If the Wailing Wall is the Remains of the Temple Then Jesus Made A False Prophecy

[eclipseEventSigns]

The biological proof of it is Luke 23:28.

Here's Barnett:






Barnett, BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE NT: “Patmos”



Using coded language John writes of the menace of Rome to Christians. Rome is portrayed as the instrument of “a great red dragon…” (ch 12).

This dragon gave authority to two beasts, a sea beast and an earth beast, to “make war on the saints…” (ch 13). The sea beast (from his location) is John’s code for the Roman emperor (who had just required all people to refer to him as “Lord and God”), while the earth beast represents the high priest of Asia, who officiates at the major cultic activities within in the province… The earth beast engages in magical arts to hoodwink the populace into worshipping the image of the “sea beast” (ch 13).

Although the dragon appears to be rampant on earth he is in fact, bound, limited, circumscribed through the period between Christ’s resurrection and his return—symbolically a thousand years (ch 20). Those who have lost their lives for Jesus’ sake, …reign with him throughout the millenium, sharing his victory over the dragon.

John’s book, therefore, was written above all to strengthen and encourage Christians facing harassment and persecution from Roman officials in the city s of the Province of Asia. John was deeply conscious of the political events in the wider world. He made many references, in particular, to the critical events of the sixties, but in tantalizing and elusive ways.

The massing of the dreaded Parthian cavalry near the Euphrates in AD 62 and the barely averted conflict with Rome’s eastern legions appears to be in mind on a number occasions (chs 6, 9). John develops horrific images of fiendish galloping cavalry based, apparently, on his knowledge of the Parthians and Euphrates region.

The great fire which devasted the world capital in AD 64 seems to have supplied John with imagery for the coming judgment of the “harlot city.” Despite her gaudy opulence and immorality and her immense wealth and power (inspired by memories of Claudius wife, the notorious Messalina?), God will bring upon her overwhelming destruction in a single day. (ch 18)

Once again John has apparently taken an event in recent history and converted it into powerfully vivid apocalyptic language.

Nero’s bloody onslaught on Christians which followed and was a direct result of the fire of Rome also provided much of John’s descriptive language. He wrote about the woman, the harlot Rome in ch 17 and 13.

The writer’s enigmatic description of the two witnesses/two prophets who were killed and who bodies lay in the streets of the great city (ch 11) is probably but not certainly) a reference to the martyr-deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul which occurred in Rome during Nero’s persecutions. (ch 11).

Nero’s own career ended in disaster. He was condemned by the Senate…and took his own life. There were widespread beliefs in Nero redivivus that may lay behind Johns’ description of one of the heads of the sea beast which revived. (ch 13)

Nero dominated the sixties. To that point in history he had been the greatest enemy of the Christians, satanic in his dimension of evil…

The eighth king is, in all probability, Domitian. …John was using the events of the recent past to depict the future…

In contrast to Domitian’s requirement to worship him, the true Lord of Lords and King of Kings declares a gospel from heaven in which we are to worship God. It is only in this century that scholars have begun to have an appreciation of John’s profound awareness of and audacious attack upon the theological pretentiousness of Roman civilization.

It is, in my opinion, of great significance that John used the dramatic historical events within his book. In earlier decades, Christians had expected Jesus to return at any moment (2 Th 2, 3). If one had experienced the firey destruction of the ‘eternal city’ in AD 64 and the bloodbath that followed, removing as it did the great apostles Peter and Paul, or the sacking of Mount Zion and desecration of the Holy Place in AD 70, it would easily have seemed that the end would come at any moment.

But…in fact John saw the return of Jesus as not occurring for some considerable time.



--pages 237—241.

copy and pasting some author does not make something true. This material you post goes against sound Biblical exegesis and historical facts.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

If Luke 23:28 is a problem on that question of historicity, let me know.

When you show respect for the subject of this thread and actually read and verify the research I have presented, then I might do the same for the material you present. I'm just not interested in derailing this thread.

 

[EarlyActs]

copy and pasting some author does not make something true. This material you post goes against sound Biblical exegesis and historical facts.

You are up against an established evangelical publishing house on that: IVP.

