What is "This Generation?"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When a person sees words written on a page the first thing that has to be done is to interpret what those words mean, and as has been shown over and over again on this Forum, the very same words in the very same text are interpreted to mean something entirely different to each person who's interpreting them.

There is no such thing as THE WORDS OF THE LORD! Every word you see is one that was written by a human, and is being interpreted by a human!

Blessings,
Rose

Hey there Whirlwind,

I can assure you that you would not have found her words so disturbing if you had not misinterpreted them!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Welcome whirlwind to this forum. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.

I'd say you're probably right Cheow, with regards to what Whirlwind is trying to propose. Of course, his position would not fit Matthew 24, nor Luke 21, primarily because the Apostles, when admiring the temple buildings, were not focused on a spirit aspect of the temple; they were thinking entirely physical, as in "things". Jesus responded by telling them that "these things which you see", thus being seen at that time, and not a future time, would be brought down, with no stone being left unturned.

Did this happen? Yes, it did.

But Whirlwind's only reason for rejecting every stone being unturned in the first century is because he believes that the wailing wall is a testament to the failure of every stone being unturned. This idea is flawed for two solid reasons:

1. The Wailing Wall is not part of the temple; it's just a wall that surrounded the temple complex, and is not connected to the temple itself.

2. The Wailing Wall has not been proven to be 1st century genuine; this wall was built by the Romans in the 2nd century, on Fort Antonia, during the Roman/Barbarian wars.

So for whirlwind to take the only physical evidence, the Wailing Wall, as his only reason for rejecting the 1st century destruction of the temple, is a fallacy which contradicts the other events of Matthew 24; those events tie in together with the destruction.

Lastly, there's no such thing as a destruction of a spiritual temple from God; and this was not even alluded to in Matthew 24, nor Luke 21. Thus, this should not even be discussed.

In summary, Whirlwind is resting his position on a 16th century Jewish Myth of the Wailing Wall. That's certainly not something I'd be willing to share in.

Joe

[whirlwind]

Oh be he said the western wall?????

Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable.

It's obvious you're still ignoring Luke's account, which specifically mentions THE TEMPLE.

Joe

No. He didn't say the western wall nor did He say the wailing wall. He did say that He was sitting on the mount of Olives gazing toward the "buildings of the temple" which is on the western side. Please don't ignore that.

And, your mention of the Luke account wasn't overlooked. It was answered in post 166 but you missed it. I replied.....

The end of the world/age, the sign of His coming and the stones one upon another HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 AD. And ask yourself...do the "beautiful stones and donations" mentioned in Luke as adorning the temple have anything to do with stones "one upon another?"

.

[whirlwind]

Isn't it ironic how you ignored Luke's account all together, and are instead relying on the phrase "buildings" in Matthew's account. Weren't they all asking the same thing?

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations

Luke shows that the Apostles were speaking of the temple itself, in how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations.

Now take a look at Mark's account:

1 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, 'Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!'

They were just in the temple, and as they were walking out of the temple, it is then that the disciples remarked of the very same things that Mathew and Luke record; the stones and construction of the temple that THEY JUST WALKED OUT OF; the western wall (of the first century temple complex) was not even visible from where they were standing. Even so, the wall that exists today is not Jewish.

Okay, let's "take a look at Mark's accout."



Mark 13:1 And as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples saith unto Him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

Where is "here?" What are the buildings and stones being spoken of? The buildings of the temple...all of it. And, Jesus replied....

13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Not building (singular) but buildings (plural). All the buildings would be thrown down AND not "one stone upon another," would be left. When? What was the time frame in which this would take place? And, Jesus replied....

13:3-6 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

His first comment, when answering them about the time of His coming was....about deception, about men in His name, men saying they are of Christ, Christians deceiving many. One of the deceptions would be about the time when "shall these things be."

So His disciples (of which we are included) would not be deceived...He told them plainly, clearly, succintly....not "one stone upon another" would be standing when the end of the world/age arrived.

You are going far beyond what is written. AND YOU STILL have not answered the fact that the wailing wall was never part of Herod's temple. That was a wall built by Hadrian which made up the western side of Ft. Antonias. You have not done your home work.

Oh but I have done my homework. You have been misled.

