This or That

[claninja]

There is an arrogant undertone in your bold type of your whole post in every post to me which seems to me to be betraying anger and frustration of your inability to prove the truth of your false premise.

The Old Covenant came to an end in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross, and the need for the temple sacrificial system came to an end AT THE SAME TIME - 40 years earlier than you say it did.

Understand the biblical type:

120 years before the flood God's judgment was handed down when He said,

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was angry to His heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. For I repent that I have made them." (Genesis 6:3, 5-7).

GOD'S SALVATION:

Genesis 6:13-14a
"And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make an ark of Cyprus timbers. You shall make rooms in the ark..."

God commanded Noah to build the ark 120 years before the flood came: The world was not judged and found guilty on the day that the floods came - the flood was just the carrying out of the decreed sentence which had already been passed when the world was judged 120 years earlier - as long as Moses was still building the Ark, there was still a chance to get into the ark.

Jesus:

John 12:31-32
"Now is the judgement of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself."

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23-24
"Just as it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one." Romans 3:10.

The judgment was handed down 40 years before the Romans destroyed the temple. The Old Covenant came to an end in the flesh of Christ when He died on the cross, and the need for the temple sacrificial system came to an end AT THE SAME TIME - 40 years earlier than you say it did. The babana peel had rotted 40 years before it was discarded. The earth was judged 120 years before the flood came.

Please don't ask me the same question again. It's answered. If you fail to understand the answer, so be it.

You sure do require a lot of ad hominems for your arguments. How about addressing the content post instead.

You’re not answering what “near vanishing” means…..and that’s very telling.

 

[Zao is life]

You sure do require a lot of ad hominems for your arguments. How about addressing the content post instead.

You’re not answering what “near vanishing” means…..and that’s very telling.

There is no ad hominem in my reply but your false accusation of ad hominems are ad hominems in themselves.

The question has been answered. I can't help you to understand the answer, presuming you really don't understand what it means to say something that is old and has rotted is ready to be discarded.

 

[claninja]

There is no ad hominem in my reply but your false accusation of ad hominems are ad hominems in themselves.

The question has been answered. I can't help you to understand the answer, presuming you really don't understand what it means to say something that is old and has rotted is ready to be discarded.

By definition it does. Much of your last post is directed at my type font and how you think it reflects on me, instead of addressing the content of the post.

Again. We’ve already agreed the first covenant was made obsolete at the cross. That’s not the issue, but you keep making it the issue.

This doesn’t answer what “ready to be discarded” or “near vanishing” means.

Can you please address what that you it means if doesn’t refer to the obsolete temple practices, which were still being followed, being near to ending.

 

[claninja]

Continue to make what you want to of the above statement, because it simply means that anything that waxes old is ready to vanish away. Like a rotten banana peel.

Right I absolutely agree with this analogy. The old covenant was like a rotting banana after the cross.

BUT What does it mean a rotten banana peel is “near” vanishing?

 

[DavidPT]

This doesn’t answer what “ready to be discarded” or “near vanishing” means.

Can you please address what that you it means if doesn’t refer to the obsolete temple practices, which were still being followed, being near to ending.

You seem to think, as far as I can tell, the fact Hebrews 8:13 was written years later, yet prior to 70 AD, thus the 2nd temple was still standing, that this is somehow relevant to what was stated in verse 13. Why can't it simply mean as of the beginning of the 2nd covenant, meaning Christ's death and resurrection, as in now, at that particular time, the first covenant is now ready to vanish away. Not some 40 years later, but at that time?

So what if the temple was still standing when Hebrews 8:13 was written? So what if Hebrews 8:13 was written years later and just prior to 70 AD? What didn't happen years later in 70 AD is this--the cross followed by His resurrection. That is when it was time for the 1st covenant to now vanish away.

 

[Zao is life]

By definition it does. Much of your last post is directed at my type font and how you think it reflects on me, instead of addressing the content of the post.

Again. We’ve already agreed the first covenant was made obsolete at the cross. That’s not the issue, but you keep making it the issue.

This doesn’t answer what “ready to be discarded” or “near vanishing” means.

Can you please address what that you it means if doesn’t refer to the obsolete temple practices, which were still being followed, being near to ending.

Right I absolutely agree with this analogy. The old covenant was like a rotting banana after the cross.

BUT What does it mean a rotten banana peel is “near” vanishing?

This is so basic, I feel like it's insulting to say it to you like you're too unintelligent to understand @claninja especially because you keep accusing me of adhominems, but you keep insisting, so let's explain what is 100% basic: When a rotting banana peel vanishes away it does not mean it was destroyed with thousands of Roman troops making a siege of the banana peel and destroying it with battering rams before setting fire to whatever could still be seen. The rotting banana peel just vanishes over time.

