Prophecy for Buzsaw

PaulK:
Mark 13 (NASB)
1 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."You're right. This does describe Jerusalem.. It ALSO describes Rome. Vatican City, Colosseum, etc., just as thoroughly considering what limited information there is.I have read the prophecy, (which I'm not fond of your quotes as they are written implying that somebody is there taking dictation of the conversation), and I'm saying that for us, today, Vatican City is the foundational seat of Christianity and to totally disregard including Vatican City as a possible site for the temple mentioned in the second coming prophecy, is to limit available options.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that the buildings under discussion were in Jerusalem, not Rome or anywhere else. It is not a general reference to "magnificent buildings" - it is a mention of specific buildings, in Jerusalem that the disciples saw while leaving the Temple.Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?

PaulK: Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?I didn't have to read very far back into the threads of this discussion to be reminded that the accuracy of dates within the Bible are questionable at best. If you really want to get back into that non-ending subject, I can introduce some theories that give a 160 to 360 year spread of dating innacuracy thanks to the calendar we use. As far as the disciples not knowing Rome? How do you know that? How do you know they never, ever, saw Rome, or heard about Rome? How do you know that Christ, who knew stuff nobody "normal" should know, didn't tell them all about it?PaulK: It is not a general reference to "magnificent buildings" - it is a mention of specific buildings, in Jerusalem that the disciples saw while leaving the Temple.May I have a link to make sure I use the exact wordage you do?A rather obvious point to me is: The Second Coming of Christ is all about the future (Christiantiy) not the past (Jerusalem). The foundation (temple) of Christanity is the Vatican and there is no way around that.As long as Vatican City is the foundation of Christiantiy, the Prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ are viable.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

General comment:In thread after thread I see apologists making generic reference to all of the amazing and indisputable prophecies that have been fulfilled.And yet here, in 12 pages of posts, I have yet to see anyone cite even one specific prophecy with the date and event that marked its fulfillment. Buzsaw has, in the past, cited the 1967 six day war as fulfillment of Luke 21:24. When I demonstrated to him that this must also mean that 1967 marked the end of the "times of the gentiles", his response was that the prophecy had only been fulfilled "for all practical purposes". IOW, he wants 1967 to be the fulfillment of this prophecy, but he knows that would contradict the further requirements of Luke verse 24, so therefore, it becomes a "kind of" fulfillment.To all those who like to use the generic "just look at all the prophecies that have been fulfilled" argument, now is your chance to make us aware of this "fact". Why aren't you jumping on this opportunity?If then, you cannot cite even one specific prophecy and the date and event that marks its fulfillment, then please refrain from the disingenuous "look at all the prophecies fulfilled" argument in the future.Cite it now or forever hold your peace.Amlodhi

Dating is not an issue here. While the conversation could have been a few years earlier or later than 30 AD there's really not much room for any more variation wihtout assuming inaccuracies in the Gospel accounts.And I have no idea where you got the idea that I said that the disciples didn't know about Rome. And as yet we have seen no evidence that Jesus knew anything that "normal" people did not.I;ve given you the verse references and the translation I was using (Mark 13:1-2, NASB) already. Why would you need a link ?Let me add that the Vatican is NOT the foundation of Christianity (neither the Protestants nor the Eastern Churches give it such a special status) and when the prophecy was spoken Jerusalem was very much the present - NOT the past.It seems, like Buzsaw, you are trying to deny that the prophecy has failed by denying what it says and inventing your own "prophecy".

PaulK: And I have no idea where you got the idea that I said that the disciples didn't know about Rome.Well, I got it from here:
PaulK From Post # 167: Or is it that you think that the disciples in Jerusalem could see the Colosseum in Rome ? Forty years before construction started ?
You supplied a solid, non-flexible date and question to discount my statement.***
Paul K: Let me add that the Vatican is NOT the foundation of Christianity (neither the Protestants nor the Eastern Churches give it such a special status)EXCUSE ME??? Whether or not the Vatican has block approval from all denominations is totally irrelevant. The Vatican is the foundation of Christianity. The majority of the world definitely gives the Vatican special status or at least recognizes that it receives special status. Nobody has to agree to worship the Vatican doctrine to acknowledge its status in the religious community.***
PaulK: and when the prophecy was spoken Jerusalem was very much the present - NOT the past.Prophecies are statements of the future, not recitals of past history.***
PaulK: NOT the pastI don’t understand this at all.***
PaulK: It seems, like Buzsaw, you are trying to deny that the prophecy has failed by denying what it says and inventing your own "prophecy".By including the Vatican as another viable OPTION in the temple prophecy is in no way creating another prophecy.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