And trust me bro. When it comes to deception, you certainly fit the shoes of the false witness. You confidently assert with no proof, not validity, and no common sense that the temple Jesus spoke of, walked out of, wept over, to still be standing.

Perhaps you'd be interested to know why secular Jews in the 16th century chose this wall as the place of prayer. You'd be shocked!

The Christians who resided in that region used this wall, built by the Romans, as a trash dump site.

You are more than deceived bro; you are out of this world.

And you still have not answered Richards question, which you keep avoiding.

I'm awaiting your answer as well.

Joe

It's been answered. It has not been avoided.



.

[TheForgiven]

No. He didn't say the western wall nor did He say the wailing wall. He did say that He was sitting on the mount of Olives gazing toward the "buildings of the temple" which is on the western side. Please don't ignore that.

I’m sorry my friend, but He did not say that. According to Luke, they were walking out of the temple, and it was then that the Apostles remarked about the beautiful stones and decorations of the Temple. It was then that Jesus exclaimed, “Do you see all these things….the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another”. As for the Mount of Olives, that’s where they stopped, and it was then that the Apostles privately asked, “when shall this happen, and what is the sign that these things will take place…”; these questions were asked in response to Christ’s exclamation, “Not one stone shall be left upon another”.

Therefore, the Mount of Olives is not where they admired the buildings, nor was this the area where Jesus said, “Do you see all these things?” The Mount of Olives is where they went to after departing the temple, and THAT’S when the Apostles asked Him the questions.

And, your mention of the Luke account wasn't overlooked. It was answered in post 166 but you missed it. I replied.....
The end of the world/age, the sign of His coming and the stones one upon another HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 AD. And ask yourself...do the "beautiful stones and donations" mentioned in Luke as adorning the temple have anything to do with stones "one upon another?"

Do the beautiful stones and donations have anything to do with the temple? Of course it does! Why wouldn’t I believe that? Is there something written there that I’m not seeing? Or are you merely going beyond what is written? In Matthew 23, Jesus points out how a little old woman gave all that she had, being worth than ½ of an American penny. The Apostles remarked how the beauty of the Temple could not have been accomplished without the gifts from the rich. THAT is why Jesus stated that the time would come that the gifts from the rich that contributed to the beauty of the temple, would all come to nothing [paraphrasing]. In my opinion, Christ was trying to show how the wealth from the rich that went to the temple, should have gone to help the old woman who gave all that she had. She, and those like her, were more important that the physical constructs of a man-made temple. James alludes to this in his writing, denoting how the Jews who failed to pay good wages, would rot in their clothes; their money testifying against them [paraphrasing].

Without the donations and gifts from the rich, the beauty of the temple itself would not have been possible. The Temple was a fascination to the Romans, as well as past Empires who conquered Jerusalem. It’s attraction is what kept Jerusalem’s interest alive, and the Jews knew it. That’s why they took great pride, care, and joy to up-keeping the temple; it was their entire livelihood. 70AD turned all of that around, and most of them threw themselves into the flames as the Temple burned to their agony. Thus, as Jesus predicted, the beautiful stones and decorations that made up their very livelihood, had been tossed to the flames; every stone and decoration of the temple had been brought down. No stone was left un-turned as the Roman soldiers sought for melted gold and silver through the burnt rubble/remains of what used to be called “the Temple of God”.

Christ came with the clouds and fulfilled what the Jews ignored, and accused Jesus of Blasphemy:

Matthew 26:
And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?”

It totally blows my mind away how Futurists today do not even understand what the Pharisees understood. The coming of God in clouds is an Old Testament phrase. Jeremiah chapter 7 uses this very same language. After Jesus tells the Pharisees that He is the Son of God, and that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven, they knew exactly what he was talking about. Thus, because only GOD comes with the clouds (speaking of war and destruction), then Jesus was in essence, declaring Himself to be God. Their response was “WHAT BLASPHEMY!” Jesus was being charged for Blasphemy for making Himself equal to God by claiming to later come in the clouds of Heaven, and by sitting at the right hand of power. This came true in 70AD, when Jesus came in the power of heaven, and the clouds that engulfed all Israel, left Jerusalem totally destroyed; the temple and its treasury came to nothing.

