NOGO

You keep repeating that nobody knows the day and hour. We are in agreement on this part. The exact moment is unknown. You must however conceed that one can say "before this generation passes" and still not know the exact day and hour that the event will happen. Even within a generation people can be surprized when it does occur.

Therefore Mt24:36 does not exclude the possibility that Mt24:33-34 also refers to the second coming. Nor does Mt25:13. So, you have NOT countered my point.

You speak as if these two ideas are exclusive, ie one negates the other. Perhaps that is so in your mind, Aza, but the words as can be found in Mt24:36 do NOT exclude the fact that Mt24:34 can and do refer to Jesus's return.

Therefore, what we do not agree on is wheather verses Mt24:33-34 gives a time-frame or a limit for Jesus' return.

I have made a point concerning the analogy of the fig tree and summer as well as Mt10 which clearly states a time-frame for Jesus' return.

You have avoided these two very crucial points. Now, Aza, this is the nature of debate, you have to counter your opponent's main points. If you don't then there is no debate and we can both go our way. Which is fine by me.

I repeat here once again the points which require answers.

You have claimed that the "it" in verse 33 was not Jesus or anything to do with Jesus' return but could be the destruction of the temple (or other destruction).

"It" cannot refer to anything but his second coming and here is why.

Look again at Matthew 24
32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it/He is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Notice verse 32.
When you see that the fig tree's twigs get tender and its leaves come out then you know that the summer is near.

Jesus is making an analogy.
The twigs and leaves are the signs which tell you that the summer is near.

Likewise

verse 33 "all these things" are the signs which tell the disciples that

verse 33 "it/He is near"

"It" or "He" or anything that may be there in the original language is the equivalent (in Jesus' analogy) to the "summer". It is what the disciples are waiting for. It is what all Christians have been waiting for, for 2000 years.

It cannot be the destruction of the temple nor any other destruction.

It has to be his second coming. That is the "summer" that they are waiting for.

"It" refers to the kingdom of God, the end of the world or his return. It cannot refer to some obscure insignificant event.

... and it was all suppose to happen before the generation passed.

As usual you chose to answer a secondary point rather than the main point.
The main point is that Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. How long can it take to go through all the cities of Israel? Answer: before this generation passes is a good estimate.

You cannot deny that there is a time element here "before they finish going through the cities of Israel". "before" is a time limit.

If you see the time element and you associate the coming of the Son of Man to the kingdom of Heaven then it is perfectly legitimate to say that "near" in "the kingdom of Heaven is near" means near in time.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

aza wood

Now how would i know, which thought you consider, primary/secondary, if you only tell me after i have addressed the one you think is secondary. That only shows that we think differently.


One would need to understand, that Israel, was the Kingdom of ten tribes that where scattered through out the world in 700 B.C.E.

Once again, the bible says everything, and can be used to show every side of every argument. Was "Jesus" speaking of , the nation of Judah, which was all that was left of Israel in that local, or the Nation of Israel who where scattered through out the world.

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. James 1:1

"Jesus" also told his disciples to go into all the world. So he was ether talking of the whole earth in the first place, or he did "Come' and tell them the whole world.

The good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world, the end will come.

It is easy to say such, but the word that we translate "near,(In the verse you quoted) is never used for time, but is always used to mean tangible.

aza wood

I do not believe that we are.

With out reading the rest of what"jesus" said in the very same chapter, which is in all probability not accurate anyway, i could.

I have not said that, your veiw is not possible. Just that "you can not prove it by the bible".

The only point that i am trying to make is that you can not prove anything enfaticly by the bible. Neither the Xians, nor the Not-theis can.

They could, anything could be derived from that book, but you can not prove it, by that book.

[quote]Therefore, what we do not agree on is wheather verses Mt24:33-34 gives a time-frame or a limit for Jesus' return.

It instead of just using 33-34, if you would use the entire chapter, you may catch what i am saying.


We can not agree on what was even said, and you want to get involved in analogies. Ok. How do we know but what summer may have been looked upon by them as a scorching hot time, when their water all evaporated, and they had to work extra hard just to keep themselves and their cattle alive. Who knows what these people thought, they lived more like animals, than people.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>

NOGO

1. The topic of discussion is whether Jesus is a false prophet.
2. We have come down to the interpretations of verse mt24:33-36.
3. You have claimed that "it" refers to destructions.
4. I have shown you another verse in Mt10 which states that Jesus would return before 12 disciples finish going through the cities of Israel.
5. You ignore this and tell me that "near" may mean distance.

I do not wish to appear mean-spirited here but if you have read and followed my arguement it should have beed obvious what the main point of quoting Mt10 was.


