"this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Biggest joke ever played on makind? (myth, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point of my pasting the entire Talk Jesus had with His disciples is to show He was talking about His return to earth in the future. Therefore that generation has to be resurrected. Therefore the timing for the things He spoke about were in the very far-off future when He returns. AFTER they are resurrected they will see these things occur. So Jesus wasn't wrong.
I gave you plenty of information as to why the present temple mount can't be the one in the time of Herod and why no stones are remaining of that temple. If you don't get it, fine. Sorry I couldn't help. Just quit saying the prophecy failed that no stone was left upon another when you've been show that, in fact, the prophetic statement came to pass even if you refuse to believe it.
This isn't about the end of the world, it is when a person comes up to Rosh Hashanah and it is not a saying for a gentile at all.
Gentiles don't keep the Sabbath and when it says to stay on the roof, it doesn't mean to go out onto your rooftop to look for the coming of Christ and neither does being in the field mean that you are in a literal field.
Matthew 24 15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25Behold, I have told you before.
The return of Christ doesn't speak of great tribulation and then a literal return.
The Return of the Son of Man
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
The East is the inner man,'' Judah.
The west is the outer man,'' Ephraim.''
Jesus comes inside a person to the inner man and when he comes inside a person it's brilliance will be seen even unto the outer man.
The point of my pasting the entire Talk Jesus had with His disciples is to show He was talking about His return to earth in the future. Therefore that generation has to be resurrected. Therefore the timing for the things He spoke about were in the very far-off future when He returns, and it concerns "the end of the eon." AFTER they are resurrected they will see these things occur. So Jesus wasn't wrong.
The way it reads is that these things were going to happen in the lifetimes of at least ome of them, and any resurrections would be of those already dead. This is in fact what Matthew claims happens at the crucifixion, but nobody else mentions it. A far - off future is very far from 'therefore'. It is simply suggested by you because it hasn't happened.
Quote:
I gave you plenty of information as to why the present temple mount can't be the one in the time of Herod and why no stones are remaining of that temple. If you don't get it, fine. Sorry I couldn't help. Just quit saying the prophecy failed that no stone was left upon another when you've been show that, in fact, the prophetic statement came to pass even if you refuse to believe it.
And I have refuted every one of your bits of information, notably your Gihon spring 'evidence', and including "no stones remaining". I showed you in front of your very eyes that stones are remaining in both sites, so not only is the claim that all stones were removed leaving no trace refuted, but the literal interpretation of 'No stone left on another' is also refuted. If you can't see what is plain in front of your face, that is your problem. I doubt that it is a problem for anyone else.
The way it reads is that these things were going to happen in the lifetimes of at least ome of them, and any resurrections would be of those already dead. This is in fact what Matthew claims happens at the crucifixion, but nobody else mentions it. A far - off future is very far from 'therefore'. It is simply suggested by you because it hasn't happened.
Of course those things are going to happen in the lifetime of some of them consequent to their resurrection. Geesh!
Quote:
And I have refuted every one of your bits of information,
No you have not. I have proven my points as has Dr. Martin.
Of course those things are going to happen in the lifetime of some of them consequent to their resurrection. Geesh!
Which wasn't explained to them.They were misled. Or rather, the claim that it was talking about what would happen in the future is a flam. Remember the argument is that some there would not 'taste death' which by all reason means that they would not have died, not that they would all have died but resurrected.
Quote:
No you have not. I have proven my points as has Dr. Martin.
Familiar Eusebian denial and closing of eyes to the way the evidence really points. And you had the sauce to accuse me of sticking my head in the sand, elsewhere.
But as usual, it doesn't matter. Your only agenda is to avoid admitting that you and this contributor to plain Lies magazine who does not seem to know his own facts are without any valid support. Mine was to get at the facts and I am content that the facts are now pretty clear to me and to everyone else. You can tell yourself whatever you like.
Which wasn't explained to them.They were misled. Or rather, the claim that it was talking about what would happen in the future is a flam. Remember the argument is that some there would not 'taste death' which by all reason means that they would not have died, not that they would all have died but resurrected.
The whole point is two questions asked: "And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?" All the signs Jesus spoke of were concerning His return and the conclusion of the eon. The entire completion of all the signs and His return is still future. It is not Jesus' fault if they didn't "get it" just as it isn't His fault you don't "get it." Only those who have ears to hear and eyes to see "get it." There were a lot of things Jesus spoke about that even the disciples didn't "get". For instance Jesus said to the disciples "beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They though He was talking about bread. When He told the Jews "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" was misunderstood by them. He was in the temple when He told them that. They thought He wanted to destroy the temple.
