Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[claninja]

What do you mean exactly? He was not saying that He would be crucified within the city of Jerusalem, if that's what you're asking, or else He would be a false prophet. Do you agree with John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 that Jesus was crucified outside of the city or not? Make up your mind. If you agree, then what exactly is your point in bringing up verses like Luke 9:31 and Luke 13:33?

Make up my mind? As already stated previously, I agree Jesus was crucified outside the literal and physical, city walls.

That being said, in regards to a prophet not dying outside the city - you wrote in post 357 “it should be obvious” that In Luke 13:33 he was talking about the people that killed him, NOT the physical city. Jesus was using the city of Jerusalem as a representation of the people, right?

So would you agree that while Jesus was crucified outside the physical and geographical city walls (John 19:20), it’s also appropriate to state that Jesus was also killed by the people of Jerusalem, who are themselves referred to as the city of Jerusalem in Luke 13:33-34?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hey SI, I remember when you argued that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 was referring to a place that was holy but no longer would be holy when the AOD happens.

Shouldn’t your argument about being crucified in Jerusalem follow the same logic since Golgotha is inside Jerusalem’s third wall when Revelation 11:8 is written?

No. When it talks about where Jesus was crucified, the context is where that occurred at the time it happened. John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 explicitly indicate that He was crucified outside of Jerusalem. Why try to get around that?

In the case of Matthew 24:15, the temple was still called the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, so it was perfectly valid for Him to refer to it as such at that time even though it would no longer be considered the holy place at the time it was destroyed.

 

[Marty fox]

If it was only about the Jewish people, why did the wrath of God even come upon God's own temple? Why did God destroy his own temple? God was mad even at the physical. Couldnt he just punish the Jews? Why punish the temple?

Hello any thoughts on post #344?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Make up my mind? As already stated previously, I agree Jesus was crucified outside the literal and physical, city walls.

Okay, so what is your point in bringing up verses like Luke 9:31 and Luke 13:33 then?

That being said, in regards to a prophet not dying outside the city - you wrote in post 357 “it should be obvious” that In Luke 13:33 he was talking about the people that killed him, NOT the physical city. Jesus was using the city of Jerusalem as a representation of the people, right?

Yes. Obviously, the people killed the prophets, not the city itself.

So would you agree that while Jesus was crucified outside the physical and geographical city walls (John 19:20), it’s also appropriate to state that Jesus was also killed by the people of Jerusalem, who are themselves referred to as the city of Jerusalem in Luke 13:33-34?

Sure. Obviously, they were considered to be responsible for His death (1 Thessalonians 2:15). What is your point? Revelation 11:8 refers to the location where Jesus was crucified, not the people who crucified Him, so you can't use Luke 13:33-34 to prove that Babylon refers to the people of Jerusalem. It says "where also our Lord was crucified", not "who also crucified our Lord". Also, the great city is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. That doesn't describe first century Jerusalem. Babylon is the spiritual opposite of the new heavenly Jerusalem and has a far bigger scope than just Jerusalem. Jerusalem never reigned over the kings of the earth and has never been the hold of EVERY foul spirit. Babylon, also described as a woman/harlot, is said to sit on many waters, which symbolically represent "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues". That doesn't described Jerusalem, either. Babylon is the spiritual city of which all unbelievers are citizens while all believers are spiritually citizens of the new heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22).

 

[grafted branch]

No. When it talks about where Jesus was crucified, the context is where that occurred at the time it happened. John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 explicitly indicate that He was crucified outside of Jerusalem. Why try to get around that?

I don’t think anyone is arguing against John 19:20 or Hebrews 13:12 saying He was crucified outside Jerusalem. That was true prior to the third wall being built.

In the case of Matthew 24:15, the temple was still called the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, so it was perfectly valid for Him to refer to it as such at that time even though it would no longer be considered the holy place at the time it was destroyed.

Right, when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 24:15 the place was holy. Just like when Revelation 11:8 was written He was crucified inside Jerusalem. So at that time Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don’t think anyone is arguing against John 19:20 or Hebrews 13:12 saying He was crucified outside Jerusalem. That was true prior to the third wall being built.

The third wall being built is irrelevant. But, you're trying to make it relevant because of your preterist beliefs.

Right, when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 24:15 the place was holy. Just like when Revelation 11:8 was written He was crucified inside Jerusalem.

Come on. Please get serious. Look what you're doing here. You're making Revelation 11:8 contradict John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12. Either He was crucified in the city of Jerusalem or He wasn't. Both John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 explicitly teach that he wasn't. So, accept that rather than trying to claim that Revelation 11:8 says otherwise while causing scripture to contradict itself.

So at that time Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.

No, it wasn't. The great city is called Babylon and Sodom and Egypt and has some things in common with Jerusalem and some with Rome because it's a conglomeration of all false religions and philosophies that oppose God. It is the mother of harlots (Revelation 17:5). Jerusalem was just one of the harlots that has Babylon as their mother. It is the spiritual opposite of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26). So, believers have the heavenly Jerusalem as our mother while unbelievers have Babylon as their mother. Babylon reigns over the kings of the entire earth. That can't be said of Jerusalem.

 

[grafted branch]

The third wall being built is irrelevant. But, you're trying to make it relevant because of your preterist beliefs.

