"this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Biggest joke ever played on makind? (Israel, quote)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by JerZ

You cut my sentence in half. The rest is self-evident but would you really like me to provide you with examples? There's no way you don't already know this stuff.

Here is the full sentence:


In the end result, though, it's all facetiousness, obviously; who can find a universally acceptable proof for "makes America 'great'" or "keeps America from being 'great'"? Is this all you have in your pocket today, Viz, semantics to disprove that anti-science and anti-progress could possibly be negatives?

Now as far as your own facetiousness..."scientific proof"...again, you're trying to prove that NOTHING is provable, a dead-end not only intellectually but spiritually and weird coming from someone who claims to be a pastor. If nothing can literally be scientifically proven, even if being observed and utilized, then you're not typing on a computer right now. At this point in the devolution of a logical, sane discussion (thanks again, Viz), things are really more appropriate for the Philosophy forum than S&R. Are we even here? Let's all stare at our hands in wonder for an hour.

OR let's stop being intellectually dishonest in an effort to cling to our beliefs v. having an actual discussion that goes anywhere.

Gentleman's choice!

Quite with the B.S. and tell us how you factually know that it is the fault of Fundamentalists that America was held back from being great. And just how has America not been "great"? What is "great" to you that America has not been?

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Quite with the B.S. and tell us how you factually know that it is the fault of Fundamentalists that America was held back from being great. And just how has America not been "great"? What is "great" to you that America has not been?

You have already chosen not to believe it - your heart is hardened. Therefore, no amount of evidence will convince you. Evidence could fall down from the sky and stand in front of you and you'd still say, "Nope, I don't believe it." Only people who have achieved a certain level can actually understand this, rather than trying vainly to pick it apart piece by piece in a desperate effort to disprove it, and you can not force that enlightenment and understanding; you must wait for it to come to you - no one here can give it to you. (I'll bet this sounds familiar, eh, Eusie?)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

No, in fact nothing of the Herodian temple is still standing. The so called "Temple Mount" is not where Herod's temple was. Please read the article.

You might want to read this:
New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem
It puts the temple of Solomon and Herod to the south of the temple mount with proof.


See the temple to the left in the picture? That is no longer. To the right of that is where the present so-called "Temple Mount" is but that is not correct.

Jesus often spoke in ways purposely so that the Israelites would not "get it" unless it were given them from above. For instance, Jesus said "raze this temple and in three days I will raise it up" making a play on raze and raise. However the Jews thought He was speaking of Herod's temple and accused Him to the Sanhedrin of trying to destroy the temple.
Likewise, that generation, consequent to their being resurrected, will not pass away until ALL (not some) but ALL these things occur. Jesus didn't have to say "Umm, but first this generation I am speaking to must first be resurrected" Just as He didn't have to explain Himself concerning the ALL the things that had to occur and that generation seeing ALL of those things. It is obvious there must be a resurrection for them to see all the things Jesus spoke of.


Yea, and the naysayers probably said the same thing to Adam and Eve. "Hey Adam (chuckle) where is that one you said who is supposed to injure the serpents head? You are close to dying now." Then they said it to the next generation and the next, laughing that they would be so stupid to actually believe God. But He did come. So who gets the last laugh?
It is spelled "intransigence."

I must say that is very interesting, but there are some problems - one being that not a trace even of foundations has been found of this postulated real temple. Also,the descent from the mount of Olives would be leading into the Garrison fortress not Solomon's porch. And I believe the area supposed to be the site to the south of the building taken by all but this chap as the 2nd temple site was occupied on the Ophel by the Adiabene palace and on the old city by the theatre and Hippodrome. Where was the temple? Also Temple Mount had a platform of impressive dimensions to make the mount big enough to take a Temple. There were only 500 auxiliaries there to police the temple and they were augmented at festival times by another 500 from Caesarea, Why would a huge fort be needed?

The archaeology reveals a wide steps approach from the south. Why would a fortress provide a handy ascent for any attacking force of rebels?

