The End of the Mosaic Age

[Randy Kluth]

You think a "wall" is a "building?" It can be part of a building, but the wall itself is not a "building!" In the case of the Western Wall, it was *not* part of any building. It was built to be a retaining wall--not a building.

The discussion was about building plural, and he said everuy6thijhg would be leveled to the ground. That has not happened.

The point was not that all buildings in the world would be leveled, nor even all buildings in the proximity of the temple would be leveled. Rather, it was specifically that all of the *temple* buildings would be leveled! That did, in fact, happen.

In fact, most all of the Early Church Fathers viewed the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 70 AD event. They believed that when Jesus said the temple would be completely demolished that it was fulfilled when the Romans arrived in 70 AD and oversaw its complete demolition. The Church Fathers were much closer to this event then you are!

It is part of the temple complex, multiple buildings. I never said it was part of the "temple building".

You're missing the point. The temple "complex," as you like to phrase it, did not include just any building in the vicinity of the temple, but the actual buildings that constituted "the temple." In other words, though the temple consisted of several buildings it was considered a single building complex. This excluded things like retaining walls that were not any part of the foundation for these buildings.

 

[ewq1938]

You think a "wall" is a "building?" It can be part of a building, but the wall itself is not a "building!"

It is a building itself, built by builders. The case I have built is stronger than the one you have.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is a building itself, built by builders. The case I have built is stronger than the one you have.

I'm not in a competition. I'm into truth. The truth is, building a wall does *not* make it a building. Sorry you refuse to recognize this. I'm not a builder, but I have enough experience with building to know what I'm talking about.

Retaining Wall, from Wikipedia:
Retaining walls are relatively rigid walls used for supporting soil laterally so that it can be retained at different levels on the two sides. Retaining walls are structures designed to restrain soil to a slope that it would not naturally keep to (typically a steep, near-vertical or vertical slope). They are used to bound soils between two different elevations often in areas of terrain possessing undesirable slopes or in areas where the landscape needs to be shaped severely and engineered for more specific purposes like hillside farming or roadway overpasses. A retaining wall that retains soil on the backside and water on the frontside is called a seawall or a bulkhead.

A wall built as part of a house foundation can actually serve as a retaining wall. As such, this wall is part of the building.

But a retaining wall, separate from the building, that is used to retain soil for a plaza, is not a building, nor part of a building. It is strictly a retaining wall, for purposes such as leveling or to prevent erosion.

The Western Wall is a retaining wall that is not part of the temple complex. It is not part of the foundation for any of the temple buildings. Jesus did not refer to the Western Wall when foretelling the complete destruction of the temple complex.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not in a competition. I'm into truth. The truth is, building a wall does *not* make it a building.

This will always be wrong. A wall is automatically a building. This is true in English, but more importantly it is true in Greek.

Barnes:

Matthew 24:1
And Jesus went out - He was going over to the Mount of Olives, Mat_24:3.
The buildings of the temple - The temple itself, with the surrounding courts, porches, and other edifices. See the notes at Mat_21:12. Mark says that they particularly pointed out the “stones” of the temple, as well as the buildings. “In that temple,” says Josephus, the Jewish historian, “were several stones which were 45 cubits in length, 5 in height, and 6 in breadth;” that is, more than 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 8 high. These stones, of such enormous size, were principally used in building the high wall on the east side, from the base to the top of the mountain. They were also, it is said, beautifully painted with variegated colors.

 

[face2face]

While you all are arguing over symantics consider the reality of Matthew 24:15

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Same exhortation was given to Daniel 9:23, 25.

What if there had been four opinions of that prophecy!!

There is the ignorant who want this to be future - they would have remained in Jerusalem and ended up eating their children for hunger. Then there is those who understood Daniels prophecy and listen to the Lord's warnings to get out!

There is a grave consequence for the Futurist that when it comes, it will be devastating.

Let the reader understand (first audience!)

F2F

 

[ewq1938]

There is a grave consequence for the Futurist that when it comes, it will be devastating.

That's like when the flat Earth website said, "There are flat Earthers all over the globe."