What was scattered were people. These people were brought to live on other nation's land. They integrated into the local population and lost their Israelite identity.
They were moved in an area then controlled by the Assyrian empire and NOT all over the world.

Jesus could not possibly have told his disciples to go and preach to people in Assyria who no longer consider themselves Israelites. The disciples would have no way to identify these people.

Besides the text says "cities of Israel".
The state of Israel at the time of Jesus did not extend to the area of the former Assyrian empire.

The so call ten lost tribes of Israel may in fact be a myth. The Assyrians did deport royalty and the elite but most people fled the war zone south to Judah. They brough with them their version of the bible which eventually got combined with Judah's traditions. This is why we have duplicate strories in the torah with one refer to God as Yahweh and the other refering to God as Elohim.

In Mt10 Jesus says to go to "through cities" of Israel. He does not say to find ever Israelite even to the tenth generation still living on planet earth.

Let us suppose for a minute that Jesus did intent that they find all the ten lost tribes of Israel and that this would take 2000 years and more.

How can Jesus possible assign this immense task to only twelve people and then tell them that they (THEY not 100 generation after) will not finish before the He returns.

If Jesus did this then he is a joker who mislead all his disciples into believing that he would return within a generation but had in fact no intention of doing so.


Col 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Here Paul tells us that the gospel has been preached to everyone.
Mission accomplished.
Jesus did not return.


In the context I simply could not figure out "i could" what?


When the twigs are tender and the leaves appear is the time when nature is reborn.
That is why passover is when it is. That is why thre resurrection is when it is.
Have you ever wondered why we have a fixed date for the birth of Jesus but we have no fixed date for his death and resurrection which follow the lunar calendar?

But this is not the main point, Aza.
When you read verse 32 Jesus had already spoken to his disciples about his return in verses 30 and 31. He also already told them about the signs leading up to his return.

So Jesus tells his disciples about the SIGNS leading up to his return then he tells them about HIS RETURN. Then he gives the analogy. The structure of Mt24 is as follows.

1. Disciples question Jesus
2. Jesus describes events leading to his return.
3. Jesus describes his return.
4. Jesus makes the analogy with the fig tree.
5. Jesus concludes that when they see all these things then it/He is near. all these things will occur within this generation.

Note that the fig tree analogy comes right after Jesus describes his return.
This is how items 4 and 5 appear.
mt24:32 When you see the "tender twigs and leaves" THEN "summer"
mt24:33 When you see "all these things"(2) THEN Jesus' return(3).

Do you see my point, Aza?
Jesus' return would be the most astonishing event in history if it ever happens. Jesus tells his disciples that when they see the SIGNS that he described then they know that He is soon coming,
this is as certain as,
when they see the twigs and leaves then summer is coming.
It is not a matter that summer is nice and Jesus' return is also nice. Rather it is a matter of inevitability. When you see the twigs and leaves then summer WILL soon come and is inevitable.

You, Aza, claim that this analogy has nothing to do with Jesus' return which is described just before Jesus makes the analogy.

This is what Mt24 is all about, Jesus' return.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

enemigo

You started this thread saying that you debunked Don's "Detecting a False Prophet." All you have done is regurgitate the same "the Bible is flawed so you can't prove anything." His essay was intended for someone who believes that the Bible is not flawed, or as a demonstration to other non-believers on how they might present this case to a believer. Therefore, he must first assume that the Bible is not flawed in order to argue that it is in fact flawed. If he did not do this, he would be begging the question by assuming that it is flawed in order to prove that it is flawed.


How many times will you repeat this? Didn't the moderator tell you to stop using this misdirected argument several pages ago? Now why do you think the moderator did that?

If I were trying to prove to you, using the Bible, that Jesus was God, then you could use this argument against me. But this whole false prophet argument was originally directed at believers. The only reason it is directed at you now, is because for some reason, you took it upon yourself to argue that Jesus is not a false prophet according to Matthew 24. You have taken on the position of a believer in that aspect of the debate, although your motives are quite different.


I don't believe that the book is true. Deductive reasoning can be used on a book that I know is flawed. If the argument I am presenting is for a believer, it doesn't matter if I believe that it is flawed. As long as someone believes that it is not flawed, an argument can be presented to them by assuming the Bible is not flawed. This approach was necessary to show a believer that their Lord was a false prophet. One must assume that the scriptures in which he prophesies are not flawed. If you don't concede that for the sake of argument, then there can be no argument with a believer at all on this subject, because the believer will reject anything but the Bible. This is the position that Don took in his essay, and that is the position I've been defending. It doesn't matter if you know that the Bible is flawed, or even if Don does.


