest assessment of the evidence is warped. That says everything that need be said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2007 10:45 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 01-01-2008 5:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 185 of 262 (445025)
12-31-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jar
12-31-2007 9:36 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
quote:
Which has nothing to do with my post.
It has. You used the name palestinian.
quote:
No sir. 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is nothing else but a sovereign state.
Sorry but you are once again simply making shit up. What is so amazing is I actually posted the content of the Balfour Declaration in IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation. (Message 179) that you are currently responding to. Please point out where the term 'NATIONAL HOMELAND' is found?
I answered correctly: NH = soveriegn state [no other meaning pos]. I offered proof: the UN Resolution. I also said that Israel was established more legally than any other nation, yet denied more than any other. If you have a problem about Israel being a legally established sovereign state, this is not surprising. Take it up with the UN.
quote:
Saladin was a Muslim Palestinian and there were many Muslims living in Palestine.
Muslims lived in this region, but not muslim palestinians. Please show us proof Saladin was referred to as a Palestinian, or the arab muslims were referred as such prior to Arafat. Considering that jews were in dispersal, you should have 1000s of such evidence from muslim and/or christian, jewish, roman writings. I ask for just 'ONE'.
quote:
Further, the Balfour Declaration specifically states "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".
Yes, this is encumbent on all nations, including those in Europe and the M/E, but nowhere better seen than in Israel - even with those holding unconditional death to you doctrines. It does not make negated the UN Motion on any level, but only enforces this is the sovereign and historical homeland of the Jew: 'Jewish state' being clearly mentioned in the UN preamble! You are confusing Israel with the Islamic doctrine: DOGS AND JEWS FORBIDDEN IN JERUSALEM, HEBRON, JORDAN, GAZA, AND 57 OTHER ISLAMIC STATES. Moses was a Muslim and Jesus a Palestinian: two historical and geographical impossibilities, and Israel is an affront to two other religions - as if this was not the only applicable factor. Whatever turns you on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 10:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 262 (445026)
12-31-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by IamJoseph
12-31-2007 10:18 PM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
The UN has NOTHING to do with the Balfour Decision, did not even exist at that time.
I answered correctly: NH = soveriegn state [no other meaning pos].
I'm sorry but you did not say NH but rather National Homeland. Trying to pretend you said something else is simply dishonest. I even connected you to Message 179 where I posted the FULL content of the Balfour Declaration. I will repeat it here in case you missed it.
quote:
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
Please point out where the Balfour Declaration mentions a National Homeland. Please point out where it specifies a Jewish State? Please point out where non-Jews living in Palestine are not considered Palestinians?
IamJoseph, why should anyone believe anything you say when time after time, thread after thread, issue after issue you are shown to misrepresent the truth?
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by IamJoseph, posted 12-31-2007 10:18 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 12:03 AM jar has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 187 of 262 (445040)
01-01-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
12-31-2007 10:35 PM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
quote:
The UN has NOTHING to do with the Balfour Decision, did not even exist at that time.
Because I am not playing semantic manipulation games. The UN was called the League of nations previously. The balfour dec was enshrined in the new UN: when Jordan was created, the UN first had to recognise the Balfour mandate, else Jordan could not be extricated from Palestine. This occured.
quote:
I answered correctly: NH = soveriegn state [no other meaning pos].
I'm sorry but you did not say NH but rather National Homeland. Trying to pretend you said something else is simply dishonest. I even connected you to IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation. (Message 179) where I posted the FULL content of the Balfour Declaration. I will repeat it here in case you missed it.
Looks like you pick this up in our own semantical preference. Both home and homeland have the same meaning here, and have a sovereign state meaning in its context. Its proof is the UN Motion Resolution's wording: that office was not confused as you seem to be. There were jews living in palestine w/o pause for 4000 years, including the past 2000 years: the terms you so abuse have no other meaning than how I have used it. The Creation of Jordan called for two *states* in Palestine.
