|
Post by nonameforme on Jul 24, 2006 17:46:57 GMT -5
I have one more portiona of scripture for your comments.
Matthew 24 1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
I think part of what Jesus was saying is that it did not matter what the buildings of the temple looked like. What mattered was what was being done on the inside of an individual. His work! Not their own work.
|
|
|
Post by Another question on Jul 24, 2006 17:53:19 GMT -5
Matthew 24 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. When do you think this part of Jesus' prophecy will come to pass?
|
|
|
Post by nonameforme on Jul 24, 2006 17:58:39 GMT -5
To another question....guest
Shortly after he said this.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 19:47:22 GMT -5
The quoted scripture prophesies the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD70 when the Romans besieged and captured Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by But on Jul 24, 2006 20:00:49 GMT -5
The quoted scripture prophesies the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD70 when the Romans besieged and captured Jerusalem. I have been to Jerusalem. There are still stones on top of each other. Many. They have been that way for millennia. It is true the temple was burned but many of the stones are still standing.
|
|
|
Post by questio on Jul 24, 2006 20:06:01 GMT -5
Matthew 24 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. When do you think this part of Jesus' prophecy will come to pass? So the jews did not have an authorized ''temple'' since the destruction of the ''temple''? Wasn't the temple to be built by instructions according as the tabernacle was, also, as it was to be the permanent ''tabernacle'' that was continually moved about.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 20:09:38 GMT -5
In reply to #4:
I'm not sure what your point is other than the fulfilment of the prophecy is not exactly literal, and I would agree and say....And?
And #5:
Yes. Judaism has not been complete for nearly 2000 years. They have not been able to fulfill the requirements of the Law.
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on Jul 24, 2006 21:02:23 GMT -5
The temple was pulled down after it was burned with fire as the gold that covered the roof and adorned much of the decorative finish was melted and ran down into the cracks, the Romans pulled all the stones away and destroyed the temple to get at the gold using slave labour. May years later an attempt was made to rebuild the temple but was aborted. Hence there are some stones that appear today as if they had never been moved.
I only know of this as a friend of mine did a tour all around these parts trying to disprove many of the things in the bible but came away more convinced that everything he read of, did infact happen.
[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on Jul 24, 2006 21:08:01 GMT -5
In reply to #4: I'm not sure what your point is other than the fulfilment of the prophecy is not exactly literal, and I would agree and say....And? I don't see it as a prophecy that came to pass (yet). The prophecy was very specific. Yet it is accepted as fulfilled in vague terms. We also have to remember that probably for Mark's audience, the destruction of the Temple was already history. If I were to predict I was going to roll double-6 two times in a row and I rolled 6-5 and 6-6 that would not be considered to be a hit. Realistically, Jesus could have looked an almost any building in the city and have made the same prediction and it would have been as accurate. You could say the same thing regarding almost any building and it would eventually be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 21:25:00 GMT -5
That's your prerogative. There could be a final future fulfilment. But the prophecy found its instantiation in AD70.
Compare to His prophecy in Luke:
" And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” " (Luke 19:41-44, ESV)
This foretells the general destruction of Jerusalem that will occur with Titus. Again, Jesus describes it as being a case of not one stone left on top of another. It does not need to be understood exactly literally. It is a general phrase for large-scale destruction.
Not vague. General. Check Josephus' account of the destruction of the Temple.
Why should I accept that?
This is stretching to find relevance.
Yes. But the temple was theologically significant to Judaism. Since they rejected the promised One, they were also going to lose much more.
|
|
|
Post by Thanks on Jul 24, 2006 21:43:48 GMT -5
This foretells the general destruction of Jerusalem that will occur with Titus. Again, Jesus describes it as being a case of not one stone left on top of another. It does not need to be understood exactly literally. It is a general phrase for large-scale destruction. The point about Mark was that it was most likely written following the events of 70AD. Is it a foretelling or a post-telling?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 24, 2006 21:55:55 GMT -5
According to whom?
