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

[eclipseEventSigns]

Everyone, please reread the original post. No one is even addressing the actual subject of this thread.

 

[atpollard]

deleted.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

deleted.

Glad you deleted that. I got what you wrote in my email feed. Totally and completely false statements.

 

[Josheb]

Everyone, please reread the original post. No one is even addressing the actual subject of this thread.

We have. We are addressing the actual subject. The effort is not being recognized. The repeated demands we re-read the op are lame and the best means of proving the op is by engaging what everyone has brought to bear on the op. The wailing wall was not part of the temple building, and the Roman fortress has nothing to do with Matthew 24:2.

Re-read that and address it.​

Stop dismissing the facts in evidence and putting others down. If the op cannot be proven in 9 pages worth of posts the problem is not us.

 

[Josheb]

Everyone, please reread the original post. No one is even addressing the actual subject of this thread.

Restate the op's thesis in a single sentence.

The thread is clearly not working for you. Start over. Restate the point intended for discussion in a single sentence and then discuss that statement.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

The problem is that no one actually provides evidence against the PROOFS that I have provided. Just saying "nah, I don't agree" is not proof. That's not how this is discussed.

 

[Josheb]

The problem is that no one actually provides evidence against the PROOFS that I have provided.

No the problems are (plural) no proofs were provided, what was provided is not a "proof" of anything because it is laden with errors, what others have said is dismissed, AND none of it is recognized.

Just saying "nah, I don't agree" is not proof.

That is an example of dismissive commentary that is misrepresentative of the facts in evidence. It's a straw man comment. No one has said only "Nah, I don't agree."

That's not how this is discussed.

No, it's not. We can all agree with that. Post 166 is not how the op is discussed.


Salvage the thread. Restate your thesis in a single sentence. Start over. Restate the point intended for discussion in a single sentence and then discuss that statement. Anything else evidences the "Nah, I don't agree".

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

No the problems are (plural) no proofs were provided, what was provided is not a "proof" of anything because it is laden with errors, what others have said is dismissed, AND none of it is recognized.

That is an example of dismissive commentary that is misrepresentative of the facts in evidence. It's a straw man comment. No one has said only "Nah, I don't agree."

No, it's not. We can all agree with that. Post 166 is not how the op is discussed.


Salvage the thread. Restate your thesis in a single sentence. Start over. Restate the point intended for discussion in a single sentence and then discuss that statement. Anything else evidences the "Nah, I don't agree

I'm not interested in continually arguing in circles. Just because you think there's no proof, doesn't make it so. READ THE ORIGINAL PROOF and respond with counter proof. Not interested in your opinions and dismissive text.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not interested in continually arguing in circles. Just because you think there's no proof, doesn't make it so. READ THE ORIGINAL PROOF and respond with counter proof. Not interested in your opinions and dismissive text.

The posts prove otherwise. Every single post has been an opportunity to do something different and YOU have not taken a single one of those opportunities to prove the op. YOU have been unnecessarily adversarial and obstructed your own case, blaming others for not reading the op, not understanding the op, not addressing the op. According to YOU, we're all wrong and you alone are right and we're not just wrong, we're noncompliant ignorant trolls. It's called gaslighting. The undeniable fact is Post 166 says nothing about the op. In relationship to YOUR op it is a waste of cyberspace. The same is true of Posts 166, 163, 161, 153, 151, (I'll give you partial credit for 149), 144, 141, 139, 137, 136, 132, 130, 128, 126, (partial credit for 125), 122, (full credit for 117, even though it is a repetition of earlier post content), 103, 100. 98, (partial credit for 96 because at least we know this op is based on an extra-biblical source, but no one is going to read an entire book for the sake of this op), 92, 88, 86 and many more. You've been complaining for five pages and everyone reading your whining knows you left this conversation more than six weeks ago but have not stopped posting.

If YOU were interested in NOT continually arguing in circles YOU would post differently.

I have asked you to re-state your thesis in a single sentence. I have done so several times. The opportunity to rekindle the discussion of YOUR point has availed itself and YOU have refused it.