Re: it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
This was made prior to Jordan's creation, a state which currently violates that statement by forbidding Jews entry, as do all Islamic *new* states created by the Brits, but which, unlike Israel, have no historical borders, except that of oil. And which you underlined for attention. Hello there?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 10:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 8:56 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 188 of 262 (445093)
01-01-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
12-31-2007 12:34 PM


Outlining Matt. 24
THere is NOTING the fact that the list of events given as an explanation of WHEN the Temple will be destroyed nowhere lists the destruction itself. That is why we come to the end of that list - by reading it. Not by skipping it.
We simply have a serious difference of inderstandings here Paul.
Perhaps in the Bible you are looking at you have Editor paragraphs headings which divide up the chapter according to someone's concept of how teaching should be delineated. They have every right to do that. But their delineation may not be the best.
In the Recovery Version which I am reading the subject headings are organized this way (just dealing with the portions of interest here):
F. Forsaking Jerusalem with Its Temple 23:37-39
CHAPTER 24
E. The Prophecy of the Kingdom 24:1 - 25:46
1. Concerning Israel 24:1 - 31
a. From Christ's Ascension to the Consummation of the Age
vv. 1 - 14
As you can see in my study Bible there is no "Discourse on the Mount" placed there by the Editors. "Disourse on the Mount" is not part of the text. Now some editors may want to place "Disourse on the Mount" directly over Matt.24:3, starting with the words:
"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell ys , When will these things be ? ..."
I have no objection to that. However, that is a rather arbitrary decision and by no means the ONLY legitimate way to outline the chapter.
It so happens that another legitimate way to outline the chapter is the way the Recovery Version does so. "The Prophecy of the Kingdom" does not START at verse 3 but rather at verse 1:
"And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. 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. And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately ...
These editors deem it more appropriate to outline verses 24:1-3 (and including up to 31, as [b]E. The Prophecy of the Kingdom (subheading 1. Concerning Israel.
Now, as to WHEN the stones of the temple will be thrown down - the basic answer is in the FUTURE. What Jesus is talking about has not occured yet. (He is not speaking of any PAST destruction, but is certain to occur futurewise to His conversation).
According to your way of outlining the chatper you are saying the major section called "Discoure on the Mount" starts with verse 3 and does not include the mentioning of the destruction of the stones of the temple in verse 2.
I think your understanding is rather forced and misleading at best.
In fact in verse 3, as I pointed out before, the disciples are asking Jesus to elaborate on precisely what He has just said about the temple:
"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, When will these things be?
1.) First Jesus uttered something publically in verse 2.
2.) Then the disciples ask Him in private to elaborate on the same subject matter.
Simply because He formerly begins the private conversation in verse 3 is no reason to say He is speaking about many things excluding what they asked Him about. This is not logical to assume this. It is logical to assume that He answers there question and ADDs more details.
The things in the list of happenings from verse 4 are His answer to WHEN the destruction of the temple will occur and WHAT will be the signs of the consummation of the age and His second coming.
Evidently, His answer spans over what we would consider a long time. He has not come yet. But false Christ's, wars, famines, earthquakes, international conflicts, persecutions, false prophets, etc., etc. have been going on for centries.
Evidently, also one of the things which occured over the centries was the throwing down of the stones of the Temple, under the Roman general Titus from 70 A.D.
With God one day is like 1,000 years and 1,000 years like one day:
"For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by and like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:4)
From Matthew 24:2 Jesus predicts many things which will happen in the future at some time. One of them is the throwing down of the stones of the Temple. Your attempts to extricate the Temple destruction from His private conversation as to "when" these things would happen is rather forced and artifcial at best.
In Matthew 24 ? No, it is not. It seems that you are the one who needs to read it !
I not only read it. I wrote it out for you.
Your outline of the chapter's organization, whether formal or simply mental, artificailly extricates His remarks about the temple from his private discussion commencing from His sitting on the Mount of Olives.
