Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 117

Thread: 2nd Coming backdrop

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm happy to rest my confidence on what Jesus said. How you characterize that interpretation is an unfortunate depiction. It may be what you really believe. But it does not show good Christian character. If so, am I to really believe you understand the Christian Scriptures?
    As you are NOT resting confidently in what Jesus said, how is anyone to follow what you say?
    You say Luke has INTERPRETED what Jesus said, as it wasn't ACTUALLY what Jesus said.
    I am showing very concerned Christian character as you seem to think it is fine to claim that Luke would CHANGE the words He was told Jesus had said, and then to write it AS IF Jesus had actually said those words.
    This is a dangerous DECEPTION. It is a LIE of the DEVIL.
    When you come to your senses and recognise that Jesus spoke the ACTUAL words Luke wrote AND also spoke the words Matthew wrote THEN you will drop what you claim.
    Luke did NOT make a prophecy which was that an army would surround Jerusalem and then leave allowing people to flee. This was a VERY SPECIFIC prophecy that Jesus made.
    IF Luke had been explaining what Jesus said, then there are TWO major changes he would have made.
    1) He would not have written it as Jesus have spoken the words.
    2) He would have said "when you see an army coming to attack Jerusalem..."

    You however are presenting an INSIDIOUS DEVIOUS LIE of the DEVIL as if it has a particle of truth, and then you claim you are resting in things Jesus said, yet clearly you are NOT because YOU are claiming it is an INTERPRETATION and NOT the words of Jesus.



    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Remind me what happened in 586 BC? Any prophecy of the destruction of the temple will suffice. It doesn't have to be explicit about one stone not standing upon another.
    There was no prophecy of destruction of the temple that I am aware of, however Jeremiah did prophesy about the city falling.
    It was when Daniel was already in exile and the city was taken and the temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    As you are NOT resting confidently in what Jesus said, how is anyone to follow what you say?
    You say Luke has INTERPRETED what Jesus said, as it wasn't ACTUALLY what Jesus said.
    I am showing very concerned Christian character as you seem to think it is fine to claim that Luke would CHANGE the words He was told Jesus had said, and then to write it AS IF Jesus had actually said those words.
    This is a dangerous DECEPTION. It is a LIE of the DEVIL.
    When you come to your senses and recognise that Jesus spoke the ACTUAL words Luke wrote AND also spoke the words Matthew wrote THEN you will drop what you claim.
    Luke did NOT make a prophecy which was that an army would surround Jerusalem and then leave allowing people to flee. This was a VERY SPECIFIC prophecy that Jesus made.
    IF Luke had been explaining what Jesus said, then there are TWO major changes he would have made.
    1) He would not have written it as Jesus have spoken the words.
    2) He would have said "when you see an army coming to attack Jerusalem..."

    You however are presenting an INSIDIOUS DEVIOUS LIE of the DEVIL as if it has a particle of truth, and then you claim you are resting in things Jesus said, yet clearly you are NOT because YOU are claiming it is an INTERPRETATION and NOT the words of Jesus.

    I do believe you are the "deceived" one--not because your opinion on these passages is right or wrong, but because you try to fight another Christian's view with a vicious attack. Calling my view a "lie of the Devil" is completely out of character with Christianity here!

    You are trying to play word games in order to justify such an accusation. You turn simple statements I make into "Scripture-contorting." The truth is, this is my honest conviction, and you show zero respect for that!

    I'm less likely to respond to you when you act this way. You did so also when you accused me of being a "Preterist," when I'm *not* a Preterist. You seemed to withdraw that approach, but seem to always want to return to it--as if your arguments are not sufficient--you must *attack me?*

    So you should not expect much from me in the future, as long as I see this is your strategy, to attack and malign. But for the present, to wrap up this argument, I will just state the following on behalf of anybody who has followed this...

    1) Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse (OD) both say the same things in my view. They combine the idea of the destruction of both the city and the sanctuary with the idea of the Abomination of Desolation (AoD). All 3 versions of the OD, in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luk 17;21, also combine the desolation of both the city and the sanctuary with the AoD. Luke's version makes this assumption perfectly clear by *not* mentioning the AoD, and by stating in its place the desolation of the city and the sanctuary. This confirms that they are the *same thing!*

    2) Dan 9 defines the Holy Place as the area surrounding the city of Jerusalem by referencing an Army encompassing (it is supposed) to invade it and to destroy it. This is exactly how Jesus depicted it, as an Army encompassing the city walls to desolate it.

    Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary... And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

    Matt 24.2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
    3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen?"... 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
    15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

    Luke 21.6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
    7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen?... 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
    20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


    As anybody can see, right after Jesus mentions the "hatred" that will erupt in Israel just before the punishment of the Jews, Matthew mentions the AoD, which will take place in "this generation." That is, all of these initial signs will take place in the generation of the Apostles, and not in the endtimes.

    In Luke's version, right after mention of the same "hatred" erupting in Israel, Jesus mentions the encirclement of Jerusalem by what appears to be a Roman Army. This will, again, take place in "this generation." And so, we assume this is a Roman Army. This "defines" what Matthew had described as the AoD. It is likely that Jesus' actual conversation included both the description of the AoD and the description of an Army encircling Jerusalem. Matthew chose to use "AoD," and Luke chose to use "military encirclement of the city."

    When we go back to Daniel 9, which is what Jesus referenced, we note that the "encirclement of Jerusalem," which is what Jesus described, was a military invasion of Israel, desolating both the city and the sanctuary. And Daniel seems to describe it, at the end of the passage, as the AoD.

    The point I wish to make here is that the "holy place," defined in the light of these comparisons, would include not just the sanctuary, but also the city of Jerusalem, as well as the surrounding area, since it would encompass the territory upon which the foreign Army would stand, to "encircle it." The Holy Place is therefore both inside of and outside of the city proper, so that the foreign Army would be "standing in the holy place." In my understanding I see this, with good conscience, to be a "holy place" defined as the area immediately surrounding Jerusalem, as well as the area within the walls of Jerualem. To lay siege against Jerusalem, in both 66 and 70 AD, would be to "stand in the holy place," that is within the area surrounding Jerusalem. It was a direct challenge upon the Jewish religion and upon their God!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I do believe you are the "deceived" one--not because your opinion on these passages is right or wrong, but because you try to fight another Christian's view with a vicious attack. Calling my view a "lie of the Devil" is completely out of character with Christianity here!
    When anyone says that Luke did NOT write the words of Jesus, but interpreted it, then THAT person is ATTACKING the integrity of God's Word.
    When they claim that they are resting on the very words of Jesus, whilst at the SAME TIME stating they are NOT Jesus' actual words but an interpretation THEN they are being a hypocrite and a liar.
    I am saying your claim that Luke did NOT record Jesus' words, but instead wrote an interpretation is indeed a LIE of the DEVIL.
    Luke wrote it as words from Jesus' mouth.

    You are trying to play word games in order to justify such an accusation. You turn simple statements I make into "Scripture-contorting." The truth is, this is my honest conviction, and you show zero respect for that!
    I don;t care how sincere you are or it being your honest conviction, the FACT is that you are saying we CANNOT trust the words of Luke because they are an interpretation and NOT the Word of God.

    So you should not expect much from me in the future, as long as I see this is your strategy, to attack and malign. But for the present, to wrap up this argument, I will just state the following on behalf of anybody who has followed this...
    I am not interested in discussing scripture with you, as WITHOUT a BASIS that Luke ACCURATELY recorded the words Jesus spoke as being spoken by Jesus THEN we can NEVER progress.
    Scripture is INSPIRED by God and God also gave Luke and the other writers the source of the TRUTH.
    Luke NEVER wrote his own interpretation when he was reporting the WORDS of Jesus.
    Luke chose the style and the way he wrote and the ordering of the topics and the focus, but Luke NEVER said Jesus said something that Jesus did NOT say.
    This is what I am calling the LIE of the DEVIL - The idea that Luke wrote something claiming it was spoken by Jesus, but which Jesus didn't actually say.

    I am NOT saying your bizarre view as to how to interpret Luke 21 is a lie of the Devil. I have simply called that bizarre. What I am strenuously objecting to is this PERNICIOUS UNCHRISTIAN claim that Luke (or any other Gospel writer) wrote Jesus saying something which Jesus did NOT in fact say.


  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am not interested in discussing scripture with you, as WITHOUT a BASIS that Luke ACCURATELY recorded the words Jesus spoke as being spoken by Jesus THEN we can NEVER progress.
    Scripture is INSPIRED by God and God also gave Luke and the other writers the source of the TRUTH.
    Luke NEVER wrote his own interpretation when he was reporting the WORDS of Jesus.
    Luke chose the style and the way he wrote and the ordering of the topics and the focus, but Luke NEVER said Jesus said something that Jesus did NOT say.
    This is what I am calling the LIE of the DEVIL - The idea that Luke wrote something claiming it was spoken by Jesus, but which Jesus didn't actually say.
    I never said that Luke wrote what Jesus did not say! Before you attack something as "of the Devil" you need to properly understand what I'm saying. You should begin by asking what I mean, rather than by attacking what "sounds like" something wrong to you.

