Hi Christrosefromthedead, you are correct in correcting me about Luke, which I was confusing with Matthew. However, in Matthew the location is indeed the temple in Jerusalem. The two accounts are not the same event but complement each other. Luke gives the prophecy in advance; Matthew gives the prophecy at the climactic moment.
In Luke the crowds hear what will happen. It is lament spoken about Jerusalem, not to Jerusalem. It is a warning and a prediction. In Matthew, Jerusalem hears what must happen. Jesus speaks directly to the city, and it is a judicial declaration and a future promise. So, in essence, Luke is a “This is what will happen.” and Matthew is a “This is what must happen before you see Me again.”
When you overlay Luke 13 and Matthew 23, you get a single, coherent prophetic arc: Jesus sets His face toward Jerusalem (Luke). Then He predicts Jerusalem’s rejection and future repentance (Luke). Then He arrives in Jerusalem and confronts its leaders (Matthew). Then He pronounces judgment and sets the condition for His return (Matthew).
The condition is the same in both accounts: A future moment when the Jewish people corporately say: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” This is the clearest biblical foundation for the idea that: Jesus’ return is tied to a future, national Jewish recognition of Him as Messiah. If you cannot see this then your confusion about Israel has confused your bible lens, because the context is very clear.
Your correct that modern Judaism is based on the pharisees theology, and it is because it was the only sect whose theology did not depend on the Temple to function. Nevertheless, while Rabbinic Judaism is Pharisaic at its core, it absorbed elements from other sects.
No, you are assuming that the Apostles were now believing in a new religion based on non-Jewish interpretations of the bible. You believe they changed religions because you see the bible through supersessions lens, a theology invented not by the Jews or the Apostles, but by later non-Jewish Christians. There is no verse where Jesus or the apostles say, “Israel has no future.” or “The land promise is cancelled.” or “The nation is irrelevant now.” If the apostles believed that Israel had no future, the land was irrelevant, then why didn't Jesus correct them when they asked about the restoration of Israel in Acts 1:6? Why would Peter quote Joel 2 when 3 is about the future return to the land?
I see your getting frustrated about the seed again like when we debated about Abraham's covenant. But the answer the same as before. Believe me when I tell you, that I really look forward to learning what you believe about the seed, but to start talking about the seed would be changing the subject on an important subject concerning Jesus return. You do believe He is returning, don't you? Really, to leave the subject without settling the debate would be fruitless, especially concerning verses that should be clear and undebatable.
When we were debating about whether or not Abraham's covenant was singular or more than one, I initially thought you were coming to me with weak arguments until you clearly explained to me your viewpoint. After you did, it occurred to me that someone can read into this covenant in either direction of one or two covenants. As a result, scholarship can interpret those verses as being either one or two covenants. So, while the two-covenant position is the extreme minority viewpoint among scholars, it is a viable viewpoint. I still side with the one covenant position based on my reasons stated in our previous discussion, but I can respect your position on it. Therefore, I agree to disagree on that topic. Be it as it may, I told you when our discussion about that was done, we would discuss the seed. We were done and I asked you to present your topic about the seed in a clear detailed manner and you did not.
Now when I posted my comment about Jews, I made a comment that apparently you did not like, so you posted a response and now here we are again. The topic is not about the seed, it is about Jesus return and if we can conclude this topic, then we can move on to your seed finally. But I cannot debate this topic and the seed at the same time because I do have a life outside of this Christian chat room and my time is limited in how much I can devote to doing this. So, if you really want to move on to the seed, then I would suggest that you do not respond to my comments about your comments and state your viewpoint about the seed in detail, because responding may cause me to see problems in your views that need more addressing and this subject will continue until you can give me something real, I can get behind and so far, you have not.
You brought up the seed during the Abraham covenant, and you brought it up here as well. You even mentioned it when you were addressing your issues with the dispensationalist. I am not aware of what believe about the seed, but if they believe how, you say they believe, then I agree with you. But on the other hand, if you believe only the opposite of what they believe, then your guilty of the same thing as the dispensationalist, but on the other side of the spectrum. However, I don't know this for a fact, because you have not stated your stance about it.
