Re: The reign of Jesus
- Hi Darren,
I would agree that a major part of the problem is a lack of interest in the
truth, which too often comes as a result of swallowing the traditions of men
in place of the clear teaching of the whole counsel of God (the Bible). But
another major part of the problem is simply pride. Too often people will not
change their minds no matter how untenable their position is in light of
objective facts as well as Scripture because they are too proud to admit
they are wrong.
From: Darren [mailto:aphesis.2@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 19:23
Subject: Re: [apologetics] Re: The reign of Jesus
What is the abomination of desolation? Is it a statue in the temple in
Jerusalem? What nonsense. And who is the antichrist? One of the caesars?
What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
The root of the problem Rolaant is not that people have swallowed the
traditions of men, but that they are not really interested in the truth.
Ignorance is set forth as wisdom. Professing to know him they became vain in
- And in Matthew 24:2
The question of Jesus in this verse anticipates a "yes" answer; of
course the disciples see the buildings! Jesus' forecast of the
destruction of the temple complex is unambiguous, cast in OT language
(Jer 26:6, 18; Mic 3:12) and repeated variously elsewhere (23:38; 26:61;
> RIC WROTE:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > Matthew 24:1
> > As Jesus departs from the temple, his disciples call his attention to
> > its various structures. They show that they have underestimated or
> > misunderstood the force of Jesus' denunciations in ch. 23. They still
> > focus on the temple, on which Jesus has pronounced doom, since the
> > center of the relation between God and humankind has shifted to
> Thanks Ric :-) It is nice to actually get into the text!
> I agree with you that the disciples have underestimated Jesus'
> denunciations of the Pharisees in chapter 23. And I also agree that the
> true center of the relation between God and man did, indeed shift from
> the Jerusalem temple. That is why Jesus is focusing on the temple that
> existed at that time, and that is why Jesus says, "Do you not see all
> these things?" (ie: He was referring to the very buildings that they
> were pointing out, and as such He was speaking directly to the temple of
> that time and *not* something the disciples could not *actually* see,
> like a future temple that was not yet created). "Truly I say to you, not
> one stone will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
> Why the destruction of the temple? Because it was no longer needed.
> Indeed, because it was now offensive to God. The destruction of the
> temple of Jerusalem was brought about precisely because the focus of
> sacrifice had shifted from the Jerusalem temple to the heavenly temple.
> The earthly temple was merely a shadow, a dim copy of the heavenly
> temple, at which Christ is the high priest, offering Himself once for
> all (see Hebrews 8-10). As such, there is no need for the earthly
> temple to remain, and God demonstrated that by having it destroyed. And
> since the temple is destroyed, there is in actuality no way for Judaism
> to remain a valid religion (yet more evidence for the validity of
> Christianity, BTW).
> The main point, therefore, is this: the temple that Christ is speaking
> of is the very temple that He had just left, and not some future temple
> that would be built at a later date (definitely after September 8, 2003)
> that would then be destroyed. Christ is speaking of this actual temple,
> and as a result, the destruction of that temple is the timeframe that He
> is referring to, at least to start His dialogue.
> Would you agree with this so far, Ric?