I don't think they have the right to force it on others, but if that's what they think, then that's what they think.Interestingly, a lot of what is in the New Testament epistles is aimed at the church and those within it. I would agree that the church has sometimes tried to impose those ideas on those outside of the church (though when a society has an official religion or denomination - as has been the case in Europe over the centuries - it can sometimes be difficult to practically know who is outside of the church). I often think that some here think that they are aimed at global humanity. In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church.
I often think that some here think that they are aimed at global humanity.
In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church.Then in societies like the U.K. where Christianity is in decline we can reasonably conclude that any moral imperatives that are claimed for the NT are of declining relevance in a society that is becoming increasingly 'unchurched'.
I'm fairly sure though you've said previously that Christianity was for 'all of humanity' (or similar expression): correct me if I'm wrong.Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence. Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity. The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.
Then in societies like the U.K. where Christianity is in decline we can reasonably conclude that any moral imperatives that are claimed for the NT are of declining relevance in a society that is becoming increasingly 'unchurched'.I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.
Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence. Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity. The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.
I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.
Let's take a financial analogy. Over the past 15/20 years, the use of cheques has declined at an ever increasing rate. That doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant, as there are still people and businesses who don't work electronically and the use of them is still valid.
Seems to me that they are aimed at all of us.Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive. Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone.
Unless, that is, you are pointing out a contradiction, at which point the target will suddenly be narrowed down from all of humanity to a small group of people.
Does that mean that if I join a church I can keep slaves?No, because at no point does the New Testament condone the keeping of slaves (as I am sure you are aware, Rhi). What it does do, hoiwever, is acknowledge that when people become Christians, they don't suddenly become perfect (something that some opponents of Christianity here seem to want to believe); instead, it seeks to empower such people to steadily become more mature in their faith and part of this is - in the case of slavery - initially treating their slaves better, and then ultimately releasing them.
Yes, I have said that, Gordon - which is why I stated "In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church" as my closing sentence. Christianity is the 'good news' (gospel) of Jesus' offer of salvation to all of humanity. The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal.
I wouldn't say that they are of declining relevance because that relevance is universal, as is the offer of salvation; they may, however, be of declining adherence.
Let's take a financial analogy. Over the past 15/20 years, the use of cheques has declined at an ever increasing rate. That doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant, as there are still people and businesses who don't work electronically and the use of them is still valid.
Right. So the part about slavery wasn't written for everyone. That was written for the society that the early church emerged from.Well, do you have any slaves? Do we still have slave-owners? If you/we do, those parts would still be relevant to you/society if you were a Christian.
And yet the parts on sexual behaviour (including homosexuality) are for everyone apparently. How come?Are there still homosexuals in society? Yes, so those parts also remain relevant. But notice that the teaching is targetted at peope within the church. Whether that means that there is 'wrong' and 'wrong' is open to debate.
Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive.
Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone.
The same applies to the teachings in the epistles. The epistles were written to Christians in various churches across the Mediterranean area, and deal with issues that concerned the members of those churches. The fact that the foundation on which Christianity exists is open to the whole of humanity means that - once someone joins 'church' - they come under the 'rules and regs' of that body in exactly the same way that anyone joining this board will not have been required to abide by the board's rules and regs before joining, but will be after joining.
There is no contradiction, unless you are suggesting that we are all bound by every rule and reg that exists, even if we aren't involved in the life of many of the organisations/societies/nations/people groups to which each of them apply.
Are there still homosexuals in society? Yes, so those parts also remain relevant. But notice that the teaching is targetted at peope within the church. Whether that means that there is 'wrong' and 'wrong' is open to debate.
That seems a tad simplistic: this legislation impacts on all drivers in terms of their potential behaviour in knowing that they risking personal sanction and the safety of others. In fact, since the limits are lower here in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK drivers here have even less discretion over drinking and driving than elsewhere in the UK.Re-reading my post, perhaps this analogy wasn't that clever. But the law still applies to everyone, even if it only affects a few.
So, on the basis of your earlier post in which you said 'The advice and guidance on how to live as a Christian, is only relevant to those who have chosen to join the church universal' then drink driving is a poor comparison since it does potentially impact on everyone whereas, as you say yourself, any imperatives contained in Christian dogma alone apply only to card-carrying Christians.Not quite true. As I said later in the post (a bit which I notice you gloss over rather hurriedly) the message of Christianity is for the whole of humanity - Christ makes it clear that whilst he himself came predominantly to the Jews (though not exclusively), his job was to restart the work that the Jews had originally been 'chosen' for - namely to witness to the world. He then instructed his disciples to 'go out into all the world'.
