ECT New findings about the DofJ

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
lol,no I actually know that if anyone studied these things in college then they would know that Herod the great built the first wall,and that the second wall was built by the time Jesus made the comments about the stones in Matthew 24.

But the third wall(one in the article) was started by Herod Agrippa 1 when he became king of Judea in ad41-44. Now Herod A1 was born in ad11 so when Jesus made that comment in Matt. 24 approx. ad32 Herod was about 22 years old. So ad32-ad41 is 9 or so years after Jesus death so there is zero chance/possibility that the third wall that they found had any thing to do with Matthew 24(it did not exist when Jesus made the comment).


Now Herod Agrippa 1 started the wall between ad41-44 but it was looked at as shaky by Claudius Caesar and so Agrippa halted work on it to show his support to Claudius. Then in ad64 because of the first revolt preparations the third wall described by Josephus was finished,and again it has absolutely nothing to do with the things about those stones(one upon another) because none of those stones had yet been set upon another right?

Now as for all us uneducated bible thumper's it might do us well to actually "search a thing out" and make sure old whitestone aint pulling your leg,lol if not your at the mercy of the novelist making good on their college degree's...
Click to expand...



I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it; if true, it makes it a greater paradox. Loads it with pardox. I haven't checked. The original quote above would not have been about building by zealots to prepare for a revolt. They didn't have that kind of resources and official administrators would never say they were preparing to make Judea independent.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
In regards to the portion of your statement "I haven’t checked",,when you do

Notice that in the sites/web pages designed by "preterist" they tend to show this as fulfilment of the scriptures concerning "about the weight of an talent" Revelation 16:21 KJV

But as we know there were three walls surrounding Jerusalem the first and second walls(which were standing when Jesus said the things in Matt.24 ect. but the third wall(the on they found in the article in the O.P.) is in regards to the third wall.

the third wall was began(construction) by Herod Agrippa "after" Jesus death,around ad42-44 but was halted because it was controversial for him to build a wall to defend Jerusalem against Rome(revolt/rebellion) in ad40's,see Acts 5:34-39 KJV .

So in those days ad40's when Gamaliel made his statement he was speaking of a man who had been dead for about 10 years in respect to an mesiah/king coming to turn things around for Israel as an theocracy. So the Jewish perspective was still of the mind of an future fulfilment of these prophecies the same as Acts 1:6 KJV ,so both Christians and Jews were of the same mind that it had not been fulfilled(theocracy) "ten years after Jesus death",,,both groups were still looking for it to happen.

the third wall then was finished later ad66ish so in Jewish War 5:6.3 (book 5,ch.6.3) there is a pun by Titus soldiers as to "the son commeth/ the stone cometh" of the Hebrew words "Ha-even baah"(the stone is coming).

It follows the same pattern as in regards to trying to show that the white stones being thrown were fulfilment to Revalation 16:21 KJV i.e. they were first white and the Jews could see them coming and so were painted black and were then found not effective and left off from but also proves that they (the Jews) were "not perceived as a plague" as described in Revelation 16:21 KJV.

The issue of the third wall(the one found in article in O.P.) is in regards to this same wall the third wall=built after Jesus statements of the stones of the building in Matthew,Luke ect. so this third wall and the prophecies concerning the buildings Matthew 24:1-2 KJV "are two different sets of stones"...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
In regards to the portion of your statement "I haven’t checked",,when you do

Notice that in the sites/web pages designed by "preterist" they tend to show this as fulfilment of the scriptures concerning "about the weight of an talent" Revelation 16:21 KJV

But as we know there were three walls surrounding Jerusalem the first and second walls(which were standing when Jesus said the things in Matt.24 ect. but the third wall(the on they found in the article in the O.P.) is in regards to the third wall.

the third wall was began(construction) by Herod Agrippa "after" Jesus death,around ad42-44 but was halted because it was controversial for him to build a wall to defend Jerusalem against Rome(revolt/rebellion) in ad40's,see Acts 5:34-39 KJV .

So in those days ad40's when Gamaliel made his statement he was speaking of a man who had been dead for about 10 years in respect to an mesiah/king coming to turn things around for Israel as an theocracy. So the Jewish perspective was still of the mind of an future fulfilment of these prophecies the same as Acts 1:6 KJV ,so both Christians and Jews were of the same mind that it had not been fulfilled(theocracy) "ten years after Jesus death",,,both groups were still looking for it to happen.

the third wall then was finished later ad66ish so in Jewish War 5:6.3 (book 5,ch.6.3) there is a pun by Titus soldiers as to "the son commeth/ the stone cometh" of the Hebrew words "Ha-even baah"(the stone is coming).