It's a nicely argued article, but I think there are some serious questions to be answered before the present temple platform site is plausibly replaced by a temple of which no trace remains.

And of course, whether No-one stone on another is taken literally or metaphorically, BOTH mean that the Things should have happened, but we are still waiting. Last laugh being saved for now - thanks for the spelling correction.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I must say that is very interesting, but there are some problems - one being that not a trace even of foundations has been found of this postulated real temple.

Um, that should tip you off that it is the right place!

Also,the descent from the mount of Olives would be leading into the Garrison fortress not Solomon's porch. And I believe the area supposed to be the site to the south of the building taken by all but this chap as the 2nd temple site was occupied on the Ophel by the Adiabene palace and on the old city by the theatre and Hippodrome. Where was the temple? Also Temple Mount had a platform of impressive dimensions to make the mount big enough to take a Temple. There were only 500 auxiliaries there to police the temple and they were augmented at festival times by another 500 from Caesarea, Why would a huge fort be needed?

I don't know why such a huge fort was needed. Must have been lots of rebel rousers who didn't like the Romans ruling over them so they had to have enough force to put them down.

The archaeology reveals a wide steps approach from the south. Why would a fortress provide a handy ascent for any attacking force of rebels?

The fighting force has the high ground which is always the best place in any warfare. It is harder for the nasties to fight going up hill.

It's a nicely argued article, but I think there are some serious questions to be answered before the present temple platform site is plausibly replaced by a temple of which no trace remains.

The spring runs only under the area where Herods and Solomon's temple used to be. That is a tip off that it is the correct area.

And of course, whether No-one stone on another is taken literally or metaphorically, BOTH mean that the Things should have happened, but we are still waiting. Last laugh being saved for now - thanks for the spelling correction.

No, it is "ALL THESE THINGS . . ." not just ONE OF THESE THINGS must occur.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by JerZ

You have already chosen not to believe it - your heart is hardened. Therefore, no amount of evidence will convince you. Evidence could fall down from the sky and stand in front of you and you'd still say, "Nope, I don't believe it." Only people who have achieved a certain level can actually understand this, rather than trying vainly to pick it apart piece by piece in a desperate effort to disprove it, and you can not force that enlightenment and understanding; you must wait for it to come to you - no one here can give it to you. (I'll bet this sounds familiar, eh, Eusie?)

So you are going to give us a bunch of B.S. that the reason the United States never became great is because the Fundamentalists held the country back, and think we have to believe it just based on your say so? And when someone asks you for proof to back up your wacky statement, rather than give us proof you attack the one asking for proof as if that gets you off the hook?

Get a clue bud. Stop with the B.S.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Um, that should tip you off that it is the right place!

No,it is a lack of evidence of a temple being here, and I mentioned that the only two sites are occupied by a palace and places of enterainments.

I don't know why such a huge fort was needed. Must have been lots of rebel rousers who didn't like the Romans ruling over them so they had to have enough force to put them down.

It wasn't needed. The Fort was needed only for a temple police garrison of 500. Rebels in fact operated in the country (until they took over Jerusalem in the last stages of the war - the Fort put up little resistance)

The fighting force has the high ground which is always the best place in any warfare. It is harder for the nasties to fight going up hill.

But you don't make it easier for them by putting in a wide flight of steps. That is what you'd need for worshippers crowding in on festival days.

The spring runs only under the area where Herods and Solomon's temple used to be. That is a tip off that it is the correct area.

That is a fair point, but since we can't get into the temple mount to dig (the Muslims don't like it) who knows how far the spring extended?

No, it is "ALL THESE THINGS . . ." not just ONE OF THESE THINGS must occur.

Yes, all of these things, and we are still waiting.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No,it is a lack of evidence of a temple being here, and I mentioned that the only two sites are occupied by a palace and places of enterainments.

No it proves the temple was there because there are no stones upon another. They pulled those stones away.

It wasn't needed. The Fort was needed only for a temple police garrison of 500. Rebels in fact operated in the country (until they took over Jerusalem in the last stages of the war - the Fort put up little resistance)

Each year there would be at least 2 million Jews go to Jerusalem for the holy feast days. The Roman force was probably "just" adequate.