Which means it differs from what you have said about the scope of Christian 'advice and guidance' which doesn't apply to everyone.
So, therefore, these 'rules and regs' aren't binding on the 'whole of humanity' are they?Potentially, yes they are. Were the whole of humanity to become Christians, those rules and regs would apply to them. As such, the rules are for all humanity.. I also believe that it will be those rules and regs that will be used in the Final Judgement. I appreciate that you and others here don't pay much attention to such a concept - but that isn't my look-out.
... you are suggesting that specific Christian imperatives should apply to all of humanity by default in that Christians, based on what you say, see all of humanity as being potential Christians - would that reflect your view?See above - underlined.
I had a bruising personal encounter yesterday with a Biblical literalist, fundie relative, who refused to drop the topic of getting me 'saved'. In the end I let them have it with all barrels blazing as I was so fed up they wouldn't respect my wish not to talk about the subject.Whilst I can understand your frustration - I've felt it with some of the politician we get at the doorstep (albeit this happens very rarely ;)) - Floo, you also have to remember that, as with the politicians, people such as your relative feel that they are duty-bound to try to get you to change your mind - if only for your own good.
Re-reading my post, perhaps this analogy wasn't that clever. But the law still applies to everyone, even if it only affects a few.
As I said later in the post (a bit which I notice you gloss over rather hurriedly) the message of Christianity is for the whole of humanity - Christ makes it clear that whilst he himself came predominantly to the Jews (though not exclusively), his job was to restart the work that the Jews had originally been 'chosen' for - namely to witness to the world. He then instructed his disciples to 'go out into all the world'.
Christian dogma is fundamentally about the universal nature of the gospel of Jesus' offer of salvation. That said, authors of the epistles were specifically writing to those who had accepted the offer that Jesus provided and still provides. As I pointed out to Rhi in a previous post, the teachings of the epistles are still relevant to Christians today and - in some ways still relevant to society today - after all, it was on them that the likes of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury based their opposition to slavery and the slave trade. Or are you suggesting that society ought to do away with opposing slavery because it is based on something that was/is only really applicable to Christians?
Potentially, yes they are. Were the whole of humanity to become Christians, those rules and regs would apply to them. As such, the rules are for all humanity.. I also believe that it will be those rules and regs that will be used in the Final Judgement. I appreciate that you and others here don't pay much attention to such a concept - but that isn't my look-out.
Why is it a 'ridiculously grandiose claim'? If God is the creator of all things, then he is perfectly able - even entitled - to offer salvation to all things.
Whilst I can understand your frustration - I've felt it with some of the politician we get at the doorstep (albeit this happens very rarely ;)) - Floo, you also have to remember that, as with the politicians, people such as your relative feel that they are duty-bound to try to get you to change your mind - if only for your own good.
Gordon what is wrong with you and your mates you keep going back over the same old ground.The whole lot of you are so boring.
So a quick recap God says he is I AM.You say no.Now you must have noticed people die.God says he will catch up with you then, he has a place for you,in a dimension where time does not exist.
You can then be happy with your hitlers and mass killers for ever.
So give up on these stupid questions please.
~TW~
I would agree that the church has sometimes tried to impose those ideas on those outside of the church
What it does do, hoiwever, is acknowledge that when people become Christians, they don't suddenly become perfect (something that some opponents of Christianity here seem to want to believe); instead, it seeks to empower such people to steadily become more mature in their faith and part of this is - in the case of slavery - initially treating their slaves better, and then ultimately releasing them.
And you can be happy with your evil deity who was supposed to have exterminated all humans and animals apart from the sycophant, Noah, and a few animals.Perfectly happy yes :).but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 8)
Perfectly happy yes :).but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 8)
TW,
What about those Timex jobs we had in the 70s with fluorescent hands? Would they do?
I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.
Timeless, eh? Not much opportunity to appreciate all the that darkness....
I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.
TW,
But dammit man we're talking fluorescent hands here - no matter how dark it is you can still see them because they provide their own energy source.
