Jesus The false prophet

quote:

---

Can this "cloud", whatever it consists of, be seen? I want your opinion on it.

---

IMO, no. I don't understand apocalyptic language to be exact description. It's meant to evoke an emotion.

quote:

---

In which god "appears" as a cloud. I do not see what difference it makes if its a prediction or not. Your entire premise is that its a cloud of power and glory. Matthew 17 conveys this. Its a visible cloud, full of power and glory of god.

---

IMO, apocalyptic language is usually used with a prophecy, not a story. There's a difference. In one case the language is symbolic and in the other it isn't.

quote:

---

Also, you mentioned earlier that the only verses in which mention Jesus being seen only occur after the resurrection. I asked if you would provide some examples. Please do.

---

Actually I didn't say only. In Message 124, you asked: All I said was: In the book of Matthew that's Chapter 28 starting with verse 16.

Hi PD (and GDR, hopefully you are reading this post as well). Sorry its taking me so long to respond. Long hours at work. So please be patient if it takes me a few days to respond.I have a few minutes PD...I asked previously in message 130, but you did not respond:Regarding chapter 25, although told in parable form, this description makes it clear what shall occur.31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.The sheep represent the believers. The goats, the unbelievers.Verse 46
And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.How is this not a statement regarding a future event? How does this only apply to the Romans and the exile?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, regarding message 136:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, you mentioned earlier that the only verses in which mention Jesus being seen only occur after the resurrection. I asked if you would provide some examples. Please do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------hERICtic writes:
Are there any verses in scripture which explain the return of Jesus as being seen? By "seen" I meant his second coming. Sorry that was not more clear. We are discussing his "return", hence when I asked my question, I meant it, well....when he arrives again for the final judgement.Anyway, are there any verses in Paul or Revelation in regards to the return of Jesus, aka the second coming?Thanks.

quote:

---

Regarding chapter 25, although told in parable form, this description makes it clear what shall occur.

---

I've shown you that apocalyptic language is not about providing a description of what will happen exactly.Parables are about learning a lesson. Basically the lesson of the sheep and goats is that it wasn't the rituals that garnered God's favor, it was how we treat people in need. Parables are not expected to be factual stories. BTW, the sheep represent the righteous, not necessarily believers. One can be righteous and not be a believer and one can be a believer and not be righteous. That's why Jesus kept picking on the priests.You have not shown me reasoned support that the writer meant his words to be taken literally (will happen exactly as written).

quote:

---

By "seen" I meant his second coming. Sorry that was not more clear. We are discussing his "return", hence when I asked my question, I meant it, well....when he arrives again for the final judgement.

​

Anyway, are there any verses in Paul or Revelation in regards to the return of Jesus, aka the second coming?

---

Jumping between books doesn't tell us what the author of Matthew intended. We can create any scenario we want by jumping between books. The book of Matthew is considered to have been written after 70CE. IMO, the author described what had already happened using apocalyptic language.Paul wrote before 70 CE and didn't know the living Jesus. What he feels should be happening is rather irrelevant to whether Jesus was a false prophet or not. Jesus was speaking to the Jews. Paul dealt with the gentiles. The gospels weren't around when Paul was speaking. Paul was doing his own thing.Given the apocalyptic language in the book of Matthew, what makes you think Jesus was to be physically seen?IMO, 70 CE was the judgment on Israel. The message from Jesus was repentance. Just because the judgment wasn't in favor of the Jews, doesn't mean Jesus was a false prophet. As I showed with the story of Jonah. God can change his mind after a prophet has spoken for him.Remember, the author wasn't talking about the planet only the region. Tell me that you understand that at least. If you don't understand that, then there isn't more we can discuss.

I agree that Matthew is generally considered to have been written after 70AD but not by everyone. I question it based on 24-2 where Jesus is quoted as saying that "not one stone will be left on another which will not be torn down". This wasn't the case, and it seems to me that if it was written after the fact that they wouldn't put in something that they would know to be inaccurate. Ephesians 1: 9-10Revelation 21

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

I agree that Matthew is generally considered to have been written after 70AD but not by everyone. I question it based on 24-2 where Jesus is quoted as saying that "not one stone will be left on another which will not be torn down". This wasn't the case, and it seems to me that if it was written after the fact that they wouldn't put in something that they would know to be inaccurate.