It is all historic fact and was the way these things were read, though not so much on Dan 9.

There is no way to read Luke or the Thess passages without historical saturation. Luke draws widely on the cumulative wrath upon Israel theme of the OT , that was to land upon Israel in that generation.

One reader of my thesis material became an editor of the TDNT. Another was an NT prof at Regent College Vancouver. The thesis is lightened up slightly in my book THE COVENANT WAR.

 

[EarlyActs]

When you show respect for the subject of this thread and actually read and verify the research I have presented, then I might do the same for the material you present. I'm just not interested in derailing this thread.

The text is a biological time stamp that tells us when the massive wrath on Israel was to come—when those infants were adults.

It did. John used the same Hosea line in the Rev.

No one should be in research who is not open to complete RE-orientation down the road. The facts must always control.

For 50 years I have heard new prophecy experts appear monthly and insist on their view and on looking no further, yet quite unaware of the claims of , for ex, Acts 13 or 26. The futurist Bible college I attended never mentioned these passages meaningfully about Israel’s destiny or intended mission.

I’m willing to hear a thesis statement but your claims already have the pattern of the above experts.

Here is one of my theses: that Mt 24:29 is a shift from 1st cent. Judean events (now Past) to worldwide judgement yet to come—the very delay 2Peter 3 was written to defend. The worldwide judgement was originally intended to happened right after, as Rom 2 also sounds. But it was delayed.

Navigating that tight corner is where most eschatology crashes into irrationality.

All the best,
M Sanford , THE COVENANT REVOLT. Amazon. 2023.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are up against an established evangelical publishing house on that: IVP.

It is all historic fact and was the way these things were read, though not so much on Dan 9.

There is no way to read Luke or the Thess passages without historical saturation. Luke draws widely on the cumulative wrath upon Israel theme of the OT , that was to land upon Israel in that generation.

One reader of my thesis material became an editor of the TDNT. Another was an NT prof at Regent College Vancouver. The thesis is lightened up slightly in my book THE COVENANT WAR.

Corr: THE COVENANT REVOLT.

 

[Hobie]

Well, the main point is that NOTHING remains of the temple. The Wailing wall was not part of the temple. It is the site where the Roman Antonia Fortress was.

Which the Romans had to overcome in order to get unto the Temple court, so it was part of the 'wall' around the Temple complex, and the Romans filled it in with 50 feet of rubble from the destroyed city and dirt so the Jews could not even come to the remains of the Temple to try any kind of worship, thats what the Dome of the Rock is on today.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You are up against an established evangelical publishing house on that: IVP.

It is all historic fact and was the way these things were read, though not so much on Dan 9.

There is no way to read Luke or the Thess passages without historical saturation. Luke draws widely on the cumulative wrath upon Israel theme of the OT , that was to land upon Israel in that generation.

One reader of my thesis material became an editor of the TDNT. Another was an NT prof at Regent College Vancouver. The thesis is lightened up slightly in my book THE COVENANT WAR.

I am up against much more than that. The majority of false christian tradition is in error in many, many things. The truth becomes evident when one properly understands scripture and history. I'm in good company as the Old Testament prophets and Jesus himself had to battle against the arrogant, close minds of the religious teachers and scribes of their day as well. I'm not concerned as your view has been discredited as inaccurate by many others as well.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

If you believe that Messiah Jesus was always correct, how do you explain Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2, and Luke 21:5-6?

[Mar 13:1-2 LSB] 1 And 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."

It's very clear that the New Testament Gospel writers record that Jesus predicted total and complete destruction of the 2nd temple complex. It is verified and accepted history that the Roman army beseiged, captured and ultimately destroyed the temple and the city walls in 70 AD.

Yet, we are told by the Jewish religious leaders and archaeologists that a portion of that temple still exists. The Wailing Wall. The western portion of the temple mount. It is considered one of the most holy sites.

Both can not be true. Either Messiah Jesus is a liar or Jewish tradition is believing a lie. Oh, but the inventive minds of Christian scholars provide an answer. They get around this problem by stating that the Wailing Wall is only the retaining wall of the temple - not really part of the temple itself. However, Jesus said "not one stone will be left".