    In everything I said I didn't once say that Luke wrote something *Jesus did not say!* I even explained what I meant by "Luke's interpretation" of Jesus' words. I referred to the same thing you just indicated, that Jesus preferred to use certain words that Jesus used among the many things Jesus said. This rendered the "AoD" in Matthew to be the "encircling Army" in Luke. Both were said by Jesus. Luke found it sufficient to use "encircling Army," with the assumption his readers understood it was the same thing as the AoD in Dan 9/the OD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am NOT saying your bizarre view as to how to interpret Luke 21 is a lie of the Devil. I have simply called that bizarre. What I am strenuously objecting to is this PERNICIOUS UNCHRISTIAN claim that Luke (or any other Gospel writer) wrote Jesus saying something which Jesus did NOT in fact say.

    Before you throw such accusations out there you should carefully inquire if that is what I'm actually saying! I didn't say that. And I explained it. Why you then decided to jump ahead, without confirmation, to accuse my view as being "of the Devil" mystifies me. I can only explain it as impatience on your part, and the intense desire to prove my position wrong. You seem bent on characterizing a view as "bizarre" when it is a normal view among the Church Fathers and in Church history. I've given you the quotations.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I never said that Luke wrote what Jesus did not say!
    Yes you did - you posted that Luke INTERPRETED what Jesus was saying. That means you have Luke writing words of Jesus AS IF Jesus spoke them, but without Him actually saying them.
    Luke did NOT INTERPRET what Jesus said. Luke wrote down the witness accounts of what Jesus DID say and did NOT INTERPRET them.
    This is what Jesus SAID:
    Luk 21:20* “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

    Everything underlined are ACTUAL words spoken by Jesus and NOT an INTERPRETATION by Luke.
    You may choose how you want to interpret those words, but Luke did NOT interpret some other words - like these:
    Mat 24:15* “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place

    These words were ALSO spoken by Jesus. Matthew didn't INTERPRET what Jesus said either. In fact Matthew adds (Let the reader understand) rather than interpret them.

    It is a LIE of the DEVIL to claim that Jesus did NOT say either line. BOTH were stated by Jesus.
    Jesus actually said BOTH in His Olivet Discourse. This something you have a problem with, so you make a claim that Luke rewrote what Jesus said into something else.
    I know other people have made this claim, which doesn't stop it being a LIE just because it is repeated. Further it is an attack on a foundational principle of understanding His Word. If these words that Luke noted were NOT spoken by Jesus, then how many other words were "interpreted"!

    Now you have tried playing semantics a lot, and then complain when someone highlights the DISTORTION of your own semantics, where you say IN is OUT along with other claims. Now I don't say that semantics is a lie of the Devil, it is simply your way of trying to interpret something. However when you claim that Luke wrote something Jesus DID say, but was an INTERPRETATION of what Jesus said, then you have gone beyond semantics to an attack on the Word of God.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Yes you did - you posted that Luke INTERPRETED what Jesus was saying.
    I did *not* say that Luke wrote what Jesus did *not* say!! I did call this an "interpretation" in the sense that Luke chose to use words of Jesus that were different than the words Matthew and Mark chose to use.

    Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that there would be an "Abomination of Desolation" standing in the Holy Place. They wrote this in the place in the Discourse after Jesus talked about hatred emerging in Israel. Luke chose to use other words of Jesus, also expressed in the exact same place in the Discourse. After talking bout the emerging hatred in Israel he chose to omit the words used indicating an "Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place," and instead used other words of Jesus, describing an "encircling Army." Most likely, Jesus described *both* the encircling Army and the AoD in the same place in the Discourse. Matthew and Mark chose to use the "AoD" part, while Luke chose to use the "encircling Army" part.

    You are hung up on my choice of the word "interpretation." You have an enormous problem with how people use words because you are *judgmental.* You choose to jump to negative conclusions about what somebody says, assigning meaning to words to make a position look impossible. I strongly suggest you *ask* what someone means, before judging him!

    But I've not said this was Luke's explanation of things Jesus did *not* say!! Rather, by choosing only *some* of what Jesus said Luke depicted the entirety of what he said as if it was assumed to be the same thing.