---

Not everyone agrees about anything, whether religion, politics, medicine, science, fashion, etc.As I understand it from the history of the Jews and from Josephus, the temple was leveled. There were no temple buildings left standing. My guess is that the author of Matthew wasn't running around amongst the Roman soldiers trying to get the facts straight. I'm not sure why people expect the ancient authors to be presenting absolute facts. From what I've read, I have no problem believing that the people of the time saw the temple as completely destroyed.I think the author was conveying the seriousness of the destruction by emphasizing not one stone would be left on another.Josephus presented it as desolate, demolished.

Hi PDThis is as you quoted from Matthew. It doesn't say just the temple buildings. It says not one stone here and we know that today the "Western Wall" still stands.Here is from you Josephus quote. It even mentions temple bulidings in this quote. It isn't particularly important one way or the other but I'm only saying that it seems likely that if Matthew was written after 70AD the wording would have been different. I agree it isn't conclusive.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

This is as you quoted from Matthew.

​

Matthew writes:

​

"I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down."

---

Actually what I quoted from Matthew 24 was this: The disciples called Jesus' attention to the buildings of the temple.

quote:

---

It even mentions temple bulidings in this quote. It isn't particularly important one way or the other but I'm only saying that it seems likely that if Matthew was written after 70AD the wording would have been different. I agree it isn't conclusive.

---

They listed the towers that were to remain. Phasaelus, Hippicus, and Mariamne. Those towers aren't located near the temple.I don't see why the wording in Matthew would need to be different. It all depends on what the writer wanted to convey. I see no problem with the way he wrote it.

Hi PDThe Western Wall is considered part of the Temple. The towers are close to the Temple but you are right in that they weren't part of it.Modern excavations have also shown that there were other parts that remained heavily damaged but not completely so.

quote:

---

The Fortifications of the Second TemplePeriod
South of the line of fortifications from the Byzantine period and at a depth of approximately 4 meters below the elevation of its base, a tower that is preserved to a height of 3.20 meters was exposed which dates to the time of the Hasmonean Dynasty (the Second Temple period). The tower was built on the bedrock which was straightened and made fairly level. It was constructed of large stones that are characterized by a dressed boss in their center, with no bonding material between them. The header-stretcher construction method used in building the tower is typical of the Hasmonean period. The tower was part of the line of the First Wall that is described by Josephus. Other sections of the First Wall were revealed at the base of the western wall of the Ottoman city wall, in David’s Citadel and in other excavations that were conducted in the Jewish Quarter. The soil fill and the pottery sherds that abut the city wall prove that it was used until the time of the Great Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70 CE.
Afterwards, the stones of the wall were taken for secondary use, probably in order to build Aelia Capitolina, the Roman colony which the emperor Hadrian established on the ruins of Jerusalem in the year 131 CE.

---

Form this site: ExcavationsAgain, my point in this is not to discredit the predictions of Jesus but just as evidence to indicate that Matthew was written earlier than 70AD.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

The Western Wall is considered part of the Temple.

---

I disagree. The way all three authors present the story, the disciples are talking about the actual temple that followed the specifications of God, not the larger platform that Herod added. The words that were written do not agree with your conclusion.The author is unknown. He probably wasn't even an eyewitness of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. He pulled from other writings for his manuscript. Josephus had put his views of the destruction into writing by about 75CE.I think scholars have other reasons for dating the Book of Matthew after the destruction. I'm not concerned about what they are, but as far as this topic goes; I still don't see that Jesus can be presented as a false prophet.So far the conclusions are based on how someone feels it would have or should have been written or what the end result is expected to look like.Erroneous conclusions 2000 years later doesn't make Jesus a false prophet.

I agree that the scholars have other reasons, but the fact that I disagree with them probably won't bother them much. I agree that there is no reason to see Jesus as a false prophet.In my view the prediction of the destruction of the Temple was not because of any supernatural knowledge, but was based on scripture and the knowledge of how the Romans dealt with revolutionary movements.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Hey PD,I have a few minutes. Sorry for the long delays between posts. Just be patient.Matthew 13:40-43:"Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!"Does this apply to the Romans and the exile? Why?Thanks.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Does this apply to the Romans and the exile? Why?