Josephus provides some inconvenient facts in his history. "NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind." War of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter 1

Josephus states the entire city AND temple were demolished. But scholars would have you believe that the army left the foundations intact. Josephus says that part of the city's western wall was spared including 3 truly magnificent towers. This western wall had nothing to do with the temple. But all of the rest of the wall was so thoroughly destroyed no one could even tell anything had ever been there. Anyone can research where the temple was located. It was part of the EASTERN wall of the city. That means, the temple buildings AND the retaining walls and complex would have been thoroughly demolished. Just as Jesus predicted.

But no one has ever discovered where the Roman fort of Antonia was. The fort that was located just north of the temple, on a hill which provided an overview of the temple complex. A fort that was a city within a city. Housing for an entire legion. Why would the Romans destroy their own massive fort? They wouldn't. So what the Jews consider the Wailing Wall and the current temple mount, is actually the location of that Antonia Fortress. They are deluding themselves and believing a lie.

This is an important realization. If any part of the temple still exists, then Jesus' prophecy is not true. Can you accept that?

I suppose that you could also argue that Jesus wants you to pluck out your right eye if it offends you. If this is so, there should be a lot of one-eyed Christians in this world. Of course, then there is the whole business of Jesus teaching cannibalism that you could also throw into the mix.

It is your reasoning in this post that led to so many of His disciples to abandon him and so He asks us today, "Wil you leave also?"

 

[EarlyActs]

I am up against much more than that. The majority of false christian tradition is in error in many, many things. The truth becomes evident when one properly understands scripture and history. I'm in good company as the Old Testament prophets and Jesus himself had to battle against the arrogant, close minds of the religious teachers and scribes of their day as well. I'm not concerned as your view has been discredited as inaccurate by many others as well.

No one I know of has the same delay doctrine.

No one can undo the biological reality of Luke 23:28, about which you have said nothing.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you believe that Messiah Jesus was always correct, how do you explain Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2, and Luke 21:5-6?

[Mar 13:1-2 LSB] 1 And 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."

It's very clear that the New Testament Gospel writers record that Jesus predicted total and complete destruction of the 2nd temple complex. It is verified and accepted history that the Roman army beseiged, captured and ultimately destroyed the temple and the city walls in 70 AD.

Yet, we are told by the Jewish religious leaders and archaeologists that a portion of that temple still exists. The Wailing Wall. The western portion of the temple mount. It is considered one of the most holy sites.

Both can not be true. Either Messiah Jesus is a liar or Jewish tradition is believing a lie. Oh, but the inventive minds of Christian scholars provide an answer. They get around this problem by stating that the Wailing Wall is only the retaining wall of the temple - not really part of the temple itself. However, Jesus said "not one stone will be left".

Josephus provides some inconvenient facts in his history. "NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind." War of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter 1

Josephus states the entire city AND temple were demolished. But scholars would have you believe that the army left the foundations intact. Josephus says that part of the city's western wall was spared including 3 truly magnificent towers. This western wall had nothing to do with the temple. But all of the rest of the wall was so thoroughly destroyed no one could even tell anything had ever been there. Anyone can research where the temple was located. It was part of the EASTERN wall of the city. That means, the temple buildings AND the retaining walls and complex would have been thoroughly demolished. Just as Jesus predicted.

But no one has ever discovered where the Roman fort of Antonia was. The fort that was located just north of the temple, on a hill which provided an overview of the temple complex. A fort that was a city within a city. Housing for an entire legion. Why would the Romans destroy their own massive fort? They wouldn't. So what the Jews consider the Wailing Wall and the current temple mount, is actually the location of that Antonia Fortress. They are deluding themselves and believing a lie.

This is an important realization. If any part of the temple still exists, then Jesus' prophecy is not true. Can you accept that?

There are already two statements in the NT that the full wrath of God landed on Israel in that war , regardless of exceptions claimed.

 

[Mr GLee]

Do you have a verse for that?

To make desolate is to make something to no effect. Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation. . . oral traditions of dying mankind ,making the word of God to no effect. So that dying mankind venerates the flesh of dying mankind rather than eternal God not seen .