    For example, 5 minutes into a speech I describe a big ball of fire, and then depict it as a sun. Later, two reporters report that in the speech I talked about a big ball of fire, while another reporter reported that I talked about a sun. In all reports the reporters are referring to the *same thing!* The sun *is* the big ball of fire! The last reporter, in reporting that I talked about a "sun" was "interpreting" the sun to be an adequate description of the "big ball of fire!"

    In the same way, Jesus mentioned in the Olivet Discourse that there would be an encircling Army, and depicted it as the AoD. All reports, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to the *same thing!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now you have tried playing semantics a lot, and then complain when someone highlights the DISTORTION of your own semantics, where you say IN is OUT along with other claims. Now I don't say that semantics is a lie of the Devil, it is simply your way of trying to interpret something. However when you claim that Luke wrote something Jesus DID say, but was an INTERPRETATION of what Jesus said, then you have gone beyond semantics to an attack on the Word of God.
    Get rid of the hostility, and the judgmentalism, and ask before leaping to conclusions. I did *not* say Luke referenced things that Jesus did not say. You will not be able to produce a single quote that says that. What I meant by the word "interpretation" you take out of context to mean something that I *did not say!* Luke "interprets" the AoD of Matthew and Mark to be the "encirclement of Jerusalem." Luke understood the encirclement of Jerusalem and the AoD to be the same thing, and thus felt justified in only quoting part of what Jesus said.

    The Scriptures do not come out and say, absurdly, that Luke's version is an "interpretation" of what Jesus meant by the AoD! Rather, this is an assumption based on Luke's choice of words to describe the same event. To say I'm lying by the inspiration of the Devil to point this out is over the top, brother.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I did *not* say that Luke wrote what Jesus did *not* say!! I did call this an "interpretation" in the sense that Luke chose to use words of Jesus that were different than the words Matthew and Mark chose to use.
    No you said that Luke INTERPRETED what Jesus said.
    You are STATING that these words in Luke 21:20 are the SAME words as Matt 24:15 but INTERPRETED.

    IF you are saying that Jesus said BOTH lots of words THEN please present WHEN Jesus said it.
    I obviously say that Jesus said BOTH lots of words and this is why it is 100% clear that Jesus spoke of TWO separate events.

    Please put the words together so that they make sense AND speak of the SAME event. As it is you say ONE thing, but actual mean another as your response to me shows.

    Did Jesus say these words AT THE SAME TIME?

    But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ...

    Was it like that?

    Sorry but YOUR entire claim is based on Jesus NOT saying BOTH lots of words, but one with Luke INTERPRETING what Jesus said as recorded in Matthew.
    I am of course hostile to anyone saying that Jesus did NOT say these words and that Luke wrote his own INTERPRETATION.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No you said that Luke INTERPRETED what Jesus said.
    You are STATING that these words in Luke 21:20 are the SAME words as Matt 24:15 but INTERPRETED.
    Words mean what they mean in context. You continue to try to take words out of their context, due to your predisposition to judgment. I explained what I meant by "interpretation." I did not deny I used the word "interpretation." And I stand by my use of the word "interpretation." In context my claim was that Luke in effect was interpreting what he understood Jesus to say, namely that the 2 descriptions--the AoD and the military encirclement--were what Jesus was saying about a single event. Please get the "stained glass" reading glasses off your face. I'm defining the word "interpretation" as *I mean it,* and not as *you mean it!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    IF you are saying that Jesus said BOTH lots of words THEN please present WHEN Jesus said it.
    I obviously say that Jesus said BOTH lots of words and this is why it is 100% clear that Jesus spoke of TWO separate events.
    We have *both* said the same thing, and I have never said otherwise. I have *never* said that Luke was quoting words that Jesus *did not say!*

    Luke was told by an Apostle what Jesus said. What Jesus said was a description of an event that included 2 elements: the AoD standing in the holy place and the Army encircling Jerusalem. Luke interpreted this description, including all of its elements, to be depicting a *single event,* namely the fall of the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Please put the words together so that they make sense AND speak of the SAME event. As it is you say ONE thing, but actual mean another as your response to me shows.
    Brother, I did put the words together. Do you still not understand? I gave you the example of a *big ball of fire,* which was also described as *a sun.* You can use any of the 2 descriptions and still be referencing the same thing!