Jesus mentioned the distruction of the Temple in His PUBLIC teaching in verse 2, before the disciples enquired of Him "PRIVATELY" as He sat on the Mount of OLives.
It is a continuation of the conversation in the same way that you are continuing a conversation with me that was ongoing last week.
"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 a stone upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down. (24:2)
And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him PRIVATELY. saying, Tell us, WHEN WILL THESE THINGS BE?
No, True because 24:3 is NOT part of the discourse proper ! As I explained. Like I said, you need to read my posts. Instead of inventing excuses to dismiss them
I may have not read your post carefully enough. However you are now making it clear to me what you meant. And you are wrong.
The private conversation is the continuation of the public teaching.
Anyway, I don't see how you can avoid saying that the tearing down of the temple is not a prediction. Predictions are concerning FUTURE events. Apparently Jesus knows these things by divine foreknowledge. However He knew them whether by divine foreknowledge of by more conventional wisdom, He PREDICTED that some time in the FUTURE the stones of the Temple would be pulled down.
Saying that this prediction was not part of the Discourse on the Mount "proper" is both artificail and inconsequential. The fact remains that Jesus taught that at some time FUTURE to that moment the stones of the Temple would be torn down - period.
So what we have Jay, is that you wish to include Jesus' initial remark, as part of the Discourse proper, because it allows you to falsely claim that I made an error. But all you are doing is trying to confuse the issue. Maybe you don't notice that yiour capitalised remarks confirm my point. That the Discourse proper is ABOUT the destruction of the Temple.
Now you say that I am not reading your posts correctly. Sometimes I do not read carefully. However, this paragraph above seems to have a typo in it. It would be more consistent with what I have been understanding you to say if you wrote:
"That the Discourse proper is [NOT] ABOUT the destruction of the Temple"
Did you leave out the word "not"?
At any rate it is exceedinly logical that when the disciples ask Jesus "WHEN WILL THESE THINGS BE ...?" that "THESE THINGS" include the tearing down of the Temple stones which He has just remarked on in the immediatly previous verse.
I am not suggesting any such thing. If you had read my posts you would know that I suggest that Jesus is giving a list of events that take place immediately PRIOR to the destruction.
How do you know that they are PRIOR or AFTER the destruction of the Temple?
How do you know that He intended that famines would be AFTER the tearing down of the Temple or BEFORE or during the same time?
How do you know that He intended that earthquakes would be AFTER the Temple destruction, BEFORE it, or around the same time?
And there are TWO questions put to Christ:
1.) When will these things be ? (Temple Destruction included)
2.) What will be the sign of Your coming and of the age's consummation.
On what grounds do you suggest that Christ was ONLY responding to the second question of "What?" ?
If, on the other hand you wish to suggest that the destruction has to occur during the listed events YOU would be suggesting that Jesus is not answering the question.
I have read this a couple of times and it still makes little sense to me.
It almost sounds like "It depends on what IS is."
If you have some Ace of Spades - "Gotcha!" logic here you're going to have to break it down for me.
Jesus makes a comment about the Temple's destruction in Public. In Private the disciples ask Him to elaborate on WHEN these things will happen and what will be the sign of the age's end and His Second Coming. He elaborates on other things which will happen indicating answers to BOTH questions of WHEN and WHAT.
He does not give a specific date. It is open ended. With God the WHEN may happen over a long period of time as is indicated in the fact that His assessment of time is often higher than ours (Psalm 90:4).
So what you are suggesting is that the series of events would take place over an extended period of time and sometime during that the Temple would be destroyed. Which means that you are indeed suggesting that Jesus is not really answering the question.
Yes to the first question. Apparently it is over an extended period of time. He even said something abour endurance and that thus and such is only the beginning of the sorrows.
To your second suggestion that Jesus is NOT answering the question. He is answering the question and then some. Actually He is addressing both questions about when the temple destruction would be and what the sign of His coming and the consummation of the age would be.