It is obvious, to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that Jesus was talking concerning His return and their resurrection to see it. He told them some of them would be persecuted and killed but some of them would be alive to see these things occur. That would happen after their resurrection. The real thing is you don't like this because it completely destroys your idea that Jesus' prophetic statement failed. The only thing that failed is your atheism and listening to the liars for atheism.
Quote:
Familiar Eusebian denial and closing of eyes to the way the evidence really points. And you had the sauce to accuse me of sticking my head in the sand, elsewhere.
Yea, familiar transponderian accusations of me denying and closing my eyes to evidence.
Quote:
But as usual, it doesn't matter. Your only agenda is to avoid admitting that you and this contributor to plain Lies magazine who does not seem to know his own facts are without any valid support. Mine was to get at the facts and I am content that the facts are now pretty clear to me and to everyone else. You can tell yourself whatever you like.
The whole point is two questions asked: "And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?" All the signs Jesus spoke of were concerning His return and the conclusion of the eon. The entire completion of all the signs and His return is still future. It is not Jesus' fault if they didn't "get it" just as it isn't His fault you don't "get it." Only those who have ears to hear and eyes to see "get it." There were a lot of things Jesus spoke about that even the disciples didn't "get". For instance Jesus said to the disciples "beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They though He was talking about bread. When He told the Jews "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" was misunderstood by them. He was in the temple when He told them that. They thought He wanted to destroy the temple.
It is obvious, to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that Jesus was talking concerning His return and their resurrection to see it. He told them some of them would be persecuted and killed but some of them would be alive to see these things occur. That would happen after their resurrection. The real thing is you don't like this because it completely destroys your idea that Jesus' prophetic statement failed. The only thing that failed is your atheism and listening to the liars for atheism.
The leaven of the pharisees is explained (1). Either by Jesus or by the writer (parentheically) which is why we can take it that John (7.42) didn't know of a Nativity, or he would have explained. I believe that the three day temple is also explained (John 2.22). Where it isn't explained, we can take it as it reads. Even f we don't see the stooge -like plot construction of the writers. Matthew 15 1 -20 reeks of stageiness, stooge cues and almost unnecessary explanations except that abolition of clean food rites was of paramount importance to the writers. If the 2nd coming predictions had required some explanation even by the writers, do you think that not one would have explained? It was because they took it as read. And so it should be.
Quote:
Yea, familiar transponderian accusations of me denying and closing my eyes to evidence.
You are still wrong and I am still correct.
The usual blinkered denial that is surely becoming a joke amongst the readers. I don't mind. If you had anything better, you'd be using it. And it's "Arequipa", not "Transponder". What is actually written, you have to Interpret a bit.
(1) or rather not, but I mean he makes it clear that he is not talking literally about bread and the stooge -like "It is because we have no bread" - ludicrous in the context of 'beware the leaven of the pharisees"- betrays the clumsy polemic of the passage. In fact, like Pilate's 'What is Truth" it is one of those questions that are left in the air.
"Do you not yet understand?" Well, no, and they don't ask, and there is a reason why. Either the writer doesn't know what it means, or he prefers not to say.
The 'Truth" in John is "Faith in Me" which even John shrank from putting in clear. And this mystery of the baskets of breadcrumbs looks like a metaphor of twelve apostles, 7 days and thousands of converts. And the leaven of the pharisees is following (of course) Paul's warning about false teaching leavening the whole 'lump' of dough. I can only presume that this was giving away too much prediction to make it look like eyewitness reporting of Jesus' doings rather than retrospective prophecy of what was going on in their day - polemic battles between Christianity and Judaism.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-03-2016 at 05:06 AM..
The leaven of the pharisees is explained (1). Either by Jesus or by the writer (parentheically) which is why we can take it that John (7.42) didn't know of a Nativity, or he would have explained. I believe that the three day temple is also explained (John 2.22). Where it isn't explained, we can take it as it reads. Even f we don't see the stooge -like plot construction of the writers. Matthew 15 1 -20 reeks of stageiness, stooge cues and almost unnecessary explanations except that abolition of clean food rites was of paramount importance to the writers. If the 2nd coming predictions had required some explanation even by the writers, do you think that not one would have explained? It was because they took it as read. And so it should be.
It didn't need explained to them that it was concerning the conclusion of this eon which has not occurred yet because it was explained to them that these things, including His return, occur at the conclusion of this eon. And they knew they had to be resurrected per the Daniel prophecy.