But you don't make it easier for them by putting in a wide flight of steps. That is what you'd need for worshippers crowding in on festival days.

If that's what they needed then that's what they needed.

That is a fair point, but since we can't get into the temple mount to dig (the Muslims don't like it) who knows how far the spring extended?

The original temple mount is not where the temple mount is today so who cares if the Muslims don't want anyone there. The Gihon springs run under where the actual temple mount used to be. That spring was needed for the daily sacrifices and cleansing rituals of the priests. Some say this is incorrect but Dr. Ernest Martin says it is correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyXrshJ2kq0

Yes, all of these things, and we are still waiting.

And we will wait until they all come to pass.

[TRANSPONDER]

[

Originally Posted by Eusebius

No it proves the temple was there because there are no stones upon another. They pulled those stones away.

So the fact that there is not a bit of evidence is proof? It proves nothing one way or the other. The 'one stone left on another' is surely being over -literal. But the real refutation is that archaeology pretty much leaves no room for a big temple south of the Temple mound site.

Each year there would be at least 2 million Jews go to Jerusalem for the holy feast days. The Roman force was probably "just" adequate.

As I said, the Prefect (Pilate) would bring 500 more troops from Caesarea at festival times. Josephus records that they patrolled on galleries above the crowd. The idea was to nip any unrest in the bud, so there would be no need for protracted battles or sieges. And in your book, doesn't "Probably" make the whole thing guesswork?

If that's what they needed then that's what they needed.

Now you are doing something familiar - explaining away the evidence which is now all against your contention that the Real temple was to the south of the present Temple mount.

The original temple mount is not where the temple mount is today so who cares if the Muslims don't want anyone there. The Gihon springs run under where the actual temple mount used to be. That spring was needed for the daily sacrifices and cleansing rituals of the priests. Some say this is incorrect but Dr. Ernest Martin says it is correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyXrshJ2kq0

You're missing the point. Because we can't excavate, we can't make definite statements about where a spring was or was not. This and the claim that the Bar Kochba revolt didn't dare occupy Jerusalem (as I recall, they did, but had to retreat) is pretty thin stuff to set against some solid evidence that the present site has to be the temple and there is no place for a temple to the south,

And we will wait until they all come to pass.

Don't hold your breath.


P.s That video makes no sense. (1) The arrangement is pretty much based on the Temple mount temple plan - including the platform, but shifted to the south (where there is no evidence of it, but evidence of other structures that make a platform, never mind a temple impossible) and an absurdly large fort on the present platform. This also makes nonsense of the procession down the mount of Olives and across Herod's bridge into the porch of Solomon, which would lead into the fort and not the temple. It looks as though he has even moved the Stoa (Temple Market) from the Temple mount site (where it was found) to the southern location, where there is no trace of it, nor possible place for it, nor a platform as shown in the vid. nor possible room for it. The flight of steps looking like an approach to the temple now becomes a wide flight of steps leading up from a Temple (already on a platform) to the present temple (called the Antonia fortress) and to a platform (the present one) that would be even higher.

That makes the Ophel the site that is proposed, with a proposed platform a bit lower than the present temple mount platform. But excavations show no such platform, though they do show the Palace of Helena of Adiabene, which would preclude a Temple being there.

I don't know how you would explain that as the Temple and platform which has now totally vanished, apart from the present 'Palace' which still has plenty of stones one on another.

This just isn't working, old mate.

(1) though I did enjoy the guided tour..."This is urr the pinnacle..urr where.urr Satan..urrr...placed Jesus.." Is this a kind of Southern accent or a affectation of Biblepreachers?

[TRANSPONDER]

dupe

But since it is, no hurt to show the context

Mark 13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Thus the end days time was linked to the destruction of the Temple.

I might also mention the absurd stooge -like cue of pointing out the size of the stones and the magnificence of the buildings. As though they had never seen them before.