God had given the atheist Jew over to do that which they should not.They of demanded a king like all the faithless pagan religions of the world . Again dying mankind's oral traditions in the place of the living word of our King of all the nations of kings

1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel( Atheist) gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

God used Judges as his prophets sent out as apostle like Samuel, the last, up until the first century reformation Then things were restored back to the period of Judges. men and and women from all the nations of the world, prophets sent out as apostles . That was "before they demanded a king" the pagn foundation. They would have nothing to do with his word. There oral traditions of dying mankind was law .

1 Samuel 8:5-7. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

God used that time period of Kings in Israel as a figure or shadow of the eternal unseen thing of God , The signified tongue of parables up until the first century reformation. It brought about the promises of Joel restoring the order of God our King of kings regning from heaven that worked in the hearts of those born again back to the period of Judges

Acts 2:15-17King James Version1 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

From my experience there is more conversations generated in regard to the 15th century reformation. The 1st century reformation set the standard for any reformation, the restoring the government of the King of kings,Lord of lord, our Holy Father .

Remember without parables the signified tongue of God, Christ spoke not. The time of reformation came again as prophesied in Joel. . . men and women from all the nations of the world a kingdom of Priest, holding out the gospel In a hope Christ will be formed in them.

Hebrews 9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

When Jesus walked out of the temple made with human hands (the abomination of desolation) The Son of man was given words from the Father Christ declared it desolate .Making desolate the abomination of desolation. Kings in Israel.

"Is left desolate" not will be. No signs were given to wonder after. Signs are for those who believe not, prophecy for the believers. The last sign the sign of Jonah was fulfilled with the son of man, Jesus.

It reminds me when in Exodus the Spirit of Christ told the Israelites to put blood around the doorway. as sign of circumcision to the unbelieving world the believer were following prophecy . And the Holy Spirit reminded them "when he not seen sees the blood". Not when we literally. Walk by faith of Christ the unseen things of God .

Its like people almost love to see blood, traffic jam victims. vampires . .LOL

Eternal God is not served by the dying hands of mankind. Its when he sees not us. He gives us his understanding as faith or power . . We have prophecy, the perfect Law of God .Christians are not to add to it or subtract from the perfect.

Matthew 23:38-39 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's pretty clear what Jesus said. And it's also clear what Josephus reported. It's modern minds that do not want to accept the facts.

Is the full wrath of 2Th2 or the ‘all that is written’ of Luke 21–are these facts or not? They are dated.

 

[EarlyActs]

Prob best if you don’t call other views childish.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Prob best if you don’t call other views childish.

Probably best to take your discredited views elsewhere. I'm only interested in discussing the research I present. Not derailing this thread with discredited views.

 

[Josheb]

If you believe that Messiah Jesus was always correct, how do you explain Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2, and Luke 21:5-6? ................................

Nope. Well, to be fair, yes, most of those details are correct but the wailing wall still standing and the appeal to exactness are red herrings.

Go back to the Matthew 24 text. Examine the Greek of verse 2. After the disciples pointed out the buildings, what Jesus said, specifically, was, "Do you see all these things? None shall be left, there won't even be a stone on a stone that isn't thrown down." Look it up. Jesus did not actually state every stone in the entire temple would be torn down. What he said was the stone of the buildings they could see would be torn down. The angel is in the details . From the vantage point of the entrance of the temples, from which they were leaving, they could not see the wailing wall (which is in the back and would have been obstructed from their view by the building at which they were looking).




So, I'd therefore like to make a few observations.