So you say that it is an obvious fact that the disciples WOULD reinterpret some of Jesus teachings. How exactly is this supposed to help your case that there is no reinterpretation in John 2 ?
How do you expect us to believe that Jesus meant that the Jews would be pulling the temple down stone by stone to see if Jesus really could rebuild it in three days?
Do you think they were that interested to see a miracle that they would of themselves obey the very one they were busy rejecting, call His bluff, and destroy a Temple which took them over 40 years to build?
Let's paraphrase it:
And Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. But He answered and said to them -
[Well, these stones may look nice. But since I told the Jews that if they tore it down I would rebuild it in three days, they are going to do exactly that. Sometime soon they will call my bluff, pull all the stones down, and say "Okay Jesus, we tore down our temple which took 46 years to build. Let's see you rebuild it in three days."]
Slightly ridiculous, isn't 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2007 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2008 6:53 AM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 189 of 262 (445101)
01-01-2008 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jaywill
01-01-2008 5:10 AM


Re: Outlining Matt. 24
quote:
We simply have a serious difference of inderstandings here Paul.
Perhaps in the Bible you are looking at you have Editor paragraphs headings which divide up the chapter according to someone's concept of how teaching should be delineated. They have every right to do that. But their delineation may not be the best.
No, it's really, really simple.
Jesus makes a statment about the Temple being destroyed.
He and his disciples move on.
They stop and the disciples ask Jesus to elabourate on the earlier statement.
Obviously the original statement is NOT part of the later elaboration.
quote:
I not only read it. I wrote it out for you.
OK, then which verse of Matthew 24 mentions the enemies of the Jews destroying the Temple ?
quote:
Evidently, His answer spans over what we would consider a long time. He has not come yet. But false Christ's, wars, famines, earthquakes, international conflicts, persecutions, false prophets, etc., etc. have been going on for centries.
i.e. you have to assume that it is refers to a long time to fit the prediction to the real events. It isn't any part of the prediciton itself that makes you say that.
quote:
Anyway, I don't see how you can avoid saying that the tearing down of the temple is not a prediction.
It obviously would be a prediction, if Jesus said it. I assume that the double negative is a typo ?
quote:
Now you say that I am not reading your posts correctly. Sometimes I do not read carefully. However, this paragraph above seems to have a typo in it. It would be more consistent with what I have been understanding you to say if you wrote:
"That the Discourse proper is [NOT] ABOUT the destruction of the Temple"
Did you leave out the word "not"?
No, I did not. I have consistently asserted that the Olivet Discourse IS about the destruction of the Temple. That you would assume that I meant the opposite only confirms that you are not reading my posts properly.
quote:
At any rate it is exceedinly logical that when the disciples ask Jesus "WHEN WILL THESE THINGS BE ...?" that "THESE THINGS" include the tearing down of the Temple stones which He has just remarked on in the immediatly previous verse.
Thank you for agreeing with one of my points.
quote:
How do you know that they are PRIOR or AFTER the destruction of the Temple?
How do you know that He intended that famines would be AFTER the tearing down of the Temple or BEFORE or during the same time?
How do you know that He intended that earthquakes would be AFTER the Temple destruction, BEFORE it, or around the same time?
Because otherwise, Jesus would not really be answering the question of "when".
quote:
And there are TWO questions put to Christ:
1.) When will these things be ? (Temple Destruction included)
2.) What will be the sign of Your coming and of the age's consummation.
On what grounds do you suggest that Christ was ONLY responding to the second question of "What?" ?
You seem to be confusing your position with mine. I'm saying that he gave a genuine answers to "when". You don't.
quote:
I have read this a couple of times and it still makes little sense to me.
It almost sounds like "It depends on what IS is."
If you have some Ace of Spades - "Gotcha!" logic here you're going to have to break it down for me.