    Jesus described the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem as an "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," and as an "encircling Army around Jerusalem." They both describe the same thing. The various descriptions of this event use Jesus' actual words. But the various authors choose to omit some words and include others. But all of the versions are describing the same event, which is described in both these ways!

    All of these versions take place at the same place in the Discourse! They do describe the same event! If you can't understand this, or if you think there is no justification for this, or if you can't see any logic behind seeing it this way, you just aren't trying. You're not serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Did Jesus say these words AT THE SAME TIME?
    But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ...
    Was it like that?
    Sorry but YOUR entire claim is based on Jesus NOT saying BOTH lots of words, but one with Luke INTERPRETING what Jesus said as recorded in Matthew.
    I am of course hostile to anyone saying that Jesus did NOT say these words and that Luke wrote his own INTERPRETATION.
    At least I do see, from this last statement, that you do indeed get what I'm saying. No, I'm not using the word "interpretation" the way you're trying to force it! I'm not using the word "interpretation" as if Luke was interpreting a prophecy. Rather, he was just retelling the account of the Olivet Discourse with the understanding that this desolation of Jerusalem was the same as the AoD standing in the Holy Place!

    Clearly, 2 descriptions can exist that describe a single event. I can describe something as a *big ball of fire* and as *a sun,* and still be describing the same event! I don't have to explain how the original Discourse ran, or in what order he used these 2 expressions. I'm not even sure what version of the OD Luke actually heard?

    The important thing is, the 2 descriptions are compatible and contain the same idea of "desolating the Holy Place." The desolation of the "city and the sanctuary" is what Daniel described in Dan 9.26. So the Holy Place is, in my thinking, the area surrounding the city of Jerusalem, representing a Roman enclosure, as well as a "standing in the Holy Place."

    The biggest problem here is that thought normally goes back to Antiochus 4, where his "abomination" was literally *in the temple,* such as an idol or a pig. That seems to contradict the idea of a Roman Army standing outside the gates of Jerusalem.

    But as I told you, for me this is precisely what Dan 9 shows, that this particular AoD is an enclosure of the city by a Roman Army, set to destroy the city and the sanctuary. Thus, it is very different from our common conception of the Antiochus' AoD. It is not just the desolation of the temple in view, but more, the desolation of the city of Jerusalem. And this was to take place through an invading Army, which naturally assumes the position of a siege outside of the city walls. Still, in my understanding, this is how Daniel portrays an AoD standing in the holy place.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Words mean what they mean in context. You continue to try to take words out of their context, due to your predisposition to judgment. I explained what I meant by "interpretation." I did not deny I used the word "interpretation." And I stand by my use of the word "interpretation." In context my claim was that Luke in effect was interpreting what he understood Jesus to say, namely that the 2 descriptions--the AoD and the military encirclement--were what Jesus was saying about a single event. Please get the "stained glass" reading glasses off your face. I'm defining the word "interpretation" as *I mean it,* and not as *you mean it!*
    So you ARE saying that Luke was NOT writing what Jesus ACTUALLY said, but that Luke REWROTE the words of Jesus whilst simultaneously writing it as though Jesus actually said it.
    This is the LIE of the DEVIL.

    We have *both* said the same thing, and I have never said otherwise. I have *never* said that Luke was quoting words that Jesus *did not say!*
    Luke was told by an Apostle what Jesus said. What Jesus said was a description of an event that included 2 elements: the AoD standing in the holy place and the Army encircling Jerusalem. Luke interpreted this description, including all of its elements, to be depicting a *single event,* namely the fall of the temple.
    Yes you did as you say Luke did NOT write what Jesus said, but rather Luke writes an INTERPRETATION.

    Brother, I did put the words together. Do you still not understand? I gave you the example of a *big ball of fire,* which was also described as *a sun.* You can use any of the 2 descriptions and still be referencing the same thing!
    Jesus described the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem as an "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," and as an "encircling Army around Jerusalem." They both describe the same thing. The various descriptions of this event use Jesus' actual words. But the various authors choose to omit some words and include others. But all of the versions are describing the same event, which is described in both these ways!

    All of these versions take place at the same place in the Discourse! They do describe the same event! If you can't understand this, or if you think there is no justification for this, or if you can't see any logic behind seeing it this way, you just aren't trying. You're not serious.
    If Luke was simply describing what was happening then your example would have merit. We see similar things when we read about one or two angels etc. This is due to highlighting different facets. However this is NOT Luke describing something, but Luke writing the words that Jesus SAID.
    IOW Luke is not explaining something that Jesus said. He is quoting the WORDS of Jesus.