1. First, the text speaks for itself and there is no reason why any sincere and devoted reader of scripture would find an inconsistency (or any other problem) if the stuck to the specifics of the text and did not over-generalize or assume notions not in evidence.
2. We live in the age of the internet where the information I provided is available to anyone and available within seconds. There is, therefore, absolutely no excuse for not knowing it.
3. This is especially so for our teachers. Men (and women) who have gone to seminary or Bible college have (or should have) taken classes in exegesis and hermeneutics, so they know a) how to do what I just did and b) how not to do what this op did, c) what to teach and what not to teach to their students/hearers/readers.
4. Because many of our institutions teach from post-biblical doctrine instead of scripture mistakes like the ones found in this op are common. However, because of points 1 & 2 they are also recognizable. Anyone with a Bible can, and should, always check to see if what they're hearing/reading is worth learning.
5. These matters are very real and very serious because there are some in Christendom who make eschatology, which has historically been a minor doctrine, the chief doctrine and they either define everything they read and then teach by their eschatology, or they make whatever else the teach subordinate to it. This can readily be verified by listening to most Christian radio teachers for a week and counting the number of times they bring up end times - even when the subject on which they are preaching is not specifically end times (it happens often).
6. Most importantly, because the specific words of Jesus are so easily, readily, and objectively verifiable, we also know teachers who make these mistakes are either a) at best faulty teachers and to be heard with caution and discernment, b) allied more to their doctrine than scripture and, again, heard/read with caution, or c) outright false teachers. On the occasion the error is heard in a local congregation where the pastor/teacher can be directly asked about the teaching face-to-face, or in a discussion board like this where the exchange can be had directly, the way the mistaken teacher replies informs the problem. The who defend mistakes are not to be trusted, or considered veracious sources. The one who looks at the scripture(s), acknowledges what is plainly, explicitly stated (and does not add to it), and then bends their view to the text of scripture is not only trustworthy, but nobler than the defensive alternative. Note: On this occasion this is NOT a matter of doctrinal bias or scriptural interpretation. The text of scripture states what the scripture states and it does not state every single stone in the entire temple will be torn down. It reports every stone of the buildings they see will be torn down. And is the op did correctly and commendably observed, that is exactly what happened in 70 AD.
7. There are those who hold an eschatology by which a never-realized hope is built. The premise goes something like, "You will know the Bible is true when X happens." You'll know the Bible is true when another temple is built and then torn down in its entirety. In the case of this op , any future temple will necessarily have to be built in the old temple's place, having destroyed the Dome of the Rock Mosque and replaced with a Jewish temple that incorporates the wailing wall! This hoped-for "you will see" stands in stark contrast to an alternative whereby the Bible is trusted because its prophecy has already happened. Again: You-will-see versus you-can-see. You can trust scripture because of what might happen according to a post-biblical, post-NT-era doctrine, or you can trust scripture because what it prophetically states did, in fact, already happen.

Method is as important as content. Look at the last point of the op.

This is an important realization. If any part of the temple still exists, then Jesus' prophecy is not true. Can you accept that?

The important realization is this op is argued from already-existing biases. That is, indeed, very important.

Had the op said, "If any part of the buildings the disciples could see from the front of the temple still exists," then that would be a correct and valid point but that's not what it says. It takes an over-generalized view of the Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 texts, ignoring the specifics explicitly specified in the text, and uses the over-generalization to evidence what we will learn is a pre-existing position. This particular over-generalization is understandable, and quite common, but a closer examination of scripture proves it faulty. It is an over-generalization.

And since @eclipseEventSigns has posted several ops on his end times views we all also know that his views align with modern futurism, an end times view that is less than 200 years old, one quite literally invented 18 centuries after scripture was written and a doctrine completely contrary to everything historically held by orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. All the other main end times views have more in common with each other than modern futurism.




Lastly, given our last exchange, @eclipseEventSigns, I will remind you this isn't personal and if you cannot address the specifics of my post then the best alternative is silence because becoming defensive never works. Attacking me will do not thing to prove the correctness or veracity of the op. Check the relevant texts. Note that Jesus specified the things they see, not the entire temple compound. "Nunh unh, there's a part of the temple still standing and the exact words say nothing of the temple will remain," must be replaced with "....the exact words say nothing seen from the front will remain." An appeal to the exactness of scripture must be consistent, and this op is not consistent with what is explicitly, specifically, exactly stated in scripture. If you are as critical of your sources as you are of my posts then your posts will improve (and your doctrines change ).

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Nope. Well, to be fair, yes, most of those details are correct but the wailing wall still standing and the appeal to exactness are red herrings.