It follows the same pattern as in regards to trying to show that the white stones being thrown were fulfilment to Revalation 16:21 KJV i.e. they were first white and the Jews could see them coming and so were painted black and were then found not effective and left off from but also proves that they (the Jews) were "not perceived as a plague" as described in Revelation 16:21 KJV.

The issue of the third wall(the one found in article in O.P.) is in regards to this same wall the third wall=built after Jesus statements of the stones of the building in Matthew,Luke ect. so this third wall and the prophecies concerning the buildings Matthew 24:1-2 KJV "are two different sets of stones"...
Click to expand...



BOTH groups were looking for it to be fulfilled? Sorry you're flat wrong.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Peter was not offering a theocracy. If that is what you mean by "it." Try to be clear.
Click to expand...

"shall send"(strongs 649) Acts 3:20 KJV in it's tense Peter is telling them that "he would be sent"...

So Jesus had been sent,suffered,,,but heaven must receive him(strongs 5547/Christ) Acts 3:21 KJV "until"...

"Until", the qualifier in Acts 3:19 KJV are met. Until then he is received in heaven...

Bare in mind he(Peter) is speaking of a man who has been killed,and is no longer in their presence Acts 1:11 KJV when he is telling them he will be sent in Acts 3:20 KJV
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
but the bigger question is: was it a Davidic theocracy that he was going to bring? I don't think so. I think Peter meant the whole world was to be reached by the Christian mission, that it was ongoing from Pentecost on until God said/says 'game over.' There is no NT offer of a Davidic theocracy and there is no reason why it would.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
but the bigger question is: was it a Davidic theocracy that he was going to bring? I don't think so. I think Peter meant the whole world was to be reached by the Christian mission, that it was ongoing from Pentecost on until God said/says 'game over.' There is no NT offer of a Davidic theocracy and there is no reason why it would.
Click to expand...

lol,,,"that it was ongoing from pentecost"

,then if Peter thought the same he wouldn’t have said that it would be "sent"(future tense) if/after they met the qualifier Acts 3:17-19 KJV ...But he told them that Christ had fulfilled "suffer"(present tense) and he was recieved in heaven until they did something.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
lol,,,"that it was ongoing from pentecost"

,then if Peter thought the same he wouldn’t have said that it would be "sent"(future tense) if/after they met the qualifier Acts 3:17-19 KJV ...But he told them that Christ had fulfilled "suffer"(present tense) and he was recieved in heaven until they did something.
Click to expand...


It was up to them to join the mission. There was no theocracy coming, never planned. It was up to them to join the mission of Christ. If they did, they might have saved their country too.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
lol,,,"that it was ongoing from pentecost"

,then if Peter thought the same he wouldn’t have said that it would be "sent"(future tense) if/after they met the qualifier Acts 3:17-19 KJV ...But he told them that Christ had fulfilled "suffer"(present tense) and he was recieved in heaven until they did something.
Click to expand...


It was up to them to join the mission. There was no theocracy coming, never planned. It was up to them to join the mission of Christ. If they did, they might have saved their country too.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
I can read 6th grade English, and I believe every word of my KJB.
Do you have a Bible that you actually believe?
Click to expand...


Your term 'believe' actually means 'to submit (as in Islam) to 2P2P.'

What ever happened to the big break through about the "lie" of the NIV about Mk 1:2 which was not a lie, because it went with the major reading of Isaiah, which is where the quote ends? The 2P2P gang plummeted on that one.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Your term 'believe' actually means 'to submit (as in Islam) to 2P2P.'

What ever happened to the big break through about the "lie" of the NIV about Mk 1:2 which was not a lie, because it went with the major reading of Isaiah, which is where the quote ends? The 2P2P gang plummeted on that one.
Click to expand...

Mark 1:2 (NIV)

is still a lie.

Why would you study a book with lies?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
STP,
I have gone through the Greek text here and I simply have no idea what you are addressing. Communication will improve enormously if you don't take a thing like "Mark 1:2" and say it is a lie, when it contains 10 or 100 items.

Now it sounds like you are saying the whole book is a lie. The whole gospel account Mark? The whole NIV? A Greek grammar book? You are so far from clear.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
STP,
I have gone through the Greek text here and I simply have no idea what you are addressing. Communication will improve enormously if you don't take a thing like "Mark 1:2" and say it is a lie, when it contains 10 or 100 items.

Now it sounds like you are saying the whole book is a lie. The whole gospel account Mark? The whole NIV? A Greek grammar book? You are so far from clear.


I really enjoyed your feast line of thought--that those things are fulfilled in Christ. It was real theology, even though I think fulfillment is still broader, that it is all that Christ did, not one for one (feast and act). But this here is just junk thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top