---

The exile angle is GDR's not mine.Matthew 13 is full of parables which are used to teach religious lessons. This is not part of a prediction or prophecy.The verses you mentioned are an explanation of that parable. To understand the parable better, we have to look at the weeds. When I look at a field of wheat today, we can tell which are weeds and which are not.In this parable the word translated as weed, refers to a very specific type of plant. The word is also translated tares in some Bibles. The point being that going through the motions isn't going to fool God.I have a book entitled: "The Parables, Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation" by Brad H. Young. In that book he presents other Jewish parables with the same message.If you want to discuss parables, there is an open thread for that. Parables 101

Matthew 13:40-43:"Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!" A parable is allegory to teach a lesson. If the "lesson" refers to an event that has not occured yet, its a prediction for the future. You really believe Matthew 13: 40-43 has NOTHING to do with heaven or hell? The furnace. What does that represent? Weeping and gnashing of teeth? What does that refer to?I'm sorry PD, but Jesus is using a parable to convey that "wheat" are the followers of Christ, while the tares are those under the influence of Satan. Together they are "one" on the earth, the righteous and the wicked, when they are finally seperated on judgement day. Reward and punsihement shall follow accordingly, the wicked cast out of the kingdom.

quote:

---

A parable is allegory to teach a lesson. If the "lesson" refers to an event that has not occured yet, its a prediction for the future.

---

Please show support for that statement. Show support that it was referring to a future event at the time it was written. Remember, Matthew was probably written after the destruction.If you don't understand or accept apocalyptic language, then there isn't much more we can discuss.
If you don't understand that it isn't a planetary end, then there isn't much more we can discuss.

From message 122 I tried showing you. I asked you if there were other NT authors which mentioned the second coming.Your response in message 138: But that's my point. The other authors did use the cloud terminology, and its easily read to refer to the return of Jesus. True, we cannot use their beliefs to show Matthew had those same beliefs, but I can show you that authors of the NT, which understood the OT, used the idea of "clouds" differently than the authors of the OT.So its possible Matthew did the same. I also showed you that the author of Matthew frequently used OT scripture out of context. Could he have used Daniel (which both you and GDR provided) out of context? Yep.You gave a few sites which explain the symbolism of clouds and yes, I agree, they do not refer to the clouds in the sky as I believed. But your "evidence" does not give any support that its all symbolism in Matthew. From the OT, I can see that the clouds sent by god/of god had radiance, power, light, energy...which were visual.So its just semantics. The clouds can be the actual clouds we see in the sky or the "energy" of god. Either way, its a visual.Also, the very first site you gave states Matthew 24 and 25 do refer to the second coming.You stated in message 122: I've asked a few times, but havent really gotten a concrete answer from you. How does your quote answer the last few verses of Matthew 25? How does this apply to the Romans? You truly believe when Jesus is talking about the eternal fire, the devil and his angels, eternal punishment and eternal life...hes referring to the destruction of the temple?To show you that he is not, I referred back to Matthew 13, which uses the same type of visuals as Matthew 25.You responded that its a parable: I realize its a parable, but I cannot understand how you came up with that meaning. I even went to over a dozen Christian sites to look up their viewpoint and not one came up with the conclusion you did. In fact, all agreed Jesus is referring to the final judgement.As I stated earlier, its nearly the same speech as Matthew 25.Finally, in message 148 I said:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------A parable is allegory to teach a lesson. If the "lesson" refers to an event that has not occurred yet, its a prediction for the future.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In the next post you replied: parable
   /ˈprəbəl/ Show Spelled[par-uh-buhl] Show IPA
noun
1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.Now, the lesson that is being taught is as I stated in message 148:

quote:

---

I'm sorry PD, but Jesus is using a parable to convey that "wheat" are the followers of Christ, while the tares are those under the influence of Satan. Together they are "one" on the earth, the righteous and the wicked, when they are finally seperated on judgement day. Reward and punsihement shall follow accordingly, the wicked cast out of the kingdom.

---

Since Jesus is using a parable to describe an event that will happen in the future, then yes, hes making a prediction of what will occur.Im not sure how you think I am wrong on that. You really havent showed any evidence Matthew is not referring to the final judgement. I believe I have shown that he has. Yes, there is symbolism. But I also believe not only is he referring to the destruction of the temple, but he also believed that was the beginning of the end. I also believe this second coming was to all mankind, however large of small they believed the world around them to be.Again, here is Matthew 13: 40 As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.You honestly believe that Jesus is not referring to the final judgement? Weeding out the kingdom of everything that causes sin and all who do evil. Thrown in the blazing furnace (hell), with weeping and gnashing of teeth?If you do accept this refers to the final judgement, compare this to Matthew 25.