Oh, just like the holy place becoming unholy is irrelevant. But, you’re trying to make it relevant because of your Amill beliefs.

Come on. Please get serious. Look what you're doing here. You're making Revelation 11:8 contradict John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12. Either He was crucified in the city of Jerusalem or He wasn't. Both John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 explicitly teach that he wasn't. So, accept that rather than trying to claim that Revelation 11:8 says otherwise while causing scripture to contradict itself.

Come on. Please get serious. Look what you're doing here. You're making Matthew 24:15 contradict 1 Corinthians 3:16. Either the place was holy or it wasn't. 1 Corinthians 3:16 explicitly teaches we are the temple. So, accept that rather than trying to claim that Matthew 24:15 says otherwise while causing scripture to contradict itself.

 

[grafted branch]

Here’s what you said previously…

Where does scripture itself demand that when a certain place is referenced in relation to a prophecy, it must still be known by the same name as it was when the prophecy was given? Nowhere. That is just a rule that you made up. Why should any of us care about your man-made rules for interpreting prophecies in scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh, just like the holy place becoming unholy is irrelevant. But, you’re trying to make it relevant because of your Amill beliefs.

LOL.

Come on. Please get serious. Look what you're doing here. You're making Matthew 24:15 contradict 1 Corinthians 3:16.

LOL. Does context mean nothing to you? At the time Jesus was speaking the temple was still considered the holy place, so it was perfectly valid for Him to call it such at that time regardless of whether it still would be considered such when it was destroyed. As for the church being called the temple of God, that's what it was at the time Paul was writing. If you understand context, then you can know if you are causing scripture to contradict itself or not.

So, have you made up your mind yet? Was Jesus crucified in Jerusalem or outside of Jerusalem?

Either the place was holy or it wasn't.

At the time Jesus was speaking, it was. That's the context. You have a serious problem understanding context.

1 Corinthians 3:16 explicitly teaches we are the temple.

Yes, because we are. But, at the time Jesus was speaking in Matthew 24:15, that was not yet the case. We are the temple of God because God dwells in us. God started dwelling in His people after Christ's resurrection.

So, accept that rather than trying to claim that Matthew 24:15 says otherwise while causing scripture to contradict itself.

I don't accept your false preterist beliefs and never will.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Here’s what you said previously…

Yep, I sure did. So? How does that apply to what we're talking about now? It doesn't. You are not even understanding what is being discussed here. Either Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem or He wasn't. It can't be both, but you're trying to make it both. Scripture explicitly indicates that He was not crucified within the city of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). Do you believe that or not?

 

[Davidpt]

In the case of Matthew 24:15, the temple was still called the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, so it was perfectly valid for Him to refer to it as such at that time even though it would no longer be considered the holy place at the time it was destroyed.

In Matthew 24, verses 23-26 undeniably involve satan with all power and lying wonders(2:Thessalonians 2), which can't be divorced from verse 4 in that same chapter nor from verse 3 in that same chapter, where I assume we both fully agree can't fit what happened in 70 AD.

And if your position is that verses 23-26 in no way shape or form are involving verses 15-21, even though verse 23 begins with 'Then'---(in the Greek text, the word is Tote. It is a temporal adverb that fundamentally means "at that time," "next," or "consequently." It is used to connect a sequence of events in time. You cannot have a "then" without an "if/when" or a prior context that sets the stage)---is like trying to snap a link out of the middle of a chain and claiming it isn't connected to the links on either side.

IOW, since verses 23-26 can't fit 70 AD, yet belong with verses 15-21, you couldn't remotely be correct that those verses are involving what happened in 70 AD.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus said that Jerusalem is guilty of all blood that was shed on earth.

Please show the verses you are referring to.

 

[SeekTruth]

Scripture explicitly teaches that He was crucified outside of the city.

Luke 13:33: "It is NOT possible that a prophet would perish OUTSIDE of Jerusalem."

So you are saying Jesus was not a prophet?

 

[ewq1938]

Luke 13:33: "It is NOT possible that a prophet would perish OUTSIDE of Jerusalem."

Was Moses a prophet?

 

[SeekTruth]

Was Moses a prophet?

Was he killed, or did he die of natural causes?

 

[ewq1938]

Was he killed, or did he die of natural causes?

Since he wasn't allowed in the promised land I think it was not natural but he still "perished" outside of Jerusalem. But also how about other prophets killed by other humans? Do you think all died in Jerusalem?

 

[SeekTruth]

Do you think all died in Jerusalem?

Yes, i believe.

Matthew 23:34-37
so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, i believe.

Matthew 23:34-37
so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!

That's not the same thing though. Guilt of all the deaths of the righteous since Abel is not all prophets dying in Jerusalem. They didn't. Many died before Jerusalem was even founded.

 

[SeekTruth]

That's not the same thing though. Guilt of all the deaths of the righteous since Abel is not all prophets dying in Jerusalem. They didn't. Many died before Jerusalem was even founded.

Well, it says that Jerusalem is guilty of all. If Jerusalem didnt kill them, Jerusalem could not be guilty. It would be unjust to say that Jerusalem is guilty of all if Jerusalem did not kill them. I dont believe Jesus would say unjust things.

 

[SeekTruth]

Scripture explicitly indicates that He was not crucified within the city of Jerusalem

Revelation 11:8
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Are you serious?