It's quite simple. I say that Jesus is giving a list of events, and means that immediately after these events the Temple will be destroyed. You say that Jesus means that the Temple will be destroyed at some unspecified point in a series of events that has been going on for more than 1900 years - and has yet to end. It's obvious which is the better answer !
quote:
How do you expect us to believe that Jesus meant that the Jews would be pulling the temple down stone by stone to see if Jesus really could rebuild it in three days?
Because he knew that they wouldn't - if he said that, and I don't beleive that he did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 01-01-2008 5:10 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 01-01-2008 10:57 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 190 of 262 (445107)
01-01-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by IamJoseph
01-01-2008 12:03 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
The UN was called the League of nations previously.
I'm sorry but that is yet another simply false statement.
The balfour dec was enshrined in the new UN: when Jordan was created, the UN first had to recognise the Balfour mandate, else Jordan could not be extricated from Palestine.
I'm sorry but that is yet ANOTHER simply false statement. Jordan existed as did Palestine as Military districts even under the Ottomans and the Nation of Jordan was created by the British, not the UN.
Both home and homeland have the same meaning here, and have a sovereign state meaning in its context.
No, the Balfour Declaration uses words VERY carefully. The terms were chosen to specifically avoid promising the Jews a Nation State.
If you really would like to learn some of the actual history involved I suggest you stop trying to bullshit folk that might actually know a little of the history and read the So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 12:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 9:23 AM jar has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 191 of 262 (445124)
01-01-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by jar
01-01-2008 8:56 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
quote:
The UN was called the League of nations previously.
I'm sorry but that is yet another simply false statement.
False? It's quite common knowledge. How can one lie about a factual item:
quote:
United Nations History
Origins
The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.
United Nations | Infoplease
quote:
The balfour dec was enshrined in the new UN: when Jordan was created, the UN first had to recognise the Balfour mandate, else Jordan could not be extricated from Palestine.
I'm sorry but that is yet ANOTHER simply false statement. Jordan existed as did Palestine as Military districts even under the Ottomans and the Nation of Jordan was created by the British, not the UN.
.
No falsehood. Military districts aside, Jordan was Trans-Jordan, then became a state, at the UN. Briton held the caretaker Mandate, she did not own the Middle-east region, even as she crowned owners of swamp lands into Monarchs and Royal Emperors.
quote:
No, the Balfour Declaration uses words VERY carefully. The terms were chosen to specifically avoid promising the Jews a Nation State.
Yes, and the UN correctly interpreted it in its resolution, which includes the words 'Jewish State'. A terrible, unforgivable crime perpertrated to show racism and apartheid against the whole world. Better you get back to the subject, than falsely accusing others of falsehoods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 8:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 9:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 262 (445128)
01-01-2008 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by IamJoseph
01-01-2008 9:23 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
IaJ, even your own sources show that you are simply stating more falsehoods.
Your sources says:
quote:
United Nations History
Origins
The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.
Note the underlined portion.
You on the other hand stated:
The UN was called the League of nations previously.
The UN was NOT called the League of Nations. They are two separate creations.
IaJ, how can anyone be expected to believe any of your nonsense about fulfilled prophecy when you cannot even get the basic facts of current history straight?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 9:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by IamJoseph, posted 01-01-2008 7:21 PM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 193 of 262 (445146)
01-01-2008 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
01-01-2008 6:53 AM


Re: Outlining Matt. 24
No, it's really, really simple.
Jesus makes a statment about the Temple being destroyed.
He and his disciples move on. They stop and the disciples ask Jesus to elabourate on the earlier statement.
You so far, are saying what I have been saying. Let's move on.
Obviously the original statement is NOT part of the later elaboration.
Now we are not saying the same thing. I say obviously Jesus is continuing in private about what He said in public. He adds some more details, that is all. It is not necessary for Him to repeat what He said in verse 2 again. He already said it. He answers their questions and further elaborates on other things which will happen as well.
Otherwise you will have to explain why Jesus is catagorically and specifically EVADING the question put to Him about when THESE things would be (ie. the tearing down of the temple stones).