On a side note, I've got to say something. In a very big way, you remind me of Henry. Both you and Henry like to smother your discussions with mystery, instead of being straight forward, because you think that somehow being mysterious makes you some kind of philosophical Prophet. I don’t mean to be rude to either of you, but this tactic is absurd, and does not belong in a debating environment. I’ve studied God’s word for years, and even to this day, after 30+ years as a student, I’m still learning awesome things, yet by no means do I claim to know it all. But when I see folks such as yourselves, acting too mysterious and refusing to answer questions because you try likening yourself to Christ’s allegorical nature, I grow sickened to my stomach in total disgust.

This is a forum for debating. None of us are perfect. But please answer all questions directly, without the Apostolic mysticism. Richard asked you the same questions more than three times, and you STILL have not answered it! And please refrain from comments, "No interpretation is required....." Simply replying to what is written IS NOT answering a question. When you offer an interpretation, it must be backed with contextual sources; more specifically, prove your interpretation to be within its context as I have done above.

With the best of sincerety,

Joe

[whirlwind]

I didn't suggest the true temple doesn't stand. Matthew wrote "buildings of the temple." Mark wrote of the "great buildings" of the temple they had just exited. Luke summed those phrases with the word "temple." Luke was not an eyewitness, but might be compared to a modern highly conscientious investigative reporter.

I didn't imply that you don't understand the true temple stands. I know you do. Sorry if I didn't properly state it.

As Luke's writings, along with all others, were Divinely inspired, then there is a reason for the differences being shown. They are clues for us to search out.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

(NASB) Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Since Luke was much closer to the event than you, and since his account was based on what he learned directly from the eyewitnesses, I'll have to take his word over yours.

I don't ask you to take my word Tom...ever. It is His Word we discuss and anything I say, or you say, must be documented in His Word.

From that vantage point He would have had a view not only of the buildings of the temple, but also retaining and city walls, surrounding homes, and other more distant structures, yet He only said the stones of the "buildings of the temple" (aka temple) would be thrown down. The "things" were component structures (buildings) of the temple which did sit upon a foundation. All that was surrounded by a wall, which was not a foundation as you like to claim. It was a wall.

From a couple of sites when Googling "wailing wall."

The Wailing Wall or Western Wall is the remains of the great Jewish temple, which had stood for close to 500 years. Herod began rebuilding and adding on to the temple in approximately 19 B.C.E., and the total work was not finished until fifty years later. The temple itself was destroyed by the Romans only a few years after its completion, circa 70 C.E.


The Western Wall in the midst of the Old City in Jerusalem is the section of the Western supporting wall of the Temple Mount which has remained intact since the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple (70 C.E.). It became the most sacred spot in Jewish religious and national consciousness and tradition by virtue of its proximity to the Western Wall of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, from which, according to numerous sources, the Divine Presence never departed. It became a center of mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Israel's exile, on the one hand, and of religious - in 20th century also national - communion with the memory of Israel's former glory and the hope for its restoration, on the other. Because of the former association, it became known in European languages as the "Wailing Wall".

It is part of the buildings of the temple. It is "one stone upon another."



.

[whirlwind]

Welcome whirlwind to this forum. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.'

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.

Actually Cheow Wee Hock, your insight is greater than mine. Thank you for your wisdom and sharing the revelation you have been given.

May our Father continue to bless you abundantly.....Whirlwind



.

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

On a side note, I've got to say something. In a very big way, you remind me of Henry. Both you and Henry like to smother your discussions with mystery, instead of being straight forward, because you think that somehow being mysterious makes you some kind of philosophical Prophet. I don’t mean to be rude to either of you, but this tactic is absurd, and does not belong in a debating environment. I’ve studied God’s word for years, and even to this day, after 30+ years as a student, I’m still learning awesome things, yet by no means do I claim to know it all. But when I see folks such as yourselves, acting too mysterious and refusing to answer questions because you try likening yourself to Christ’s allegorical nature, I grow sickened to my stomach in total disgust.

Hey Joe, your statement about me is uncalled for, if you've got a problem with the way Whirlwind corresponds that's one thing, but don't accuse me of being “mysterious” and using it as a “tactic” on my part because that's simply not true. I always answered as clearly as possible and “always with scripture” in “all my posts!” I never refused to answer any of your questions, but you have!! It's not my fault if YOU didn't understand me at times and took it to be a tactic and “mysterious” on my part. If that's how you felt and still feel, then put me on your ignore list and that will end your stomach problems!! Okay?