Go back to the Matthew 24 text. Examine the Greek of verse 2. After the disciples pointed out the buildings, what Jesus said, specifically, was, "Do you see all these things? None shall be left, there won't even be a stone on a stone that isn't thrown down." Look it up. Jesus did not actually state every stone in the entire temple would be torn down. What he said was the stone of the buildings they could see would be torn down. The angel is in the details . From the vantage point of the entrance of the temples, from which they were leaving, they could not see the wailing wall (which is in the back and would have been obstructed from their view by the building at which they were looking).




So, I'd therefore like to make a few observations.

1. First, the text speaks for itself and there is no reason why any sincere and devoted reader of scripture would find an inconsistency (or any other problem) if the stuck to the specifics of the text and did not over-generalize or assume notions not in evidence.
2. We live in the age of the internet where the information I provided is available to anyone and available within seconds. There is, therefore, absolutely no excuse for not knowing it.
3. This is especially so for our teachers. Men (and women) who have gone to seminary or Bible college have (or should have) taken classes in exegesis and hermeneutics, so they know a) how to do what I just did and b) how not to do what this op did, c) what to teach and what not to teach to their students/hearers/readers.
4. Because many of our institutions teach from post-biblical doctrine instead of scripture mistakes like the ones found in this op are common. However, because of points 1 & 2 they are also recognizable. Anyone with a Bible can, and should, always check to see if what they're hearing/reading is worth learning.
5. These matters are very real and very serious because there are some in Christendom who make eschatology, which has historically been a minor doctrine, the chief doctrine and they either define everything they read and then teach by their eschatology, or they make whatever else the teach subordinate to it. This can readily be verified by listening to most Christian radio teachers for a week and counting the number of times they bring up end times - even when the subject on which they are preaching is not specifically end times (it happens often).
6. Most importantly, because the specific words of Jesus are so easily, readily, and objectively verifiable, we also know teachers who make these mistakes are either a) at best faulty teachers and to be heard with caution and discernment, b) allied more to their doctrine than scripture and, again, heard/read with caution, or c) outright false teachers. On the occasion the error is heard in a local congregation where the pastor/teacher can be directly asked about the teaching face-to-face, or in a discussion board like this where the exchange can be had directly, the way the mistaken teacher replies informs the problem. The who defend mistakes are not to be trusted, or considered veracious sources. The one who looks at the scripture(s), acknowledges what is plainly, explicitly stated (and does not add to it), and then bends their view to the text of scripture is not only trustworthy, but nobler than the defensive alternative. Note: On this occasion this is NOT a matter of doctrinal bias or scriptural interpretation. The text of scripture states what the scripture states and it does not state every single stone in the entire temple will be torn down. It reports every stone of the buildings they see will be torn down. And is the op did correctly and commendably observed, that is exactly what happened in 70 AD.
7. There are those who hold an eschatology by which a never-realized hope is built. The premise goes something like, "You will know the Bible is true when X happens." You'll know the Bible is true when another temple is built and then torn down in its entirety. In the case of this op , any future temple will necessarily have to be built in the old temple's place, having destroyed the Dome of the Rock Mosque and replaced with a Jewish temple that incorporates the wailing wall! This hoped-for "you will see" stands in stark contrast to an alternative whereby the Bible is trusted because its prophecy has already happened. Again: You-will-see versus you-can-see. You can trust scripture because of what might happen according to a post-biblical, post-NT-era doctrine, or you can trust scripture because what it prophetically states did, in fact, already happen.

Method is as important as content. Look at the last point of the op.

The important realization is this op is argued from already-existing biases. That is, indeed, very important.

Had the op said, "If any part of the buildings the disciples could see from the front of the temple still exists," then that would be a correct and valid point but that's not what it says. It takes an over-generalized view of the Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 texts, ignoring the specifics explicitly specified in the text, and uses the over-generalization to evidence what we will learn is a pre-existing position. This particular over-generalization is understandable, and quite common, but a closer examination of scripture proves it faulty. It is an over-generalization.

And since @eclipseEventSigns has posted several ops on his end times views we all also know that his views align with modern futurism, an end times view that is less than 200 years old, one quite literally invented 18 centuries after scripture was written and a doctrine completely contrary to everything historically held by orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. All the other main end times views have more in common with each other than modern futurism.