In your theory of what use is it for Jesus to answer other questions but not that one? I see no other use to it other than to round off your theory.
OK, then which verse of Matthew 24 mentions the enemies of the Jews destroying the Temple ?
Isn't this a little bit of a different question Paul? I object to you trying to extricate the temple matter from the discussion of chapter 24. Although you are also saying you're not trying to do that.
Now you want proof that it was enemies who will destroy the temple.
First of all let us realize that there were no chapters and verse numbers in the original document. Chapters and numbering of verses were provided as helps for readers. It might well be possible to come up with totally different chapter arrangements in the New Testament books. These helpful lines of deliniation should not be made more of than what they are - helps to organize and structure the writing.
I would first point you to Luke 19:43,44, And we have been through this before:
And as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it.
Saying, If you knew in this day, even you, the things that are for your peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
For the days will come upon you when YOUR ENEMIES will throw up a rampart before you, and will encircle you, and will press you in on every side,
And they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:41-44)
I think in this lament over Jerusalem, Jesus identifies that it is the enemies of the Jews which will level the city including the temple and cause great suffering to Israel.
Now if you object that this passage is in another book and in another chapter, I would say the subject matter links to two discussions together, and even the similarity in phrasing indicates likely link between the two discussions - one recorded by Luke, the other recorded by Matthew.
In the chapter preceeding Matthew 24 Jesus speaks of discipline to come upon the opposing religionists. This discipline is by no means new. Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah and Isaiah each indicated
that God would allow the enemies of the nation of Israel to discipline them.
As a side, this fact convinces me that this Bible is more than self serving National Propoganda used to exalt Israel. No people would write such a self disciplinary history of how their God punished them using their enemies. It must be the word of God and not the self serving propoganda of an ancient Jewish state.
Here is what Jesus spoke in chapter 23:
Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Truly I say to you, All thee things shall come upon this generation.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How ofter I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not.
Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
For I say to you, You shall by no means see Me from now on until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.
(Matt. 23:34-39)
The manner of punishment to the opposing religionists is most likely the same as it was in the Old Testament. It is the enemies of Israel who will come in to punish.
I know this gives rise to an strong emotional objection. But all aspects of this concept are not being discussed at this time. Much could be said. However, my point here is that in the New Testament age the mode of discipline against a rebellious Israel is not different from the mode He used in the Old Testament when they persecuted the prophets of those days.
The enemies of the Jews, therefore, are the most probably ones to be implicated in the destruction of the temple.
Here are the candidates for such a distruction if you wish to strictly retrict the question to Matt. 24 (Which restriction I think makes too much of chapter delineations).
1. The Jews themselves (who are said to be under persecution)
2. The false Christs or false prophets to come
3. The persecutors of the Jews
4. The Jewish disciples of Jesus who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom
5. The ones said to be acting lawlessly
6. The ones who are bringing abimination of desolation into the Holy Place
7. The ones fleeing Judea into the mountains
8. The elect
9. The Son of Man Himself
10. The tribes of the land
These are most of the candidates up to verse 31. (From verse 32 the RcV says the discussion if focused on the New Testament church whereas from verses 1 - 31 the focus is on Israel including the Jewish disciples of Jesus.
Let's look at the list again and I will suggest which are and are not enemies of the Jews:
1. The Jews themselves (who are said to be under persecution)
It is a imposible stretch that Jesus meant that the Jews themselves would tear down the temple stone by stone. These should be ruled out.
2. The false Christs or false prophets to come
I count false Christs and false prophets as enemies of the Jews. They could be candidates for the destruction of the temple. We see the implication of one of them doing as Antiachus did and bringing abomination into the temple Holy Place (matt. 24:15). This is not exactly pulling stones down. But it certainly is not friendly to the Jews or to the temple.
3. The persecutors of the Jews
Obviously, the persecutors of the Jews are enemies of the Jews.