And even if it was written late, it still wasn't made up out of whole cloth. The underlying tradition was already widely known. The churches wouldn't have accepted a gospel account which contradicted the established tradition.
|
|
armchair historian Bert
Guest
|
Post by armchair historian Bert on Jul 24, 2006 22:21:41 GMT -5
Re Temple destruction - Jesus said not one stone will be upon another. The foundation of Herod's temple still stands. It is likely that Jesus was not referring to the foundation but to the temple which stood upon it. Jesus' prophecy was given before the temple fell in AD 70. Some evidence for this was shown in that the early Christians left Israel several years before the Roman-Jewish war began - as if acknowledging what Jesus had told them. Others may have fled Jerusalem while the Jews were rejoicing over a victory they had over the Romans shortly before full scale war began. And, it says somewhere (Daniel? Ezekiel?) that the Messiah will come while the temple still stands. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Not me on Jul 25, 2006 9:47:20 GMT -5
People who study these things. [qte]And even if it was written late, it still wasn't made up out of whole cloth. The underlying tradition was already widely known. The churches wouldn't have accepted a gospel account which contradicted the established tradition.[/quote]The prediction that the temple would be destroyed was not a new thought with Jesus or whomever wrote the words down. It would not have been going against any established tradition to have included a few words about the temple being destroyed. Adding to the story to make prophesies seem to come true is not something new. Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem. It is recorded in two of the gospels. But the reason why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem for the birth are different. In the big picture does it matter? Probably not. But,as you know, the devil is in the details.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 25, 2006 20:07:38 GMT -5
And I know people who study these things who disagree with that position: Craig Blomberg. Darrell Bock, R.T. France, David Wenham, Edwin Yamauchi, William Lane Craig, Daniel Wallace, and so on.
Just because some claim that the gospels were written late does not make it so. (Equally, just because some claim that the gospels were written early does not make it so.) But bias usually provides the impetus for what dating ranges someone accepts.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 26, 2006 16:54:21 GMT -5
I believe He meant exactly what He said-He wasn't talking about a future chuch building vs home church debate.
The words He spoke came to pass in about 70 AD when the temple was burned and every stone overturned to recver gold that had melted in the fire.
Work has been underway for several years to rebuild the temple and furnish it as before-I believe that may be prophesied also.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Jul 26, 2006 23:07:43 GMT -5
The wailing/western wall of the temple is there but it has been dug out of the ruins and rebuilt.
Jerusalem has been destroyed 7 times and they have dug excavations to the ruins below and rebuilt parts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 4:53:28 GMT -5
I have one more portiona of scripture for your comments. Matthew 24 1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. I think part of what Jesus was saying is that it did not matter what the buildings of the temple looked like. What mattered was what was being done on the inside of an individual. His work! Not their own work. To me, the point Jesus was anxious to make (which 2x2 teaching chooses to disregard and ridicule) is that the physical location and form, however good it may be, --- is NOT the issue. Edgar 2x2 doctrine tries dishonestly to teach people that worship MUST be done in the correct type of building.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Jul 27, 2006 10:44:01 GMT -5
Edgar: "2x2 doctrine tries dishonestly to teach people that worship MUST be done in the correct type of building"
In what way is the attempt to teach this dishonest?
It could be thats its wrong (in your opinion).
but how is their atempt to teach it dishonest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 11:16:35 GMT -5
Edgar: "2x2 doctrine tries dishonestly to teach people that worship MUST be done in the correct type of building" In what way is the attempt to teach this dishonest? It could be thats its wrong (in your opinion). but how is their atempt to teach it dishonest? One of greatest dishonesties is the recurring 2x2 implications that the Sunday morning meeting in the home was something that Jesus taught, practiced or expected his followers to practice. Also the recurring 2x2 implications that Jesus somehow taught people to avoid worship in buildings built for the purpose. The 2x2 doctrine also dishonestly implies that Jesus taught his followers to separate themselves from 'less worthy' people and develop self-admiration groups (á la 2x2) The dishonesty is in the suggestion that there is any backing at all in the story of Jesus for the organizational structure of their 'worship' system.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Jul 27, 2006 12:27:07 GMT -5
So what you are saying is not that the method of teaching was dishonest, but the material being taught was dishonest. Thats part is now clear.