I already mentioned this, so let's say it again: The context of the passage is a comparison between the Old Covenant and the New, not between the Old Covenant and the temple. The temple sacrifices had already become obsolete 40 years before 70 AD and did not need Roman armies to make them obsolete - Christ did that in His death and resurrection.

 

[claninja]

You seem to think, as far as I can tell, the fact Hebrews 8:13 was written years later, yet prior to 70 AD, thus the 2nd temple was still standing, that this is somehow relevant to what was stated in verse 13. Why can't it simply mean as of the beginning of the 2nd covenant, meaning Christ's death and resurrection, as in now, at that particular time, the first covenant is now ready to vanish away. Not some 40 years later, but at that time?

So what if the temple was still standing when Hebrews 8:13 was written? So what if Hebrews 8:13 was written years later and just prior to 70 AD? What didn't happen years later in 70 AD is this--the cross followed by His resurrection. That is when it was time for the 1st covenant to now vanish away.

So what? Audience relevance David.
Hebrews is also known as the epistle to Hebrews. It was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, during a time when the Christian Hebrews were still zealous for the law (acts 21:20). Hebrews mentions the present workings and sacrifices of the priests in a couple passages. You can’t just remove the historical context under which this book was written.


The conjunction “de” lies between the main clause of “he has made obsolete” and the secondary clause “is waxing old and aging, near vanishing”. Therefore, it shouldn’t be understood as “vanishing” happening at the same time as being made obsolete.

It should be understood as “ he had made the first obsolete, then/now, it is waxing and aging, near vanishing.

This gives you 2 main options for interpretation based on the grammatical structure.

1.) it was made obsolete in Jeremiah’s day, then was waxing and aging, near dissolution

2.) it was made obsolete at the cross, then was waxing and aging, near dissolution.

 

[claninja]

This is so basic, I feel like it's insulting to say it to you like you're too unintelligent to understand @claninja especially because you keep accusing me of adhominems, but you keep insisting, so let's explain what is 100% basic: When a rotting banana peel vanishes away it does not mean it was destroyed with thousands of Roman troops making a siege of the banana peel and destroying it with battering rams before setting fire to whatever could still be seen. The rotting banana peel just vanishes over time.

I already mentioned this, so let's say it again: The context of the passage is a comparison between the Old Covenant and the New, not between the Old Covenant and the temple. The temple sacrifices had already become obsolete 40 years before 70 AD and did not need Roman armies to make them obsolete - Christ did that in His death and resurrection.

You’ve had no problem insulting me in the past, which had been reported, not sure what the problem is now……..

Anyways…..right, Christ made the temple practices obsolete at the cross. And with 2,000 years of hindsight, I completely 100% agree.

But The Christian Jews had difficulty seeing it that way prior to the temple destruction. They were still zealous for the law and temple practices decades after the cross (acts 21:20). the audience of Hebrews was written to exactly that, Christian Hebrews, and addressed that the present priest hood and temple practices could not take away sins, but were only a shadow of Christs sacrifice and the good things coming. The old way had been made obsolete and then was waxing old and aging, near vanishing.

So when did the obsolete temple practices, which were still pointlessly and currently happening during the time of the book of Hebrews vanish?

 

[Zao is life]

You’ve had no problem insulting me in the past, which had been reported, not sure what the problem is now……..

There is way too much antagonism in your posts, mostly delivered very subtly in the undertones. I've placed you on ignore.

 

[claninja]

There is way too much antagonism in your posts, always in subtly in the undertones. I've placed you on ignore.

If you can’t have a discussion without getting too worked up and insulting me, instead of addressing the post then this is probably for the best. But I was really hoping you would explain what “near vanishing” means….guess I’ll never know.

 

[Zao is life]

If you can’t have a discussion without getting too worked up and insulting me, instead of addressing the post then this is probably for the best. But I was really hoping you would explain what “near vanishing” means….guess I’ll never know.

I pointed out to you the error of changing the basic, foundational Christian tenet that it was Christ's death and resurrection that abolished the Old Covenant, and this is why the abolished Old Covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away.

You insist that the basic, foundational Christian tenet is wrong, and instead, you assert that it was the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D that caused it to vanish away.

I chose the wrong words to point this out to you, after I had already explained it and you continued to repeatedly ask me the same question about what it means for something to "vanish away" .

Then I explained what "vanishing" means by using the analogy of a rotting banana peel - which you agreed with.

Your post above, where you falsely assert that I never explained what "vanishing" means, is yet another example of your many, many subtle antagonistic remarks in the undertones of your posts that has caused me to place you on ignore.

 

[parousia70]

The entire planet is going to unravel within about 27 years. I think even sooner, like 20 years.

That's bad news. And you don't believe me.

It's my 21st year as a Christian Forums member. The year I joined there were plenty of folks here, just like you, with the EXACT same conviction, saying "we don't have 20 years left", yet... here we are.

I even remember in 1988, getting handed the book "88 reasons why the rapture is in 1988"... I read it with much interest.

