Prophecy for Buzsaw

Hi PaulK,I really didn't want to make this kind of post be my first, but here goes anyway.Another way of looking at the second coming of Christ, is to bring the prophecy into the future. The destruction of the 'temple' prophecy seems to be a major stumbling point. Assuming that Christ knew Christianity would develop, then I also assume that Christ knew the "seat" of Christianity would be the Vatican. If you look at the Vatican as being the Temple of Christianity, the temple in the prophecy most definityly is still in tact -- at the moment.I have hesitated to post this because I can find absolutely no other references that even hint at a slant toward moving the entire second coming prophecy into Vatican City and out of the mid-east. If Christ was telling about the future, bring those statements INTO the future. It opens an entire new concept of what might have been said and implied and what may or will be going on.A side-note if that's ok? If anybody happens to know of a site or reference that has an acceptable explanation as to why the Vatican is not at Jerusalem, I would really, really appreciate the info. I have come up absolutely empty on this.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

PaulK:
Mark 13 (NASB)
1 As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."You're right. This does describe Jerusalem.. It ALSO describes Rome. Vatican City, Colosseum, etc., just as thoroughly considering what limited information there is.I have read the prophecy, (which I'm not fond of your quotes as they are written implying that somebody is there taking dictation of the conversation), and I'm saying that for us, today, Vatican City is the foundational seat of Christianity and to totally disregard including Vatican City as a possible site for the temple mentioned in the second coming prophecy, is to limit available options.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

PaulK: Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?I didn't have to read very far back into the threads of this discussion to be reminded that the accuracy of dates within the Bible are questionable at best. If you really want to get back into that non-ending subject, I can introduce some theories that give a 160 to 360 year spread of dating innacuracy thanks to the calendar we use. As far as the disciples not knowing Rome? How do you know that? How do you know they never, ever, saw Rome, or heard about Rome? How do you know that Christ, who knew stuff nobody "normal" should know, didn't tell them all about it?PaulK: It is not a general reference to "magnificent buildings" - it is a mention of specific buildings, in Jerusalem that the disciples saw while leaving the Temple.May I have a link to make sure I use the exact wordage you do?A rather obvious point to me is: The Second Coming of Christ is all about the future (Christiantiy) not the past (Jerusalem). The foundation (temple) of Christanity is the Vatican and there is no way around that.As long as Vatican City is the foundation of Christiantiy, the Prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ are viable.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

PaulK: And I have no idea where you got the idea that I said that the disciples didn't know about Rome.Well, I got it from here:
PaulK From Post # 167: Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?
You supplied a solid, non-flexible date and question to discount my statement.***
Paul K: Let me add that the Vatican is NOT the foundation of Christianity (neither the Protestants nor the Eastern Churches give it such a special status)EXCUSE ME??? Whether or not the Vatican has block approval from all denominations is totally irrelevant. The Vatican is the foundation of Christianity. The majority of the world definitely gives the Vatican special status or at least recognizes that it receives special status. Nobody has to agree to worship the Vatican doctrine to acknowledge its status in the religious community.***
PaulK: and when the prophecy was spoken Jerusalem was very much the present - NOT the past.Prophecies are statements of the future, not recitals of past history.***
PaulK: NOT the pastI don’t understand this at all.***
PaulK: It seems, like Buzsaw, you are trying to deny that the prophecy has failed by denying what it says and inventing your own "prophecy".By including the Vatican as another viable OPTION in the temple prophecy is in no way creating another prophecy.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

Thank you,Amlodhi. Couldn't have said it better.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.