Again, if you believe that the Bible is flawed, then Don's argument was not written for you. You read it with the presupposition that the Bible is flawed. He was not trying to convince you that the Bible is flawed.


This is a false analogy.


Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. You just said that everything that they asked him would happen in their lifetime. One of the things they asked him about was when he would return. He said that he did not know the exact day or time all these things would happen, but everything they asked him about would happen during their lifetimes. He just could not say the exact day and time. He did not explicitly exclude his return from all these things. Here is your own definition of all these things:
His return was "predicted in the chapter(prior to saying all these things)." However, you exclude his return by presenting verse 36. The version that you present here is not one that I have seen in any translation. So I'll ask you again, please tell me what translation says this:
Or are you simply interpolating the exclusion of his return?

richard

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>

NOGO

Only believers debate the way Aza wood debates.

aza wood

No. Debunking Don Morgan's,"Jesus is a false prophet", and to show that nothing can be proved from the bible. Don himself said that his title was just an "eye chatcher", and his point was to prove the bible wrong.

Nogo. You haven't been fallowing along. Remember, I thought that it would be better to read the whole chapter instead of a few verses.

So have you

You must not have read my reply that states, that the real nation of Israel has been scattered through-out the entire world, and that what was left in judea was just a very small remenant.

Inasmuch as nether of your statements were correct, i saw no priority there.

You have seemed very kind hearted, and not at all mean spirited. Since your views are, main line fun-da-mental, i assume that you came out of the blabtist church. Having come from that hell-whole, you are doing very well. You have my sympathies, but it is not my place to know which of your two wrong points are the most important to you. Or could i, if i really wanted to.


O, I see that you did read my post, and just forgot to mention it.

..............for my people and [for] my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. Joe.3:2

But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations zec.7;14

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the timeS of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the good news to every creature". He told them this after your very nice verse.

Go ye into all the world.......

Go ye into all the world, and make disciple and teach them to do all things that i have commanded you. Amway

Your "jesus' said that he did not know when he would be back. Matt. 24:36


He told them this after he said "before you have gone through the cities of Israel, I will return". So he ether did come back and later told them to go into all the world, or the two order's are the same.

Paul was a mass murderer. Yet you believe his words, if indeed they are really his words. See how fare you stoop to TRY and prove a point.

Ok. I'll bite. Where does it say that "a whole generation was surprised"? I do not think that very many people new about "jesus" in his generation.

You would have to look at your sentence , just before my response, to understand that.

You made it. Not I.

So now you change your story. Before you said that,"the rest of this chapter (24) was an answer to the disciple's question", "(((WHEN))) will the destruction of the Temple be, (((WHAT)))(not when)will be the sign of thy coming........."! Now. You say," that the whole chapter is about "Jesus's return.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>

Fastfalcon

On Matt 24, and I'll try to be smart this time . The fact that Jesus said this generation and yet he did not come meant that the signs of his coming did not happen yet. Now let's see the signs of his coming:

Matthew 24:3-28 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. :For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

The easiest signs to see are those in bold. Wars and rumors of war: This was shown on CNN one time a day or so ago. Interesting coincidence.

aza wood

From the beginning to now, the only point that i have been interested in making,(although I've made others) is that nether the Not-theis nor Xians can prove anything, by wielding the two edged sword of the bible.

I do not believe that she told me to stop, I believe that she sajested that i stop, because it was annoying her. I can understand why it would annoy any Not-thei. Many of the foundation stones of the secular web are black, and have Holy Bible written in gold letters on their side.
If i believe the bible was completely true, without flaws(which I do not) and you used your above argument on me, I would say, "wait, just a minute, when I use the bible, you Not-theis tell me that, "There is no evidence that the book was even written by anyone who knew "Jesus". So how come when you quote it, it becomes instantly, magically correct. These guys need to be more honest(get saved)
Don has clear this up. My point was that Don could not prove the "Jesus was a false prophet" Mr. Morgan said , that this tittle was just a eye catcher and if i understood him correctly, said that he never really tried to prove that"jesus was a false prophet. I was very happy with the out come, but then others who where not so thrilled with it, began to hope in the ring. Which I'm cool with.

Strawman. I never said that i was quoting, that verse. I was only giving another possible interpretation of it.

That verse comes from the pages of the, NAIB(the New Aza's Interpolational Bible)

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>

NOGO

Do you know why it says "to this time" and not "to that time" ?

The sentence should have been as follows

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to that time, no, nor ever shall be (after that time)."

From Jesus' point of view these events would have been in the future and therefore the word should be "that time" but it says "this time".

Why?

Have you ever heard of writer's perspective?