 

[face2face]

That's like when the flat Earth website said, "There are flat Earthers all over the globe."

Actually I do know one and that's painful!

 

[Randy Kluth]

This will always be wrong. A wall is automatically a building. This is true in English, but more importantly it is true in Greek.

Barnes:

Matthew 24:1
And Jesus went out - He was going over to the Mount of Olives, Mat_24:3.
The buildings of the temple - The temple itself, with the surrounding courts, porches, and other edifices. See the notes at Mat_21:12. Mark says that they particularly pointed out the “stones” of the temple, as well as the buildings. “In that temple,” says Josephus, the Jewish historian, “were several stones which were 45 cubits in length, 5 in height, and 6 in breadth;” that is, more than 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 8 high. These stones, of such enormous size, were principally used in building the high wall on the east side, from the base to the top of the mountain. They were also, it is said, beautifully painted with variegated colors.

Again, you have a poor ability to recognize words and how they are distinguished. We may "build" a model plane, but it is not a "building" simply because it is "built." You have spent a lot of time trying to prove that a retaining wall is a "building" simply because it is "built." This is very poor indeed!

The retaining wall was most certainly built with stones. And it certainly was connected with the mesa, or plaza, upon which the temple complex was built. But it was not therefore part of the temple complex, as we should define it.

No, the temple complex, as we are defining it, consists of the buildings associated with the temple itself, and not with the plaza, or mesa, where the temple complex was built. The retaining wall was distinct from the temple complex, by which we mean the "buildings of the temple."

The retaining wall was built quite separate from the temple complex, and was designed to hold up earth--not the temple. Only foundation stones beneath the temple could be considered part of the temple buildings, and I'm not sure Jesus even would've meant them by "temple buildings?" After all, he was explicitly describing the removal of every stone, which obviously refers to those stones "above the ground" that could, in effect, "come down!"

 

[ewq1938]

Again, you have a poor ability to recognize words and how they are distinguished. We may "build" a model plane, but it is not a "building" simply because it is "built."

False analogy. We are talking about Architecture not building toys. What did you say about a poor ability to recognize?

You have spent a lot of time trying to prove that a retaining wall is a "building" simply because it is "built." This is very poor indeed!

No, it is accurate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

False analogy. We are talking about Architecture not building toys. What did you say about a poor ability to recognize?

I don't think you're willing to show any real sense of reason in this conversation. I'm saying, as an example, that just because something is "built" it is not necessarily thereby to be called a "building." Whether it is a model plane (not a "toy"), or a wall, those things are not necessarily called a "building."

Sometimes, a verb is turned into a noun, such as when someone "develops" land, and when developed it becomes a "development." In the same way, when you "build" some things they can become a "building."

But it is a bit more nuanced with buildings, because with some things, such as retaining walls and model planes, one can "build" them without their being called "buildings."

In that sense you show "zero" sense of what I'm talking about in describing the temple complex as a set of "buildings." The retaining wall was "built," but it was not necessarily thereby to be called a "building."

As I explained, actually from my own personal experience, sometimes a retaining wall can be part of the actual building, such as when one of the foundation walls is used to hold back a dirt bank. We recently had a house built like that, with one of the walls being a "retaining wall." It could then be described as part of the "building."

But in many cases, retaining walls are *not* part of the actual foundation of the building, and cannot be considered to be a "building" simply because it was "built." And as I said, I'm not sure Jesus meant, in context, for the foundation to be referred to at any rate when he mentioned the buildings of the temple would "come down." In context, Jesus was not talking about building foundations being razed and dropped, which would be ludicrous--foundations are often below ground or at ground level. No, Jesus was only talking about stones above ground being brought down--every one.

Since you are so hardened of heart, and closed-minded, I'll leave this to the readers to decide the matter. You've proven yourself to be utterly incapable of rational discourse on the subject.

You cannot even acknowledge the opinion and its reason against which you argue. Your argument is a constant hammering in on the same points that are being challenged without actually acknowledging what is being argued.

No, it is accurate.

You don't know what a "building" is then. I give up.

 

[ewq1938]

You don't know what a "building" is then. I give up.