Josh: What is the single point of comment to be discussed?
Eclipse: You are all jerks.

Somehow you got it in YOUR head EVERYONE here is wrong, and not just wrong, but no one has read the op, no one has a clue about architecture, no one is cooperating with you, we do not know how to read the Bible, we do not know anything about relevant Roman/Israeli history, don't know the facts, no one accepts and bows down to Ron Bublitz's views, and because no one accepts and bows down to this op we're all playing games (see Post 23, dates 12/12/23) and making things up.

I'm not interested in continually arguing in circles.

It does not look like you are interested in cogent discourse or know how to handle disagreement, either.


Restate your thesis in a single sentence. Restart the discussion without all the prior rancor and ill-will. PROVE you want a respectful topical conversation with your peers and do it by setting the example.

 

[Josheb]

Just because you think there's no proof, doesn't make it so.

Straw man. The reason the "proof" is not a proof is because it contains multiple factual errors, multiple exegetic errors, and multiple logical errors. The failure of the op has nothing to do with what I think BUT the fact is no one here agrees with you and you seem to be having difficulty accepting that fact. I suspect I am not the only one who took the time to watch (some of) your YouTube videos, but I might be the only one who bothered to read your book (that has one single anonymous review on Amazon). I also suspect most of us have by now figured out the op is little more than self-promotion of your own views (see podcast 39), and those views are a Judaization of the New Testament using astronomy and astrology to interpret the prophets. To call this opening post a "proof" exceeds the definition of the term.

This op is not a proof, and it is not proof of anything but one man's opinion.

I'm not interested in continually arguing in circles.

The posts prove otherwise. All you have done is argue in circles; most of it ad hominem. YOU could prove you are not interested in more of the same with a single sentence.



Restate your thesis in a single sentence.


And the respectfully discuss it with something other than ad hominem. Try really hard not to mention anyone when defending your thesis. See if that does not effect the changes you claim you want.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Either Messiah Jesus is a liar or Jewish tradition is believing a lie.

So which is it?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Straw man. The reason the "proof" is not a proof is because it contains multiple factual errors, multiple exegetic errors, and multiple logical errors. The failure of the op has nothing to do with what I think BUT the fact is no one here agrees with you and you seem to be having difficulty accepting that fact. I suspect I am not the only one who took the time to watch (some of) your YouTube videos, but I might be the only one who bothered to read your book (that has one single anonymous review on Amazon). I also suspect most of us have by now figured out the op is little more than self-promotion of your own views (see podcast 39), and those views are a Judaization of the New Testament using astronomy and astrology to interpret the prophets. To call this opening post a "proof" exceeds the definition of the term.

This op is not a proof, and it is not proof of anything but one man's opinion.

The posts prove otherwise. All you have done is argue in circles; most of it ad hominem. YOU could prove you are not interested in more of the same with a single sentence.



Restate your thesis in a single sentence.


And the respectfully discuss it with something other than ad hominem. Try really hard not to mention anyone when defending your thesis. See if that does not effect the changes you claim you want.

In case it has not become clear to you, you are being ignored. You add nothing to the discussion. And you continually post combative and irrelevant posts.

 

[Josheb]

In case it has not become clear to you, you are being ignored.

ROTFLMBO!

If I were being ignored there'd be no responses to my post. Post 172 would not exist.

In case it has not become clear to you, you are being ignored.

Irrelevant.

My posts were not solely for your benefit. Everyone here deserves to know what you've done.

And you continually post combative and irrelevant posts.

You started it.

In case it has not become clear to you, you are being ignored.

Yep.

The opportunity to restart the thread by stating your thesis is being ignored and I am drawing attention to that fact.

 

[Two-Edged Sword]

we are stones of the spiritual temple (1 Peter 2:5)

In support of my prior comment ref believers being pictured as stones in the wall (the church) - I've been reading through Ezekiel and hit Chapter 13 where it speaks of the wall being "daubed with untempered morter" by the prophets seducing people saying there's peace where there is none, etc. (vs 10) It goes on to say that God will knock down the wall to it's foundation (vs 14).