    At least I do see, from this last statement, that you do indeed get what I'm saying. No, I'm not using the word "interpretation" the way you're trying to force it! I'm not using the word "interpretation" as if Luke was interpreting a prophecy. Rather, he was just retelling the account of the Olivet Discourse with the understanding that this desolation of Jerusalem was the same as the AoD standing in the Holy Place!
    Yes you are using it in that way.
    If I write "randyk said ' the only way to live is to die'" yet you didn't say that, then I would NOT be quoting you correctly. I would in fact be putting my own words and NOT yours. Now while Luke has complete freedom as to which stories he noted and what he put with them, Luke did NOT have the freedom to CHANGE the words Jesus actually spoke and then claim as if Jesus actually spoke them. This is why your example is COMPLETELY and DANGEROUSLY, and I would even suggest close to heretically wrong.

    If you do NOT accept that Jesus ACTUALLY spoke the words that the Gospel writers said He spoke then where is your foundation?
    It is gone. It becomes ENTIRELY your OWN subjective take. You can claim ANYTHING is meaning something else, because that was the equivalent. And this is COMPLETELY circular reasoning. As long as you HOLD ONTO the LIE of the DEVIL, then there is nothing further to be said.
    As soon as you discard this LIE then you can actually lay hold of the TRUTH. I am not asking you to agree with my understanding of anything BUT I am PRAYING you grasp the SERIOUSNESS and DANGER of the LIE you are HOLDING onto. Luke reported what he was told Jesus ACTUALLY said, and did NOT write a re-imagination of what Jesus said at anytime that Luke quoted Jesus.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So you ARE saying that Luke was NOT writing what Jesus ACTUALLY said, but that Luke REWROTE the words of Jesus whilst simultaneously writing it as though Jesus actually said it.
    This is the LIE of the DEVIL.
    I guess you still lack the capacity to understand? Just when I thought you did understand you say this? No, brother, Jesus was writing what an Apostle told him Jesus said. Likely, the Apostle remembered all of what Jesus said. The likely scenario is that Jesus, after describing an emergence of hatred in Israel, began to speak of the destruction of the temple itself--the very subject of the Discourse. Jesus began by citing various preliminary signs, which would build up to this description of the "desolation" of the temple.

    And so, here, at this precise point in the Discourse, Jesus talked about the temple's destruction. It was described in 2-fold fashion. 1) It was described as an "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." And 2) It was described as "an encircling Army around Jerusalem," preparing to desolate it. Likely, both these elements were recounted to Luke by an Apostle, who actually heard Jesus say these things. But Luke chose to incorporate, as "shorthand," only the part about the "encircling Army" around Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yes you did as you say Luke did NOT write what Jesus said, but rather Luke writes an INTERPRETATION.
    I can't help you, brother. The word "interpretation" I used in a looser way than you want to view it. Again, it is how *I* use the word, rather than how you *want me* to have used the word. You have an agenda to make me say things I'm not saying. And when I explain what I meant, you say that no, I meant something else. Strange! You don't even accept what a person says he means!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If Luke was simply describing what was happening then your example would have merit. We see similar things when we read about one or two angels etc. This is due to highlighting different facets. However this is NOT Luke describing something, but Luke writing the words that Jesus SAID.
    IOW Luke is not explaining something that Jesus said. He is quoting the WORDS of Jesus.
    I have *never* said that Luke is explaining anything (except by our own extrapolation)! That is, yet again, your attempt at forcing your own definition of "interpretation" upon my use of the word. Luke was *in effect* interpreting for us what Matthew and Mark meant. In other words, he was *inadvertently* explaining to us what the AoD was by substituting other words of Jesus for what Matthew and Mark described as an AoD standing in the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yes you are using it in that way.
    I suppose you must believe this in order to argue your point?