And, since I mention that

Mark 11. 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

This tourist - like rubbernecking at a Temple he'd seen regularly since he was a kid is merely a clumsy addition of Mark's editing of the story to place the temple procession and the temple cleansing on two separate days. This is refuted by the other gospels, so ..I need hardly point out the implications of that. Except to ask why it was necessary to do that. John is so uncomfortable at the connection of the procession and the temple cleansing that he shifts the fracas right to the start of Jesus' career.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So the fact that there is not a bit of evidence is proof? It proves nothing one way or the other. The 'one stone left on another' is surely being over -literal. But the real refutation is that archaeology pretty much leaves no room for a big temple south of the Temple mound site.

But it does prove, based upon Dr. Martin's and other's research, that the temple was not on what is considered today to be the temple mount. What was on the so-called "Temple Mount" was where the troops stayed. To the south of that is where the real Temple Mount used to be with the temple. It was all pulled away. I believe it was Josephus who said they went so far as to use farmers plows when they were done.

As I said, the Prefect (Pilate) would bring 500 more troops from Caesarea at festival times. Josephus records that they patrolled on galleries above the crowd. The idea was to nip any unrest in the bud, so there would be no need for protracted battles or sieges. And in your book, doesn't "Probably" make the whole thing guesswork?

I see no problem with what you are saying. In the video I showed, the stairs were not that huge and the doors to where the soldiers came through were not to let Jews to come in to the temple but for soldiers to come to the temple area if there was unrest.

Now you are doing something familiar - explaining away the evidence which is now all against your contention that the Real temple was to the south of the present Temple mount.

No, it is not against my or the other's contention the real Temple Mount was not what they consider the Temple Mount today.

You're missing the point. Because we can't excavate, we can't make definite statements about where a spring was or was not. This and the claim that the Bar Kochba revolt didn't dare occupy Jerusalem (as I recall, they did, but had to retreat) is pretty thin stuff to set against some solid evidence that the present site has to be the temple and there is no place for a temple to the south,

You say they can't excavate so if that's the case, how can they know it is or isn't the temple mount?

Don't hold your breath.

No need to hold my breath. It will surely happen. It is supposed to happen at the conclusion of the eon. That is what Jesus said. Obviously the conclusion of this eon has not occurred yet, but it will and when it does, will usher in the thousand year reign of Christ.

P.s That video makes no sense. (1) The arrangement is pretty much based on the Temple mount temple plan - including the platform, but shifted to the south (where there is no evidence of it, but evidence of other structures that make a platform, never mind a temple impossible) and an absurdly large fort on the present platform. This also makes nonsense of the procession down the mount of Olives and across Herod's bridge into the porch of Solomon, which would lead into the fort and not the temple. It looks as though he has even moved the Stoa (Temple Market) from the Temple mount site (where it was found) to the southern location, where there is no trace of it, nor possible place for it, nor a platform as shown in the vid. nor possible room for it. The flight of steps looking like an approach to the temple now becomes a wide flight of steps leading up from a Temple (already on a platform) to the present temple (called the Antonia fortress) and to a platform (the present one) that would be even higher.

But the video does make sense. There is not supposed to be any evidence of it, remember? They completely destroyed the original temple mound and pulled away the stones. To the north is where the soldiers stayed which they wrongly THINK is the temple mount today. The steps are merely an egress for the soldiers, not for the common Jew.

That makes the Ophel the site that is proposed, with a proposed platform a bit lower than the present temple mount platform. But excavations show no such platform, though they do show the Palace of Helena of Adiabene, which would preclude a Temple being there.

I don't know how you would explain that as the Temple and platform which has now totally vanished, apart from the present 'Palace' which still has plenty of stones one on another.

Of course the original temple area totally vanished. Jesus said it would. Case closed.

This just isn't working, old mate.

Not for you but for me it works.

(1) though I did enjoy the guided tour..."This is urr the pinnacle..urr where.urr Satan..urrr...placed Jesus.." Is this a kind of Southern accent or a affectation of Biblepreachers?

You just don't like being proved wrong.