This is just daft.Yes I discounted your idea that the buildings referred to could be in Rome on the grounds that the disciples could see the buildings in Jerusalem and are therefore likely to remark on their magnificence while they could not see the Colosseum or even know that it would be built. That in no way implies that the disciples did not know of Rome.I see that your idea that the Vatican is the "foundation of Christianity" is simply your personal belief that is rejected by many Christians and seems to have no relevance anyway.The Vatican is NOT a viable option for the prophecy for reasons I've already given. If you actually cared to read and understand the prophecy you wouldn't have made such a silly suggestion in the first place.

Hi, Prophecy is when a prophet speaks on behalf of God, it does not have to include a prediction at all. Prophecy equals proclamation, nothing else.Brian.Edited to replace 'prophecy' with 'prediction' Doh!!![This message has been edited by Brian, 01-21-2004]

Thank you,Amlodhi. Couldn't have said it better.

---

Azure Moon
Free-Thinkers: Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Catholic Encyclopedia.

The list of events is given in:Mark 13:6-27 (Jesus' speech starts in 13:5)Matthew 24:5-31 (Jesus' speech starts in 24:4)Luke 21:8-27Please choose the verses that you believe refer to the destruction of the Temple and justify your choices.

The times of the gentiles does not end suddenly, though it did end for the occupation of Jerusalem in that notable week. This time is an emerging time. The nation of Israel becomes more in the forefront of the news and significance since becoming a nation. Many nations rise and fall, but with Israel it's different. It becomes the focus of attention in the middle east and for that matter, worldwide. The absolute end of the times of the gentiles will not arrive until king Jesus arrives in the 2nd advent. The restoration of Israel as a nation MUST come as a pre-requisite to that, so in this sense the fulfillment of the times of the gentiles is happening as foretold by both Old and New Testament prophets and by Jesus. Wake up and smell the coffee, you people!This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-11-2004 03:21 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

That one account has somewhat different wording is irrevelant as to whether they apply to the same event. Nearly all Biblical scholars use the synoptic gospels that way. You apply information from all to determine the whole prophecy. You're clearly outa your field here, Paul and you know how I've been so often chastized here in town when I do that. You are certainly entitled to express your personal take on things, as I should be, but on the other hand don't make an ass and liar outa me for going with the majority and the eschatology theologians on this. It's not a matter of choosing one from another so as to render any as irrevelant. It's a matter of assembling all the reference to the temple statements by the various accounts to understand what the message is, for after all, only one person actually spoke the discourse.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-11-2004 04:17 PM

Hi buzsaw,The original context of the thread being referred to was "Amazing prophecies fulfilled". IIRC, you even used the expression "fulfilled to a 'T'".But you just can't have it both ways at once. Either this prophecy has been fulfilled and the "times of the Gentiles are over", or the "times of the Gentiles" are not over and, thus, this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.To go back and basically say that Israel's being re-instituted as a state, or the 1967 six-day war, are the beginning stages of fulfillment just doesn't count. Much as you might find it an encouraging sign, the fact is, nothing has as yet been "fulfilled".And from my perspective, the history surrounding the re-institution of the state of Israel and/or the subsequent six-day war, simply does not warrant presumptions regarding Israel's future as a nation.Amlodhi

1. It has been fulfilled so far as Jerusalem and most of Israel goes. The occupation and rule by Gentiles has ended after 19 or so centuries and Jews back in and ruling.2. This segment of the prophecy/discourse was about Israel and specifically the capitol city of Jerusalem so I believe it can correctly be said that it has been literally fulfilled.3. My remarks about beginning of the end pertained to messianic prophecies concerning prophesied eventual world rule after the 2nd advent. Possibly I should not have included this in the Olivet Discourse. I believe the implication is there, given the OT prophets extend the return of Israel from dispersion with messianic world rule but will concede that which I believe is also implicated concerning global messianic rule has not yet been fulfilled.

As usual you evade the issue. Nothing you say answers the simple question I asked.If you tell foolish lies then you will be caught - And you will have made an "ass and a liar" of yourself. And that is exactly what you are doing here.If you were telling the truth you would only have to read the verses I listed and pick out the right one.If you were wrong all you have to do is honestly admit it.But as long as you keep evading a simple question we can all see that you are being dishonest because you can't accept that the Bible says what it says.
So tell me Buz, if I am right - as seems clear since you can't answer the question - how does it follow that I am "out of my depth" ?