4. The Jewish disciples of Jesus who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom
Okay, Christians have done some terribly stupid things. I don't think among them is for a group of Jewish disciples of Jesus to attack the temple in Jerusalem and pull it apart.
Whatever else you want to castigate Christians for it is unlikely that Jesus meant that Jewish disciples of Jesus would destroy the temple.
And the wrong headed Crusades came not to destroy Jerusalem but to recapture it.
5. The ones said to be acting lawlessly
Jesus says that lawlessness will encrease. This probably refers to a general encrease of sinfulness and of men acting against their consciences. They could be the ones pulling the temple apart.
6. The ones who are bringing abimination of desolation into the Holy Place
These types seem rather bent on falsly using the temple rather than destroying it. But they could possibly be implicated as the culprits.
7. The ones fleeing Judea into the mountains
These are persecuted Jews (I think Christ believing Jews). They could not be the ones Jesus is refering to as pulling down the temple. It doesn't make too much sense for them to be the expected culprits.
8. The elect
Whoever the elect of God are, they are not logical candidates for destroying the temple in Jerusalem.
9. The Son of Man Himself
The Son of Man is Jesus Himself. Could Jesus be a candidate? Could Jesus have meant that He Himself would pull down the stones of the temple? I don't think so, at least not directly.
He entered into the temple and cleansed it with a chord, driving out the sellers. He didn't pull the stones down. And I don't think He meant that in a future time He would do so.
10. The tribes of the land
I don't think the tribes of the Israelites living in the land were the intended destroyers of the temple.
All the most likely candidates come under the classification of the enemies of the Jews.
We believe that Jesus is the Messiah and He is not one of the enemies of the Jews.
Sometimes in history nominal Christians and probably some real Christians have in their abject immaturity and lawlessness, been enemies of the Jews.
I do not think that Jesus meant this: "Out of some of my disciples in the future, immature ones, disobedient ones will come and tear down the temple in Jerusalem." (paraphrased)
It is possible. But I don't think it is probable that Jesus meant His disciples would be the ones to throw down the temple stones. The most likely culprits are the enemies of the nation as specified in Luke 19:43,44), not at all unlike what occured in similar circumstances in the Old Testament with the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians.
We do know that the Romans leveled the city in A.D. 70.
i.e. you have to assume that it is refers to a long time to fit the prediction to the real events. It isn't any part of the prediciton itself that makes you say that.
So what ? History has gone on. The Second Coming of Christ is still to come and the temple was destroyed. So it is logical to assume that the discussion of Matthew spans over a longer period by human accounting.
I see nothing sneaky or underhanded about understanding the chapter that way.
In fact is it not consistent with other promises that God gave? Abraham was told that he would inherit the land of Canaan personally. He's still waiting for the resurrection to do so. Is it sneaky or underhanded to assume that God was going to fulfill all the details of His promise to Abraham over a long period of time?
No, I did not. I have consistently asserted that the Olivet Discourse IS about the destruction of the Temple. That you would assume that I meant the opposite only confirms that you are not reading my posts properly.
Then you are saying what I am saying. Then you just said what I said.
Rather than blame me for not reading you right you just might see if you are not appearing to contradict yourself. What I see is your saying at one time that:
1.) The Discourse on the Mount of Olives is NOT about the temple being torn down.
2.) The Discourse on the Mount of Olives IS about the temple being torn down.
While I double check to make sure I am reading you right you also should double check whether you are not saying contradictory things. You may THINK that your argument is nicely laid out when it is not.
You like to be concise. That is good. But sometimes you need to elaborate a little more. Your conciseness appears to me to be resulting in contradictory ideas.
I try to concentrate on communicating and not just winning a debate with as few words as possible.
How do you know that they are PRIOR or AFTER the destruction of the Temple?
How do you know that He intended that famines would be AFTER the tearing down of the Temple or BEFORE or during the same time?
How do you know that He intended that earthquakes would be AFTER the Temple destruction, BEFORE it, or around the same time?