Quote:
The 'Truth" in John is "Faith in Me" which even John shrank from putting in clear. And this mystery of the baskets of breadcrumbs looks like a metaphor of twelve apostles, 7 days and thousands of converts. And the leaven of the pharisees is following (of course) Paul's warning about false teaching leavening the whole 'lump' of dough. I can only presume that this was giving away too much prediction to make it look like eyewitness reporting of Jesus' doings rather than retrospective prophecy of what was going on in their day - polemic battles between Christianity and Judaism.
Thankfully we have the board atheist to explain the hidden things of Scripture to us
The 7 baskets of bread picked up after the feeding of over 5,000 people is a metaphor of 12 apostles? I think you've been reading too many strange commentaries. They had 7 loaves of bread and that returned 7 baskets full. There is nothing hidden in that. It is just historical fact just as it is historic fact that Herod's temple was not on what is considered the temple mount today. Did you like how I segued into that?
It didn't need explained to them that it was concerning the conclusion of this eon which has not occurred yet because it was explained to them that these things, including His return, occur at the conclusion of this eon. And they knew they had to be resurrected per the Daniel prophecy.
Thankfully we have the board atheist to explain the hidden things of Scripture to us
The 7 baskets of bread picked up after the feeding of over 5,000 people is a metaphor of 12 apostles? I think you've been reading too many strange commentaries. They had 7 loaves of bread and that returned 7 baskets full. There is nothing hidden in that. It is just historical fact just as it is historic fact that Herod's temple was not on what is considered the temple mount today. Did you like how I segued into that?
We certainly can't expect you to. You don't even comprehend what I post. That metaphor is just a guess, It fits. I don't know whether the leaven of the pharisees fits in there.I think it does. There might be another meaning, but it isn't explained. Perhaps you can explain it since you don't care for my suggestion. However the point is that it was explained that it was not about bread.
This is hardly difficult, and yet they got totally the wrong idea. And you expect me to believe that they understood about the conclusion of the eon? If that was the case, why tell me did they ask when these Things would be?
Thankfully we have on board an atheist sharp enough to pick up the flaws in your arguments.
Do please explain where Herod's temple was if it couldn't be on temple mount (because there are 1st c AD still stones built up there) and it can't be on the Ophel because there are still 1st c AD stones built up there. And you won't refer to the Gihon spring since we now know that it fed the pool of Siloam and that fed the water supply that fed everything including the Temple.
We certainly can't expect you to. You don't even comprehend what I post. That metaphor is just a guess, It fits. I don't know whether the leaven of the pharisees fits in there.I think it does. There might be another meaning, but it isn't explained. Perhaps you can explain it since you don't care for my suggestion. However the point is that it was explained that it was not about bread.
This is hardly difficult, and yet they got totally the wrong idea. And you expect me to believe that they understood about the conclusion of the eon? If that was the case, why tell me did they ask when these Things would be?
Thankfully we have on board an atheist sharp enough to pick up the flaws in your arguments.
They asked Him when He was returning and the conclusion of the eon. He told them. They understood. It's not a hard concept.
Quote:
Do please explain where Herod's temple was if it couldn't be on temple mount (because there are 1st c AD still stones built up there) and it can't be on the Ophel because there are still 1st c AD stones built up there. And you won't refer to the Gihon spring since we now know that it fed the pool of Siloam and that fed the water supply that fed everything including the Temple.
I already gave my reasons and pointed you to Dr. Martin and other links to prove my point. I don't need to repeat myself.
They asked Him when He was returning and the conclusion of the eon. He told them. They understood. It's not a hard concept.
If so, it doesn't need a lot of explanatory interpretation. It is as it reads. The problem for you and other Bible -believers is that how it reads did not happen. So the explanatory interpretation which is Not explained to the disciples has to be made.
Thus your attempt to show that a far-fetched scenario of a second coming in the distant future (which you attempt to plaster over with the vague 'eon" nonsense) was 'understood' by the disciples, even though as I showed quite plainly, that those things were linked to the destruction of the temple. Which happened in 70 AD and the predicted Things didn't happen.
Quote:
I already gave my reasons and pointed you to Dr. Martin and other links to prove my point. I don't need to repeat myself.
You don't dare to, because you and he have been soundly debunked. It really doesn't matter Anyone looking back can see for themselves that every one of your arguments has been debunked and Dr. Martin shown up to be either ignorant of the archaeology of the watersource he puts so much weight on or is simply dishonest. Looking back at his Biblebased Bio, my money's on the latter.
You know, last night while watching some surrender at Yorktown you tubes (1) it occurred to me that you do yourself no favours by denying what everyone can see clearly, because it trashes your credibility in those areas which are not so obvious.
(1) 'the Patriot' has some good scenes, but the screenplay is as embarrassing as the "Bounty".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