    Believe what you want about the meaning of the word "interpretation." But let's move on. I'm saying now, unambiguously, that Luke described what Jesus *literally said.* And he chose words that, due to their place in the Discourse, made the AoD and the "Army encirclement of Jerusalem" the same event. Jesus said both things at the same place in the Discourse. For Luke, "encirclement of Jerusalem by Armies" was synonymous with the "AoD standing in the temple."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If I write "randyk said ' the only way to live is to die'" yet you didn't say that, then I would NOT be quoting you correctly. I would in fact be putting my own words and NOT yours. Now while Luke has complete freedom as to which stories he noted and what he put with them, Luke did NOT have the freedom to CHANGE the words Jesus actually spoke and then claim as if Jesus actually spoke them. This is why your example is COMPLETELY and DANGEROUSLY, and I would even suggest close to heretically wrong.
    What's the matter with you, brother? I've told you repeatedly that Luke was using the *actual words of Jesus!* Get past the word "interpretation," since it is a stumbling block to you. I never meant that Luke was providing a commentary on Jesus' speech. Rather, he was choosing certain parts of Jesus' speech as shorthand for the whole description of the temple destruction. He chose to use "Army encirclement" in place of the entire description. And he found no need to use "AoD standing in the Holy Place," since he apparently felt that the "Army encircling Jerusalem" was sufficient to explain what it was. You have a tough time with this because you are *judgmental.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you do NOT accept that Jesus ACTUALLY spoke the words that the Gospel writers said He spoke then where is your foundation?
    It is gone. It becomes ENTIRELY your OWN subjective take. You can claim ANYTHING is meaning something else, because that was the equivalent. And this is COMPLETELY circular reasoning. As long as you HOLD ONTO the LIE of the DEVIL, then there is nothing further to be said.
    As soon as you discard this LIE then you can actually lay hold of the TRUTH. I am not asking you to agree with my understanding of anything BUT I am PRAYING you grasp the SERIOUSNESS and DANGER of the LIE you are HOLDING onto. Luke reported what he was told Jesus ACTUALLY said, and did NOT write a re-imagination of what Jesus said at anytime that Luke quoted Jesus.
    Don't worry about me, friend. Worry about your own judgmentalism. You continue to put words in my mouth, and refuse to accept explanations for what I meant. You cannot grasp the use of the word "interpretation" in any other context than the one you wish to apply it to here. Please try to move on...

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,693
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    There was no prophecy of destruction of the temple that I am aware of, however Jeremiah did prophesy about the city falling.
    It was when Daniel was already in exile and the city was taken and the temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.
    Yes, I can't recall any specific decree for the destruction of the temple, save the fall of the city in the OT. It makes Jesus Christ' explicit pronouncement that no stone shall be left upon another to stand out on its own.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Yes, I can't recall any specific decree for the destruction of the temple, save the fall of the city in the OT. It makes Jesus Christ' explicit pronouncement that no stone shall be left upon another to stand out on its own.
    It does, but it also means there is no direct connection between an AoD and such a pronouncement. In fact we find an opposite, for there to be an AoD the city and temple MUST remain UNTIL the AOD has occurred.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,164
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I guess you still lack the capacity to understand? Just when I thought you did understand you say this? No, brother, Jesus was writing what an Apostle told him Jesus said. Likely, the Apostle remembered all of what Jesus said. The likely scenario is that Jesus, after describing an emergence of hatred in Israel, began to speak of the destruction of the temple itself--the very subject of the Discourse. Jesus began by citing various preliminary signs, which would build up to this description of the "desolation" of the temple.

    And so, here, at this precise point in the Discourse, Jesus talked about the temple's destruction. It was described in 2-fold fashion. 1) It was described as an "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place." And 2) It was described as "an encircling Army around Jerusalem," preparing to desolate it. Likely, both these elements were recounted to Luke by an Apostle, who actually heard Jesus say these things. But Luke chose to incorporate, as "shorthand," only the part about the "encircling Army" around Jerusalem.
    IF you believe that BOTH were stated by Jesus and that Luke is NOT interpreting, but rather choosing not to include the part about the AoD, then that is a DIFFERENT claim.

    Which then leads me back to what I asked you before.
    IF Jesus said BOTH things, which you have admitted above that Jesus did then this means that the AoD is NOT the armies surrounding Jerusalem.
    This is very clear and simple for anyone. The ONLY reason you claim they are the SAME is because you claim that one is an INTERPRETATION of the other. When you drop that LIE and agree that it is NOT an INTERPRETATION but and ADDITIONAL statement, then this requires you to show WHEN Jesus would have said BOTH statements and how they are the SAME sign.
    So please put BOTH lots of words together and make it into a meaningful statement by Jesus.

    I already gave you an example, which shows it is TWO separate signs and two separate events.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,559

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    IF you believe that BOTH were stated by Jesus and that Luke is NOT interpreting, but rather choosing not to include the part about the AoD, then that is a DIFFERENT claim.
    Yes, *for you* it is a different claim because you misinterpreted what I originally said and meant. And you chose to judge what I said as how you understood it, ignoring what I said I meant! I'm making the *same claim* I did originally, and I'm asking you to move on, now that you claim to understand what I'm saying.

