"Not one stone will be left on top of another"

[BibleReader]

5 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Read the entirety of Josephus' writings on the subject. It was awful and so devastating for Israelis. It was a time of great sorrow, but all the 'theology' experts of the time and later kinda said, 'they had it coming'. A bit like the British newscaster after 9/11.

Or have we all forgotten?

Some of the important issues I'm trying to understand better are only spoken about by Josephus.  Scripturally, this is a problem.   2 Corinthians 13:1 say: "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."  Furthermore, this is the same Josephus that claimed the Jewish Messianic prophecies that initiated the First Jewish–Roman War made reference to Vespasian becoming Emperor of Rome.  But even if we try to zoom in on his description of the temple, I haven't seen a reference of his anywhere that says that every part of the temple was knocked over.  I don't think he gets to that level of describing matters regarding the temple but I could be wrong.  

[BibleReader]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

As to the "unmatched... never to be seen again," that is hyperbole.

I disagree.  A "prophet" could be stoned with just cause if he prophesied something that did not come true in its entirety (See Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Furthermore, World War I alone was a greater "tribulation" than what was seen in the first century along with the Spanish Flu.  

At Matthew 25:31-33 Jesus appears to expound on his "coming":   “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him...he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.”  This this happen already, or is it future?  If it's a future event, then is it a more detailed explanation of Matthew 24:30,31?  What do you think?  

 

[BibleReader]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

There is a geo-political nation-state currently sitting on the east coast of the Mediterranean, but it is not the Israel of the Bible. That nation has not returned! Instead, there exists a secular stated with the same name. Lots of Jews in it but other than that it bears no resemblance to the Bible's theocratic covenant Israel. 

Do you believe, therefore, that the "geo-political nation" of Israel is Babylon the Great? 

[BibleReader]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Not the same thing and you know it. Or if you don't know then you ought to know it. I told you to do a search of "never" and "again" combinations. If you do then you will find the God often spoke through the prophets with hyperbole. I have already provided several examples, including at least one other from Jesus himself outside of the Matthew 24 text. Are you now going to call Jesus a false prophet in need of stoning? 

Seriously. There's no excuse for conflating falsehood with hyperbole. It's not exegetical and it is not rationally. If you want to discuss it then I expect you to do so not just exegetically, not just with reason, but collaboratively. Go search hyperbole in the OT before you post a response to me.

I guess that's where you and I differ. I believe every last word will be fulfilled with precision, and therefore, Jesus words point to the future, not the past.    Things may be fulfilled in greater detail beyond what you once thought possible.  Time will tell though.  

 

[Tzephanyahu]

On 6/30/2020 at 7:31 PM, BibleReader said:

Furthermore, the western wall is still visited today. 

Shalom @BibleReader

Forgive me if this comment has been made by another already, but the Temple wasn't actually on the "Temple Mount".

The "Western Wall" is the outer retaining wall of the old Roman Fortress "Antonia". 

The Temple's actual placement was within the City of David, as described by Scripture, and so about 600ft to the South of the Temple Mount.   That plato was used as a stronghold even by the Jews back in the times of the Greek Empire, to overlook the Temple proceedings below them.  But then it was heavily fortified much later by the Roman Empire.

This misunderstanding of the where the Temple was has been thorough researched and proven by a few scholars now, but most noticeably Bob Cornuke.  The evidence really does speak for itself.  Sadly, the Jews refuse to accept it (as I guess it would mean they were wrong yet again) and they have a made an idol out of a wall from old Roman Fortress.  It's very sad and frustrating.

So it's best to ignore the typical artist rendition model of the Temple which is based upon the proportions of the Antonia Fortress and impossibly squeezes in thousands of Roman guards in an adjoining building which wouldn't even be suitable for hundred.

For more information and to view the evidence, check out THIS documentary or read THIS excellent book.

Love & Shalom 

[Alive]

I find this to be an interesting discussion.

It is wise to attempt, at least, to read carefully what another writes and to take it as written rather than overlay assumptions.

I can't tell you how many times that I have had to reply to another---that didn't just read it as it was written.

Granted--this is not always an easy thing to manage, as we all have some deeply held perspectives that language can bring to the surface and thus define context--or redefine context.

 

[BibleReader]

6 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

the Temple wasn't actually on the "Temple Mount".

 

Thank you very much for your input. Yes, I've read a bit of this alternative approach as well, but honestly I haven't delved into it deeply enough yet.  Nevertheless, the bottom line, what I'm trying to get at is this: 

Was the temple completely destroyed in 70 C.E. or were there remnants of it still standing centuries later as Eusebius of Caesaria and the pilgrim of Bordeaux seem to indicate?  If you think that the documentary or book would shed light on this question, then I would check them out.  If not, I'll probably hold off for now since I have so many items of research currently, I don't want to overwhelm myself until I first get to the bottom line of some of the most important questions I have.  

Thanks in advance.  

 

[Alive]

24 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That presumes an already-existing interest in the discussion and in discussion. What do you normally conclude when observing more than a dozen successive unrelated posts? Does that evidence and interest in the topic of discussion, or in discussion itself?

The way I have learned to look at that is--its gonna happen--a lot. You can try to get things back on track, but many times it will lead to frustration.

Sometimes, ya just gotta flow with it. Perfect topical structure ain't gonna happen on a public forum.

:-)

[Justin Adams]

6 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Just a few things for you two to examine, consider, and contemplate. 

Agreed. Additionally, due to Moses not believing God initially, Aaron was drawn into the mix. Since Yeshua was not of that Priestly line, Melchizedek was the 'order' that Yeshua's Priesthood would follow. "Forever after the Order of Melchizedek".

[Alive]

19 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Most forums have rules in the tou requiring the subject matter of either the respective board or the individual threads be maintained.  Who is the one frustrated, the digressive or the one desiring topical discourse?  (Luke 6:45 - what would cause someone to willfully digress far afield?)

I don't want to be guilty of my own digression but do you think of our agreeing to the tou as a covenant agreement? one made between the mods and other members?

Yes--it is a covenant agreement, but many folks don't think about it as such--or don't think enough about it to take it very seriously.

 

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/terms/