Search results

You have provided zero examples. YOU claimed jesus did not always answer the disciples in accordance with what was going on in the disciples mind - then you went on to provide zero examples to support this claim: From your OP:

When you’ve already called me a joke in a previous forum, and then dance around the issues brought up, then It’s definitely one in rhetoric. no reason to be all demeaning/condescending with the whole “your straw” and “your fool’s gold”. A simple I disagree with your hermeneutic is fine and...

As you’ve already agreed, Matthew 24 begins with the disciples asking about the physical temple. Where, in Matthew 24, does Jesus correct this misunderstanding in a clear manner, so that we know for certain he had transitioned to talking about a spiritual temple? I’m really interested in this...

You’re conflating two different uses of “temple.” Yes, Scripture teaches believers are a spiritual temple (1 Peter 2, Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 3). But that does not mean every reference to the temple is symbolic. In Matthew 24, the disciples explicitly point to physical temple buildings, and...

Calling Revelation apocalyptic literature doesn’t deny its truth—it identifies its God-inspired literary form. Scripture itself contains multiple genres (poetry, narrative, parable, epistle), and recognizing genre is essential for proper interpretation. The symbolic imagery in Revelation is no...

Ok, so you provided zero examples of Jesus shifting the referent from the literal temple to a spiritual living stones in Matthew 24. What verse in Matthew 24 explains that Jesus shifted from talking about the literal temple, to “living stones”?

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here. John 2:19 is explained in vs 21 by the author of the gospel. Where does Matthew explain that Jesus was actually referring to living stones when he answered their questions?

There is a difference between simply saying “i disagree” or arguing against improper hermeneutics that you disagree with VS personally attacking someone via words like “a joke”, or “fools gold”. You seem to rely on the ad hominem of the latter for someone reason, which is absolutely not an...

You misunderstand. Its absolutely untrue to argue that Christians, who claim that revelation is apocalyptic literature, do so because they reject prophecies or believe it fiction. There are many Christians that acknowledge the prophecies of Revelation are real, and have been or will be...

Ah yes, more ad hominems. I guess you believe your arguments do require them. You still haven’t addressed the central issue: where in the text of Matthew 24 is the referent of “temple” changed? In Matthew 24, the disciples explicitly point out the physical temple buildings, and Jesus responds...

Strong arguments do not need to rely on ad hominems. As such, your arguments often come with them to no surprise. Your OP is built on improper hermeneutics. Your example with John 2:19 is misleading, and results in the over harmonization fallacy. Just because John provides and explanation in...

John 2:19 is explicitly interpreted in the text: Jesus is speaking about His body (John 2:21). Matthew 24 is a separate discourse in a different context, where the disciples are pointing to the physical temple buildings, and Jesus describes their destruction WITHOUT any redefinition of “temple.”...

Absolutely untrue

1.) calling “apocalyptic literature” a made-up genre just doesn’t hold up. That category isn’t arbitrary; it’s based on observable features in texts like Daniel and revelation : symbolic imagery, heavenly visions, angelic interpreters, cosmic language, etc. You don’t need to “impose” the genre...

This is a good principle in theory. The problem is that many will ignore context, historical setting, audience relevance, grammar, linguistics, semantics, literary genre, scholarly consensus, translation consensus, etc….for their preferred framework. In essence, their framework is scripture...

I wasn’t attempting to see the reason you questioned him. I just thought it was ironic that it seems he believed you don’t understand what the Holy Spirit teaches in regards to that subject.

Christ’s audience in the OD doesn’t include those born 2,000 years later. If the antecedent to “all these things” includes at least the literal temple destruction, and the antecedent to “you” is Peter, James, Andrew, and John, then Christ’s audience in the OD doesn’t include those born 2,000...

it was more of an ironic allusion to one of spiritual Israelites often used arguments I’ve come across. People often claim they are the ones truly lead by the spirit, and yet they argue with others claiming the spirit is truly leading them. In this case who does spirit truly lead in...

Spiritual Israelite, the Holy Spirit is teaching him, and not anyone else apparently, those answers - as made clear by his post.

Although not what I asked about, yes, Jesus talked to the four disciples “in private”. This strengthens the case that, grammatically, all the 2nd personal pronouns of “you” throughout the discourse refer to them. Thus, the “you” in “when YOU see all these things then YOU know it is near”...