God bless---Twospirits

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe, your statement about me is uncalled for, if you've got a problem with the way Whirlwind corresponds that's one thing, but don't accuse me of being 'mysterious' and using it as a 'tactic' on my part because that's simply not true. I always answered as clearly as possible and 'always with scripture' in 'all my posts!' I never refused to answer any of your questions, but you have!! It's not my fault if YOU didn't understand me at times and took it to be a tactic and 'mysterious' on my part. If that's how you felt and still feel, then put me on your ignore list and that will end your stomach problems!! Okay?

God bless---Twospirits

I have never refused to answer your questions. I gave you answers that you did not agree with. Now when you asked questions like "when did we see....", yes I sometimes ignored those because answers to those questions would be nothing more than inferences from my perspective, and it would not prove nor disprove anything.

Now as our debates progressed, and I voiced my dislike with your indirect approach to answering questions, you began to answer questions directly, but it still wasn't enough. I had to find your website to discover what you honestly believed, and how your beliefs contradicted the tactics you were using against Preterism.

At any rate, if you were insulted, then I apologize for appearing to insult you. As for my response to the mysterious way you originally answered questions, I simply voice my dislike to this approach, but more so towards Whirlwind as this point.

Please accept my apologies.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by Cheow Wee Hock
Welcome whirlwind to this forum. I believe it is a divine whirlwind that brought him to this forum and it has caused a whirlwind in my head after reading this thread. making my hewd goes round and round. I think I finally understand what whirlwind is trying to say:

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.
3. It doesn't matter whether the current western wall is the original wall of the Temple or not (which is debatable) as it is still used as in worship to God by the Christians and the Jews and it still stands at the original site of the original Temple.
4. Since the wailing wall is used in worship to God and is standing at the original site of the Temple, it is still consider as part of the original Temple worshipping an invisible temple of God i.e. Jesus on the temple Mount. And as such the stones or building of the "original Temple" still stands. And only when this wailing wall of the "original temple" is destroyed with no stones upon another will the end comes.
5, let's imagine Jesus talking to us today just as He talked to his apostles opposite the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago, "you see the beautiful Dome of the Rock with itas golden Dome, the Aqsa mosque with their religious treasures and donations, the wailing wall standing on my invisible temple? These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

Is that correct? I hope I am not adding to the confusion.

Many Blessings.

Actually Cheow Wee Hock, your insight is greater than mine. Thank you for your wisdom and sharing the revelation you have been given.

May our Father continue to bless you abundantly.....Whirlwind

A divine whirlwind? I'd be very careful with my choice of words Cheow. If whirlwind is speaking the truth, then you might be correct. But sense it is obvious he is not speaking the truth, as all of us have proven thus far, then his presence here is far from divine intervention.

1. Jesus is the invisible temple that is still standing on the Temple Mount and it will never be destroyed.
2. What we see currently on the Temple Mount is the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque and the wailing wall, the residential buildings...these are the buildings on the temple Mount.

OMG! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13. What does the body of Christ (temple) have to do with Matthew 24, Luke 21, or Mark 13? Now we know that Jesus concluded His explanation to the Apostles about the coming Kingdom, which actually began at Pentecost, and was culminated in 70AD, AFTER the destruction of the temple. The dome of the rock, wailing wall, etc. all have absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. So in what way does this make his insights divine? In case you haven't seen it, the Discovery Channel has a show on a few months back that suggested the same possibility, that God is permitting the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians to live there in an attempt to unite all the races. The problem with this idea is that it promotes individualism, and not Christianity. Serving God outside of Christ gets you nowhere. Now I would agree that it may be possible for Muslims or Jews who reside near the Dome of the Rock to become "exposed" to Christianity, and from there gain salvation; that idea I can accept. Other than that, your suggestions of what Whirlwind is trying to say has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

All you're really doing is complementing him because he's a Futurist. If you have to "TRY" to understand what he's saying, then it's quite clear that he hasn't been answering our questions directly, thus proving my point that he attempts to portray an Angel of light, when he's nothing more than a spirit of confusion, much like a literal "whirlwind".

Joe