But as for the doctrine being dishonest: What you are saying is that the doctrine is wrong. There's a difference between wrong and dishonest.
Dishonest would be believing one thing and teaching another. You say that they teach that meeting in the home was Jesus teaching, you aslo say that this is wrong. Now if they are tyeaching dishonestly, they must believe something other than what they teach.
Do you think that they teach something they do not beleive?
Or is dishonest the wrong word, and the word that describes your thoughts might be "wrong" teaching, rather than dishonest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2006 15:32:36 GMT -5
So what you are saying is not that the method of teaching was dishonest, but the material being taught was dishonest. Thats part is now clear. But as for the doctrine being dishonest: What you are saying is that the doctrine is wrong. There's a difference between wrong and dishonest. Dishonest would be believing one thing and teaching another. You say that they teach that meeting in the home was Jesus teaching, you aslo say that this is wrong. Now if they are tyeaching dishonestly, they must believe something other than what they teach. Do you think that they teach something they do not beleive? Or is dishonest the wrong word, and the word that describes your thoughts might be "wrong" teaching, rather than dishonest. I understand your line of thought .. and possibly in certain contexts I have used the word dishonest -- when wrong would have been more accurate. However 2x2 people pride themselves in their knowledge of the bible -- so some of the extreme deviations from bible teaching must be attributed to consciously manipulating the truth (which is dishonesty!!) I believe it is directly dishonest to leave people in the dark about the TV rulings -- the dress code concerns -- and many other issues that are never brought up until AFTER they have "signed into the group" Hardly is there a 2x2 policy more clearly a rule than the "no TV" policy -- yet even multi-generation 2x2s are taught to deny it!! This is gross dishonesty--- The enormous ecconomic resources available to the group are also openly denied. The organizational registrations in an abundance of different contexts are also clearly denied. The hierarchy in leadership is often denied as well. These are clear lies -- but within the cult these lies are presented as a love for the truth!!!! Many other examples of gross dishonesty can be brought up -- TV is clearly banned on the grounds that it brings the world into the home -- yet the Internet that gives access to a far more serious kind every sort of vice and evil -- is accepted!! It this honest? Workers claim to follow Jesus advice to some to go without purse or script. Yet they very obviously actively possess both. Is this honest?
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Jul 27, 2006 17:58:50 GMT -5
I'm sure that you will acknowledge that there are workers who are unaware of some of the things you mention above, and who then preach in ignorance about them. Likely you Edgar did it also. Thats wrong, but in my opinion not dishonest.
Preaching against TV might be also wrong, but its not dishonest. It might be misguided, it might be silly, it might be all manner of things, but if whats preached is genuinely believed, then its not dishonest. Comparing TV with internet, surely brings the sense of the TV ban to question, but still doesn't make it dishonest. When you say workers go without purse or script (Think you meant scrip, as a script is a written dialogue like script for a play), I think this also isn't dishonest. It might be a misguided application of scripture, but when its believed then its not dishonest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2006 3:44:51 GMT -5
I'm sure that you will acknowledge that there are workers who are unaware of some of the things you mention above, and who then preach in ignorance about them. Likely you Edgar did it also. Thats wrong, but in my opinion not dishonest. Preaching against TV might be also wrong, but its not dishonest. It might be misguided, it might be silly, it might be all manner of things, but if whats preached is genuinely believed, then its not dishonest. Comparing TV with internet, surely brings the sense of the TV ban to question, but still doesn't make it dishonest. When you say workers go without purse or script (Think you meant scrip, as a script is a written dialogue like script for a play), I think this also isn't dishonest. It might be a misguided application of scripture, but when its believed then its not dishonest. I will agree that the 2x2 doctrine has redifined dishonesty -- and regards their particular breed of it as a virtue. That doesn't change the fact that disregard for truth (by my definition composing 'dishonesty'). Edgar Another example of 2x2 active dishonesty -- 1 Tim 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" 2x2s use this verse to point out the folly of wearing jewelry -- but completely ignore the braided/broided hair aspect of the exact same verse. It is this kind of 'pick and choose mentality' that exibits the dishonesty that 2x2s call something else, and then regard it as a virtue.
|
|