Anyways, if interested, read the chapter for yourself. I see it as prophetic of the churches in the last days as they tell people they are in "peace and safety" (1 Thes 5:3) when they really don't have any, and the fall of the church (wall) as they become apostate, as symbolized in Revelation, which is the spiritual fulfillment of Mk 13:1-2, Matt 24:1-2, and Lk 21:5-6.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

In support of my prior comment ref believers being pictured as stones in the wall (the church) - I've been reading through Ezekiel and hit Chapter 13 where it speaks of the wall being "daubed with untempered morter" by the prophets seducing people saying there's peace where there is none, etc. (vs 10) It goes on to say that God will knock down the wall to it's foundation (vs 14).

Anyways, if interested, read the chapter for yourself. I see it as prophetic of the churches in the last days as they tell people they are in "peace and safety" (1 Thes 5:3) when they really don't have any, and the fall of the church (wall) as they become apostate, as symbolized in Revelation, which is the spiritual fulfillment of Mk 13:1-2, Matt 24:1-2, and Lk 21:5-6.

Replacement theology and churchianity are not Biblical concepts.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The focus of their discussion in those passages is the BUILDINGS and the beauty of them:

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts
Lk 21:5–6.

They weren't talking about the wall surrounding the buildings which were not "adorned" nor had "gifts" in its structure.

Jesus did not lie. Your interpretation of the text is off.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

The focus of their discussion in those passages is the BUILDINGS and the beauty of them:

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts
Lk 21:5–6.

They weren't talking about the wall surrounding the buildings which were not "adorned" nor had "gifts" in its structure.

Jesus did not lie. Your interpretation of the text is off.

Read, read read. And understand. You say things absolutely false. There was NO wall surrounding anything. The geography of that site meant the temple foundation was built on a retaining wall. Jesus used the specific aramaic word "kepa" - meaning stone or rock. In idiomatic usage it refers to the foundation stones.

k)p noun sg. abs. or construct= k)p N --> kyp N

kyp, kypˀ (kēp̄, kēp̄ā) n.f./m. rock, stone

Syriac usually ܟܐܦܐ‏

1 crag Qum, JLAtg, Sam, LJLA. --(a) large rock Com. --(b) bedrock, large ground rock (as a symbol of infertile ground) JLAtg.
2 stone Syr, JBAmb, JBA. --(a) as a substance Hat, Syr, LJLA. --(b) paved road Sam.
3 idiomatic usages . --(a) w. brq, brd : hailstone Syr, JBA. --(b) w. ܦܐܬܐ‏ : cornerstone Syr. --(c) דנורא‏ : meteorite, meteor JBA.

You can NOT properly interpret the Bible using English translations.

 

[Two-Edged Sword]

The focus of their discussion in those passages is the BUILDINGS and the beauty of them:

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts
Lk 21:5–6.

They weren't talking about the wall surrounding the buildings which were not "adorned" nor had "gifts" in its structure.

Jesus did not lie. Your interpretation of the text is off.

Well, Jesus answered talking of spiritual bread when the disciples were concerned with physical bread in Matthew 16:6 " And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees". so there's precedent for interpreting Jesus responding spiritually ref. physical items.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Well, Jesus answered talking of spiritual bread when the disciples were concerned with physical bread in Matthew 16:6 " And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees". so there's precedent for interpreting Jesus responding spiritually ref. physical items.

The first rule of interpretation - take it literally unless it is obvious that it is not being literal. That invalidates your opinion. Of course it is literal. The disciples were talking about a literal temple. Jesus answered them about a literal temple. How more obvious could it be?

 

[Two-Edged Sword]

The first rule of interpretation - take it literally unless it is obvious that it is not being literal. That invalidates your opinion. Of course it is literal. The disciples were talking about a literal temple. Jesus answered them about a literal temple. How more obvious could it be?

I guess Jesus was talking about literal bread in Matthew 16:6 too? that would be the obvious assumption