Because otherwise, Jesus would not really be answering the question of "when".
I don't agree. He did not give a specific date as to year, month, and day. He did say that these other things compose the manner of time in which the WHEN is to occur.
Some may flank the event on one side and some may flank the event on the other.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2008 6:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2008 5:18 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 194 of 262 (445261)
01-01-2008 4:37 PM


Equal Opportunity Punisher of Dead Religion
I thought to add this detail of prophesy to those who are perhaps angry that I believe Christ would predict enemies of the Jews would destroy the temple and level Jerusalem.
Before you get too upset, consider that Christ could do the same thing to apostate Christianity, allow her enemies to destroy her. In fact this is what the book of Revelation indicates, though not many evangelicals recognize it.
First the passages:
And the ten horns which you saw and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked and will eat her flesh and burn her utterly with fire.
For God has put into their hearts to perform His mind and to perform one mind and to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God are accomplished.
And the woman whom you saw is the great city, which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:16-18)
I would draw your attention especially to verse 17 - " For God has put it into their hearts to perform His mind and to perform one mind and to give their kingdom to the beast ..."
The previous verse 16 says that the ten horns and the beast will "hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked and will eat her flesh and burn her utterlu with fire."
Then verse 17 says that they are performing God's will which He has put into their hearts. It must be noted that verse 13 says that these same entities will make war against the Lamb. The Lamb is Jesus Christ. So they are clearly enemies of Jesus Christ.
The strong implication of verse 17 is that God is using the these same enemies of Christ, the ten horns (kings) and the beast (Antichrist) indirectly to punish the harlot. So then who is the harlot?
The harlot is the "mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth " (17:5) . I submit that the mother of harlots is the Roman Catholic Church. All of the denominations except arguably Greek Orthodoxy seem to have come out of the Roman Catholic Church. She is the mother of all the sects and denominations of Christiandom.
Christ's church is discribed as the Bride and the Wife. The derogatory term "harlot" indicates that Christ does not regcognize this mother and her daughters as His unique Bride and Wife. This does not mean that His believers are not at all in these religious entities. It means as a whole system, they are not what He intends to identify as His bride and wife. He does not recognize the mother or her daughters as that final spotless bride whom He will marry.
Instead God has put it into the mind of the ten horns and the Antichrist to attack apostate Christiandom. Probably, some day the political climate in Europe around the area of what was the Roman Empire will turn exceedingly hostile against the Roman Catholic Church and the denominations spawned out from her. The money will be taken. The buildings burned. The secrets exposed. And Antichrist will exist that all now worship him and him alone as God.
Meanwhile there are genuine lovers of Jesus within all of these religious entities. They will have to come out of these entities. I believe that God will put His will into the hearts of the political leaders to punish apostate Christiandom.
The principle here is not unlike God allowing the Roman army to level Jerusalem and destroy the holy temple. In the latter case God allows the Antichrist at the end of this age to destroy the mother of all the denominations - the Roman Catholic Church, probably rob her of her vast riches, expose her, "eat her flesh", meaning they will kill her members and they will "burn her utterly with fire".
I do not gloat over the divine destruction of Jerusalem and its temple anymore than I gloat over the divine destruction of Christiandom headed up by the RCC. The point is that God is consistent. Dead and hypocritical religion is the enemy of divine life. Man's religion is ever the enemy of God and God's move on the earth.
During such a time disciples caught in the system will be forced to leave it. They should be considered as captive in these entities as the Jews were captives in Babylon. In fact the religious entity in Revelation is called "Babylon the Great". I believe that the emphasis is that God's people were carried away captive into this situation.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 4:41 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 195 of 262 (445262)
01-01-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jaywill
01-01-2008 4:37 PM


Topic
The topic, in case you missed it, is "fulfilled prophecy - specific examples."
Still waiting for some.
Do you have anything on topic?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jaywill, posted 01-01-2008 4:37 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024