Then in 1989 I was handed the followup book by the same author "89 reasons why the rapture is in 1989".
I tossed that one straight into the trash.

I didn't bother with either of his subsequent follups:

• Whisenant, Edgar C. (1993). 23 reasons why a pre-tribulation rapture looks like it will occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993. Predicted that the Rapture would occur in 1993.
• Whisenant, Edgar C. (1994). And now the earth's destruction by fire, nuclear bomb fire. Prediction for 1994.

Sadly, Edgar is not alone. In fact, EVERY end time prognosticator, to date, has chalked up a 100% prophetic failure rate. 100% Failure.

Maybe you'll be the first and only correct one ever?

 

[parousia70]

Jesus wanted every generation to be ready for his second coming.

So Jesus wanted every generation to believe a lie?

Why? What's the benefit?

How did the Christian from, say, the year 1465, who believed Jesus would come in his lifetime benefit over and above his christian neighbor who did not subscribe to that belief and instead simply lived out His Christian life?

They're both dead now.
Is one more saved now than the other?

 

[tonychanyt]

So Jesus wanted every generation to believe a lie?

Where is the lie? Can you quote my words?

 

[claninja]

I pointed out to you the error of changing the basic, foundational Christian tenet that it was Christ's death and resurrection that abolished the Old Covenant, and this is why the abolished Old Covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away.

You insist that the basic, foundational Christian tenet is wrong, and instead, you assert that it was the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D that caused it to vanish away.

I chose the wrong words to point this out to you, after I had already explained it and you continued to repeatedly ask me the same question about what it means for something to "vanish away" .

Then I explained what "vanishing" means by using the analogy of a rotting banana peel - which you agreed with.

Your post above, where you falsely assert that I never explained what "vanishing" means, is yet another example of your many, many subtle antagonistic remarks in the undertones of your posts that has caused me to place you on ignore.

But I never said the old covenant was made obsolete in 70ad. So that would be a strawman argument. I said the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross, and the temple practices that continued to wax old and age, vanished away in 70ad.

And right, I agreed that the old covenant had become as rotten banana peel at the cross, and further decayed and rotted afterward. A banana that is rotten, has no more use and will eventually rot away after a period of time. BUT This does not answer how the temple practices vanished after becoming obsolete.

The obsolete temple practices continued after the cross, so how did they vanish?

 

[keras]

Where is the lie? Can you quote my words?

There are people here who like to think the Lord is never going to do what He has said He would, that is: to destroy His enemies by fire. Romans 2:18, Hebrews 10:27, 2 Peter 3:7 and over 100 other Prophesies.
So those who know it WILL: happen and 'jump the gun', that is: propose a date they think it could happen and it doesn't - get reviled and discredited.
But the stupid thing which they promote, is that will never happen and all those who point out God's Prophetic Word are idiots.

One thing I must say: when the Lord does arise and change the world, those prophecy rejectors, will be the most shocked and unprepared.

 

[tonychanyt]

There are people here who like to think the Lord is never going to do what He has said He would, that is: to destroy His enemies by fire. Romans 2:18, Hebrews 10:27, 2 Peter 3:7 and over 100 other Prophesies.
So those who know it WILL: happen and 'jump the gun', that is: propose a date they think it could happen and it doesn't - get reviled and discredited.
But the stupid thing which they promote, is that will never happen and all those who point out God's Prophetic Word are idiots.

One thing I must say: when the Lord does arise and change the world, those prophecy rejectors, will be the most shocked and unprepared.

You did not quote my words. I still do not know where is the lie.

 

[grafted branch]

You did not quote my words. I still do not know where is the lie.

I think the lie he meant was when you said you think Jesus used the term “this generation” because He wanted every generation to be ready.

It’s kind of like telling relatives I’ll be home for Christmas while talking to them at Thanksgiving. If you meant the Christmas 50 years or 2000 years in the future, you should’ve been specific about that else your relatives will be expecting to see you in a month. If you said well I just wanted my relatives to be ready for me every Christmas, then that’s kind of a deceiving way of saying it and not being straightforward.

 

[tonychanyt]

I think the lie he meant was when you said you think Jesus used the term “this generation” because He wanted every generation to be ready.

Can you quote my words and explain the lie?

 

[keras]

You did not quote my words. I still do not know where is the lie.

It wasn't me who you asked the question of.
I posted my opinion of those who reject the possibility of the apocalypse actually happening.

So Jesus wanted every generation to believe a lie?

This question exposes the mindset and agenda of those who reject the literal fulfilment of the Prophesies.
I view the reason why they reject what the Lord has told us what He plans to do, is avoidance of any hard times and testing events which may be personally experienced by them.

Answer to the question: Jesus wanted all Christians throughout the Church age, to be in a state of readiness for His Return at any time. In the expectation of the, still future; glorious Kingdom.