Lastly, given our last exchange, @eclipseEventSigns, I will remind you this isn't personal and if you cannot address the specifics of my post then the best alternative is silence because becoming defensive never works. Attacking me will do not thing to prove the correctness or veracity of the op. Check the relevant texts. Note that Jesus specified the things they see, not the entire temple compound. "Nunh unh, there's a part of the temple still standing and the exact words say nothing of the temple will remain," must be replaced with "....the exact words say nothing seen from the front will remain." An appeal to the exactness of scripture must be consistent, and this op is not consistent with what is explicitly, specifically, exactly stated in scripture. If you are as critical of your sources as you are of my posts then your posts will improve (and your doctrines change ).

And again presenting views that can not be supported with scripture and history and then making false statements about me is not the way to have a discussion.

 

[EarlyActs]

Probably best to take your discredited views elsewhere. I'm only interested in discussing the research I present. Not derailing this thread with discredited views.

1, no one has. Go ahead.

2, what does Luke 23:28 say biologically about the formidable destruction of Israel in that biological generation, quoting Hos 10 (cp Rev 6)?

3, are 2 Th 2 and Lk 21 about the full wrath of God on Israel--are these 'facts' in your view or a theolog's opinion?

4, what possible reason would 2 Peter 3 need to speak of a delay of worldwide wrath?

We all have to submit to the NT's own statements, no matter how good our view has been worked out. I have an Adventist friend here who will not accept that David foresaw the resurrection as the Davidic enthronement in Acts 2:30+. The grammar says so but his denomination does not.

All the best, Marcus

 

[EarlyActs]

Which the Romans had to overcome in order to get unto the Temple court, so it was part of the 'wall' around the Temple complex, and the Romans filled it in with 50 feet of rubble from the destroyed city and dirt so the Jews could not even come to the remains of the Temple to try any kind of worship, thats what the Dome of the Rock is on today.

Even more important in the details of the conflict is that the zealots thought of it as an asset to seize.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Probably best to take your discredited views elsewhere. I'm only interested in discussing the research I present. Not derailing this thread with discredited views.

If you are the author of this thread with the title it has, then you are claiming Jesus made a false prophecy. Instead of derailing the topic from that, could you explain what on earth you mean exactly? Because it seems to me that your entire argument is based on nothing at all.

 

[Josheb]

And again presenting views that can not be supported with scripture and history and then making false statements about me is not the way to have a discussion.

ROTFLMBO!


I cited scripture and the response is that it is a view that cannot be supported with scripture.

Josh: Here's the scripture.
eclipseEventSigns: that's not scripture.
Josh: Yes, it is.
eclipseEventSigns: No, it's not.
Josh: Yes, it is.
eclipseEventSigns: No, it is not.

Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not.

Josh: The text sates what they see will be destroyed.
eclipseEventSigns: The text says the entire temple will be destroyed.

Matthew 24:1-2 BLB
And having gone forth from the temple, Jesus was going away, and His disciples came to Him to point out to Him the buildings of the temple.
And answering, He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, no not even a stone shall be left here upon a stone, which will not be thrown down."

Mark 13:1-2 BLB
And of Him going forth out of the temple, one of His disciples says to Him, “Teacher, behold what stones and what buildings!" And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left here upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down.”

Luke 21:5-6 BLB
And as some were speaking about the temple, that it was adorned with goodly stones and consecrated gifts, He said, "As to these things which you are beholding, the days will come in which no stone will be left upon a stone, which will not be thrown down.”

Something very important has been left out of the op because Jesus' words leaving the temple should also be understood in light of whole scripture. Jesus' words are a reference to something the prophet Daniel said.

Daniel 9:26
Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

We see the destruction of the temple (and its rebuilding) ties to the cutting off of the Messiah (not some future return).

John 2:19-21
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of His body.


Both temples were destroyed. Only one was rebuilt. Nowhere does scripture anywhere explicitly state another temple of stone will be built (and I suspect if you had such a scripture then it would have been included in the op to prove the op's veracity). I've got plenty of scripture read as written. This op is built on an assumptive reading of selected scriptures.

If the best protest that can be mustered is there's no scripture, then the posts prove otherwise. Stop denying what is obvious to everyone else (the existence of scripture) and engage the posts' contents.