    Luke was not "interpreting" the Olivet Discourse in the sense of a commentary. Somehow this is how you understood what I meant by "interpreting?" But I was saying that *from our perspective* Luke's version *in effect* amounts to something that "interprets" what the AoD is for us. By substituting "Military Encirclement" for "AoD" Luke *in effect* makes an interpretation. It simply shows us that Luke understood by Jesus' use of the words "Military Encirclement" the same thing as "AoD."

    I wasn't saying that Luke was providing an explanation that the Military Encirclement was, in fact, the AoD! That would mean that Luke understood your confusion and tried to give the OD in a form that answers your own peculiar questions. No, Luke naturally understood that the AoD was the Military Encirclement, and only felt he had to mention "Military Encirclement" as a summation of what the AoD was, thus *in effect* interpreting it for us. He was not giving us an Interpretation-Commentary. Rather, he was *in effect* forcing us, inadvertently, to draw the same conclusion that he did, that Jesus' use of the words "AoD" amounted to a description of the Military Encirclement, or the Temple Destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Which then leads me back to what I asked you before.
    IF Jesus said BOTH things, which you have admitted above that Jesus did then this means that the AoD is NOT the armies surrounding Jerusalem.
    This is very clear and simple for anyone. The ONLY reason you claim they are the SAME is because you claim that one is an INTERPRETATION of the other. When you drop that LIE and agree that it is NOT an INTERPRETATION but and ADDITIONAL statement, then this requires you to show WHEN Jesus would have said BOTH statements and how they are the SAME sign.
    So please put BOTH lots of words together and make it into a meaningful statement by Jesus.

    I already gave you an example, which shows it is TWO separate signs and two separate events.
    This is what I've been doing all along, whereas you got caught up in what I meant by "Interpretation!" By using the words "Military Encirclement" Luke was *in effect* showing his thinking that the Military Encirclement was in fact the AoD! If you put them together, and I have been in my arguments, then what I'm saying is what Luke's implying, that both statements are meaning one and the same event! The temple destruction is the AoD, and the AoD is the Military Encirclement.

    I've provided a number of Church Father quotations to show that this is precisely how they viewed it. They showed that the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 were completely fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Jesus. This means that the AoD, which immediately follows the 70 Weeks, had to have been fulfilled in the 70 AD event.

    The Church Fathers directly equated the 70th Week and the AoD with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, in which he described the AoD as the Military Encirclement of Jerusalem, which is plainly the assumption Luke makes by only mentioning the Military Encirclement in the very place where Matthew and Mark mention the AoD. And my argument is that this makes sense because in Dan 9 the AoD is described in effect as a Military Encirclement, since the desolation of both the temple and the city of Jerusalem are mentioned. This means that an AoD standing in the Holy Place means that the Roman Army stood on the outskirts of the city and still were standing *in the Holy Place!* In other words, "out is, in fact, in!"

    If either Daniel or Jesus had only been speaking of the temple, then I could understand the confusion you have about "standing in the Holy Place." Clearly, that would imply that this "Abomination" would have to be "in" the Temple, just as Antiochus brought his abomination idol and sacrifice inside the temple.

    But plainly, the prophecy in Daniel speaks more than this. It speaks of the *desolation of the CITY.* This means, the AoD is a Military Encirclement, and "standing in the Holy Place" implies that Armies stand around the city to invade and desolate it. Thus, the "AoD standing in the Holy Place" is actually a Military Encirclement around Jerusalem to destroy it. The "Holy Place" includes not just the temple, but the city as well, including the territory around it, in which an invading Army will stand!

    I trust you will understand, whether you disagree or not?

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,693
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It does, but it also means there is no direct connection between an AoD and such a pronouncement. In fact we find an opposite, for there to be an AoD the city and temple MUST remain UNTIL the AOD has occurred.
    My reference to "divine" pronouncement of the temple's destruction has nothing to do with the AoD.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 3rd 2018, 12:22 AM
  2. Is Jesus coming with Heaven at “His coming”?
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 24th 2017, 06:55 AM
  3. Changes coming up.
    By Old man in forum Prayer
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Mar 11th 2016, 11:57 PM
  4. Jesus 1st coming/2nd coming??
    By Joe King in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 19th 2009, 08:16 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 8th 2009, 11:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •