the great Jewish "distress"

[RandyPNW]

Technically, but I don't think that's the idea here.

To me it looks like the term "generation" is a vague amount of time necessary to fill your debating needs.

This isn't a discussion. It's an insult.

People who were 20 years old at the time Jesus said this, in about 30 AD, would be 60 years old 40 years later, right? That means a relatively large group of people would still be around to see the results of their "generation" in 70 AD

No, it wouldn't be a large group of people. That's the point. The average lifespan was about 30 years. Someone who was 20 years old in the year 30 would probably be long dead by the year 70.

Priests started their careers at 30! So you think there were almost no priests?

when the Romans destroyed the symbol of their religion, the temple.

It wasn't the "symbol of their religion". It was a holy site to the Jews alive at that time, including characters in the NT.

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?"

When I was in my 20s I saw here in the U.S. the degradation of my country

And if you were in your 20s in the year 30 you'd be dead a buried long before the year 70.

I don't think so.

[Fenris]

This isn't a discussion. It's an insult.

You need to get out more.

Priests started their careers at 30! So you think there were almost no priests?

Well, about half died before 30 yeah.

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?"

No, it was a holy site. People prayed there and brought sacrifice, including the early Jewish Christians. One supposes that it had no significance from gentile Christians, including apparently you.

I don't think so.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[RandyPNW]

Priests started their careers at 30! So you think there were almost no priests?

Well, about half died before 30 yeah.

The population is apparently growing?

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?"

No, it was a holy site. People prayed there and brought sacrifice, including the early Jewish Christians. One supposes that it had no significance from gentile Christians, including apparently you.

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?" The cross was both a "holy site" and the symbol of my religion.

I don't think so.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Yes, the "generation" in Jesus' time was not gone by 70 AD. These are the "facts."

[Fenris]

The population is apparently growing?

Actually, population growth before the industrial revolution was quite slow, almost flat actually, because the average lifespan was so short.

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?" The cross was both a "holy site" and the symbol of my religion.

The cross is not a site, it's an object. It's like saying the star of David is a symbol of my religion. That's also an object. The temple was a holy site.

Yes, the "generation" in Jesus' time was not gone by 70 AD. These are the "facts."

Ok, whatever you say.

[RandyPNW]

In other words, the temple was the "symbol of their religion?" The cross was both a "holy site" and the symbol of my religion.

The cross is not a site, it's an object. It's like saying the star of David is a symbol of my religion. That's also an object. The temple was a holy site.

Pathetic!

[RabbiKnife]

I'm tele-pathetic, which is the ability to be pathetic over long distances, not to be confused with telepathic, which is the ability to get lost over long distances.

What is pathetic about the previous comment?   
The cross is a symbol of a Roman death stick, not a place.  True.
The star of David is a symbol for the Jewish faith that has been around for hundreds of years.  True.
The site of the Temple Mount, which dates all the way back to Abraham, has been considered a "holy place" for millenia.

I'm having trouble connecting the "pathetic" with facts.

[RandyPNW]

I'm tele-pathetic, which is the ability to be pathetic over long distances, not to be confused with telepathic, which is the ability to get lost over long distances.

What is pathetic about the previous comment?   
The cross is a symbol of a Roman death stick, not a place.  True.
The star of David is a symbol for the Jewish faith that has been around for hundreds of years.  True.
The site of the Temple Mount, which dates all the way back to Abraham, has been considered a "holy place" for millenia.

I'm having trouble connecting the "pathetic" with facts.

Here's how I see it, brother. This isn't a Christian vs. Jewish thing, in case that matters. I mentioned that the temple of Israel was an important symbol of the Jews' religion, such that when it was brought down by God it indicated God was unhappy with those practicing their religion. In fact, to me it indicated that God was cancelling the covenant represented by that "symbol."

And Fenris took issue with the fact I called the temple a "symbol." After a back and forth more, it wasn't proven that the temple was any less a symbol of the Jewish religion.

This is not saying that the temple was *purely* a symbol, and that Jewish religion wasn't real in the temple. The Jewish temple is as much a symbol of Jewish religion as the Cross is a symbol for Christianity.

Fenris argued that the temple is a sacred *place,* and that the Cross is *not* a sacred *place." To me, that is pathetic because it's an attempt to split hairs and divert. I could easily argue that the Cross was located on Golgotha, but such arguments are unnecessarily lengthy and get nowhere. It's a diversion to me. And so, I'm done.

You can believe whatever you want. That's how I see it.

[Athanasius]

Fenris argued that the temple is a sacred *place,* and that the Cross is *not* a sacred *place." To me, that is pathetic because it's an attempt to split hairs and divert. I could easily argue that the Cross was located on Golgotha, but such arguments are unnecessarily lengthy and get nowhere. It's a diversion to me. And so, I'm done.

Then you'd be arguing that Golgotha is a sacred place, and people might build a church atop it.

[RandyPNW]

Fenris argued that the temple is a sacred *place,* and that the Cross is *not* a sacred *place." To me, that is pathetic because it's an attempt to split hairs and divert. I could easily argue that the Cross was located on Golgotha, but such arguments are unnecessarily lengthy and get nowhere. It's a diversion to me. And so, I'm done.

Then you'd be arguing that Golgotha is a sacred place, and people might build a church atop it.

I guess I can ignore you too? These are word games. I never was arguing strictly the difference between symbols and places--Fenris wanted to frame it that way because he can't deny the points I was making, that the temple, the symbol of Jewish religion, was taken down by God, and Jesus predicted it.

But good try, even if you're stealing somebody else's argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water, though.

[Athanasius]

I guess I can ignore you too? These are word games. I never was arguing strictly the difference between symbols and places--Fenris wanted to frame it that way because he can't deny the points I was making, that the temple, the symbol of Jewish religion, was taken down by God, and Jesus predicted it.

But good try, even if you're stealing somebody else's argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water, though.

No arguments were stolen and mere human fiat can dismiss this one.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is indeed said to be built on the site of Jesus' crucifixion (and the location of the empty tomb, confusingly). 'The cross' itself is not considered a holy place, but a holy symbol. Golgotha, which was an actual place, and the empty tomb, which was an actual place -- those were actual places and holy sites. Christians place symbols around their necks and build churches on holy places.

You may want to dismiss this as 'word games' but the distinction is important and you're wrong to try to flatten it. Ignore me if you like; everyone is disagreeing with you for good reason. Golgotha is the place; the cross is the symbol.

[RandyPNW]

I guess I can ignore you too? These are word games. I never was arguing strictly the difference between symbols and places--Fenris wanted to frame it that way because he can't deny the points I was making, that the temple, the symbol of Jewish religion, was taken down by God, and Jesus predicted it.

But good try, even if you're stealing somebody else's argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water, though.

No arguments were stolen and mere human fiat can dismiss this one.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is indeed said to be built on the site of Jesus' crucifixion (and the location of the empty tomb, confusingly). 'The cross' itself is not considered a holy place, but a holy symbol. Golgotha, which was an actual place, and the empty tomb, which was an actual place -- those were actual places and holy sites. Christians place symbols around their necks and build churches on holy places.

You may want to dismiss this as 'word games' but the distinction is important and you're wrong to try to flatten it. Ignore me if you like; everyone is disagreeing with you for good reason. Golgotha is the place; the cross is the symbol.

The "mob" is not "everyone," brother! No, not everyone is ignoring me. This is a sham argument, and I should think Fenris is bright enough to recognize it, though likely he will pretend he just doesn't understand.

Just in case you're being honest, and really don't understand, let me explain it to you. In the English language, or in any language, words are flexible things. Words can be metaphors or similes, and do not have a fixed technical application in all cases.

When I say a temple is a "symbol" of the Jewish religion under the Law, that is a fact. That is how language works. To argue how I'm using the word "symbol," as something technically a symbol, or more flexibly, as a synonym for "representative," is something determined by what one calls "the context."

In this context, I've made it perfectly clear how I'm using the word symbol--not as a technical "symbol" in the way of a cross or algebraic "X." Rather, I'm using "symbol" in the sense of "representative."

No, you may want to argue all day long the "fixed" version of "symbol," and I will just ignore you, because I've now explained this to you. But you should've already recognized it.

[Fenris]

This is a sham argument, and I should think Fenris is bright enough to recognize it, though likely he will pretend he just doesn't understand.

Any point you disagree with is a "sham argument" and anyone who disagrees with you is only "pretending to not understand". This is no way to have a discussion.

[RandyPNW]

This is a sham argument, and I should think Fenris is bright enough to recognize it, though likely he will pretend he just doesn't understand.

Any point you disagree with is a "sham argument" and anyone who disagrees with you is only "pretending to not understand". This is no way to have a discussion.

If you wish to discuss this, address the point I made. This is a perversion of the English language, attempting to "fix" the word "symbol" so that it becomes unrecognizable in its context.

The word "symbol," as I explained to N., applies differently in the sense of the temple being a "representation" of Jewish religion. It is not, as you say, a symbol in the same way a cross would be a symbol. But it is a symbol, nonetheless.

I mentioned you because I was concerned you would pretend you "don't understand." Little did I know that you wouldn't even address the argument, and instead would substitute for "debate" a tit for a tat.

[Athanasius]

The "mob" is not "everyone," brother! No, not everyone is ignoring me. This is a sham argument, and I should think Fenris is bright enough to recognize it, though likely he will pretend he just doesn't understand.

Just in case you're being honest, and really don't understand, let me explain it to you. In the English language, or in any language, words are flexible things. Words can be metaphors or similes, and do not have a fixed technical application in all cases.

When I say a temple is a "symbol" of the Jewish religion under the Law, that is a fact. That is how language works. To argue how I'm using the word "symbol," as something technically a symbol, or more flexibly, as a synonym for "representative," is something determined by what one calls "the context."

In this context, I've made it perfectly clear how I'm using the word symbol--not as a technical "symbol" in the way of a cross or algebraic "X." Rather, I'm using "symbol" in the sense of "representative."

No, you may want to argue all day long the "fixed" version of "symbol," and I will just ignore you, because I've now explained this to you. But you should've already recognized it.

Why would Fenris, or anyone here, spend their time feigning ignorance when there are better things to do in a day? We very well understand that your use of 'symbol' is representative and not abstract.

I would appreciate it if you didn't take every disagreement personally, and if you didn't misrepresent, condescend to, castigate or denigrate those who disagree with your arguments. There's no need for it -- unless you want or expect the same in return.

[RandyPNW]

The "mob" is not "everyone," brother! No, not everyone is ignoring me. This is a sham argument, and I should think Fenris is bright enough to recognize it, though likely he will pretend he just doesn't understand.

Just in case you're being honest, and really don't understand, let me explain it to you. In the English language, or in any language, words are flexible things. Words can be metaphors or similes, and do not have a fixed technical application in all cases.

When I say a temple is a "symbol" of the Jewish religion under the Law, that is a fact. That is how language works. To argue how I'm using the word "symbol," as something technically a symbol, or more flexibly, as a synonym for "representative," is something determined by what one calls "the context."

In this context, I've made it perfectly clear how I'm using the word symbol--not as a technical "symbol" in the way of a cross or algebraic "X." Rather, I'm using "symbol" in the sense of "representative."

No, you may want to argue all day long the "fixed" version of "symbol," and I will just ignore you, because I've now explained this to you. But you should've already recognized it.

Why would Fenris, or anyone here, spend their time feigning ignorance when there are better things to do in a day? We very well understand that your use of 'symbol' is representative and not abstract.

I would appreciate it if you didn't take every disagreement personally, and if you didn't misrepresent, condescend to, castigate or denigrate those who disagree with your arguments. There's no need for it -- unless you want or expect the same in return.

Let's then leave the "personal" stuff out of the conversation, and just deal with the issues raised? But I disagree--the whole issue concerned whether "symbol" should apply to a temple or not. It does not apply in the same way it might to a cross, as an actual, physical symbol. But as a "representation" of something, it is indeed the symbol of the Jewish religion.

The fact I have to explain that repeatedly is something you'll have to deal with. It's not on me.