You don't know what a "building" is then. I give up.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You don't know what a "building" is then. I give up.

Yes, a "building" is defined, quite simply, by a dictionary. Your belief that a "wall" is a "building" is hardly a dictionary definition for a "building." That's why I give up on you. You're irrational and proud.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, a "building" is defined, quite simply, by a dictionary. Your belief that a "wall" is a "building" is hardly a dictionary definition for a "building."

Your error is you think a building means a house or something. That's wrong. Anything built as Architecture is a building including walls.

G3619
οἰκοδομή
oikodomē
oy-kod-om-ay'
Feminine (abstraction) of a compound of G3624 and the base of G1430; architecture, that is, (concretely) a structure; figuratively confirmation: - building, edify (-ication, -ing).
Total KJV occurrences: 18

That's why I give up on you. You're irrational and proud.

You are speaking of yourself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your error is you think a building means a house or something. That's wrong. Anything built as Architecture is a building including walls.

I disagree. The Scriptures were not speaking of just any kind of architecture but of a building that can *fall down!* That is the context. Sorry you refuse to see that. A Retaining Wall is not the kind of "architectural structure" that Jesus was referring to. It was "built," but it was not the kind of "building" Jesus referred to.

The word was indeed used for a house type of architecture. For example...
2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Apparently, the word is also used for "edification," as in building someone up. A building type of architecture better fits the sense of producing a sense of pride in development than a mere wall.

In 2 Cor 5, the building is being compared with the tabernacle, which had no foundation at all. So I think you're missing the point. The temple was coming down--the entire means of temple worship. A Retaining Wall is not in the least related to temple worship, nor to the temple buildings themselves.

To say that temple buildings--plural, means that the temple building must includes things like retaining walls is absurd. Obviously, the temple itself had several buildings, excluding the retaining wall.

 

[Timtofly]

The Western Wall was *not* a part of the temple buildings' foundations. But I can see you're not willing to consider this.

You quoted buildings' plural. Your point would be building's singular foundation.

Jesus said all these buildings not just the Temple.

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

 

[ewq1938]

I disagree. The Scriptures were not speaking of just any kind of architecture but of a building that can *fall down!*

Walls don't fall down? Ever read about an event in the OT about falling walls?

That is the context. Sorry you refuse to see that. A Retaining Wall is not the kind of "architectural structure" that Jesus was referring to.

He was referring to ALL the architectural structures of the temple area and one prophecy says it all would be laid down to the ground, flat. That hasn't happened.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Walls don't fall down? Ever read about an event in the OT about falling walls?

Do you know the difference between walls around a city and retaining walls?

He was referring to ALL the architectural structures of the temple area and one prophecy says it all would be laid down to the ground, flat. That hasn't happened.

I answered that. A retaining wall is not a building.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You quoted buildings' plural. Your point would be building's singular foundation.

Jesus said all these buildings not just the Temple.

You're wrong. Jesus was referring to the temple buildings---not retaining walls that are *built.*

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

The retaining walls were not "great buildings."

 

[ewq1938]

Do you know the difference between walls around a city and retaining walls?

Yes, do you?

I answered that. A retaining wall is not a building.

It is a building. All walls are. You have a modern, isolated definition of a building when the Greek meaning of the word that Architecture is a building. There is no limitation to only house like buildings that you have imposed upon the word.

The Romans left one of your "buildings" in tact anyways but you have ignored that fact through this entire discussion. The truth is 70AD did not fulfill what Christ predicted before or during the OD.

 

[Timtofly]

You're wrong. Jesus was referring to the temple buildings---not retaining walls that are *built.*

The retaining walls were not "great buildings."

So these buildings only needed to come down, not the foundation walls they were on? Did Jesus claim the foundations would remain in place even if the buildings themselves were torn down? Josephus said that not all of these buildings were torn down at that point. The fortress was part of the building complex. The Temple was not even connected to other buildings. Jesus said buildings plural, which included all the buildings, not just a single building that was the Temple. Have you not seen what this complex looked like? Or you don't trust that people today know what was there?

If that is the case how do you even know what Jesus was talking about? If those archeologists in Israel don't know what they are talking about?