So I'm sorted then?
Satan (for it is he): "Welcome to the fiery pit bluehillside - maw ha ha haaaaar."
Bluehillside: "Oh hi there Stan - so you do exist after all. Who'd have thought it eh? So how's tricks?"
Satan: "Er, never mind all that - you don't happen to have the time on you do you?"
Bluehillside: "No problem at all old son. I'll just consult my handy glow in the dark Timex...yup, it's Chinese dentist: two-thirty."
Satan. "Thanks. Was that supposed yo be some kind of joke by the way?"
Bluehillside: "Yeah, sorry about that. Who's that in the corner strapped to a grill over the barbecue coals by the way?"
Satan: "Oh him - that's TW. Turns out God really does't like folks being a nasty pieces of work so he made a reservation specially for that one. This is just the warm up mind - we're having the gimp suit made up now ready to chain him in the bathroom stall used exclusively by evangelical preachers with ambitious combovers. It's gonna be grisly...mwa ha ha..well, you get the gist by now I'm sure.
Nice cup of tea and a biscuit while you wait to be processed?"
Well Bluehillside I see you guessed it you suffer from delirium as well Satan might show you Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but then in darkness would you see it mind you floo might be having a go at you delirum is the word.
I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.
~TW~
Perfectly happy yes :).but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 8)
~TW~
That's only because you haven't been to Harlow.
Try the Blackfen end of Sidcup :(. Nine long years I endured that.
There you go, TW, you'll have to come up with somewhere a lot more unpleasant to threaten us with.
Unlike Christian 'rules and regs', which don't apply to everyone, which is what you seem to be saying.No, in the same way that drink-drive laws potentially apply to all the nation - ie anyone can be stopped and breathalysed, even though in practice it is generally only those who are driving erratically who are, and only those who have been drinking who could find themselves being charged under them, God's laws able to everyone, but generally only those who are Christians (or Jews - in regard to the 10 Commandments) who are immediately answerable to them.
No glossing over it at all: this is no more than a faith-based claim based on ancient anecdote, and a grandiose one at that.If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong. Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient. That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.
The 'universal' bit is grandiosity if this implies that it is relevant to the 'whole of humanity', as you've suggested. I doubt you are seriously suggesting that society wouldn't have tackled the issue of slavery were in not for the efforts of Christians, commendable though there efforts were.Gordon, I am arguing that there was no other religious or economic system around in Jesus' time that suggested that slavery or its equivalent was wrong. It was common practice in both Greek and Roman society - some would even suggest that those two societies relied on it; bonded labour has been part and parcel of Eastern cultures for centuries. Likewise, Aztec and Mayan culture used them a lot - and the irony of much of the European slave trade is that it often started off with African tribes taking prisoners from other tribes in warfare and selling them to middlemen - often Arab - for selling on to Europeans.
Morality isn't exclusive to Christianity you know, and nobody has ever suggested to my knowledge that some aspects of Christian thought are compatible with other moral outlooks, especially since some of those both predate Christianity and have influenced Christianity.Can you provide any evidence for systems of belief and thought, other than Christianity, that might have kick-started the change in thinking towards slavery that you outline here?
More grandiosity, which is surprising to see since in the society we both live in Christianity is in decline.Unfortunately, we have very little recorded evidence to show whether this is a permanent thing, or a cyclical process that happens every few generations or even decades; as I've pointed out elsewhere before, the 1904 revival in S. Wales saw hundreds od people come to Christ from unbelief, as well as hundreds of people coming back to the church having turned their backs on it previously. Unfortunately, for both of us, as it was deemed that everyone living in the UK was a 'Christian' by the state we have no idea of what the changes really showed. It still doesn't mean that the Christian message isn't for the 'whole of humanity'
Which is a grandiose claim in itselfYou seem to think that by using this phrase 'grandiose claim' exonerates you from explaining why it can't be the case.
Try the Blackfen end of Sidcup :(. Nine long years I endured that.
If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong. Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient. That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.My my, aren't we rattled :D
If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong. Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient. That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.
Hope,Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.
Ill leave others to demolish your latest effort. As for this particularly egregious pile of gryphon doo-doo though:
It's hard to know where to begin when someone packs so much wrong into so short a space.
All that's actually necessary is to "prove" that their arguments for an objective god were wrong because logically fallacious arguments are by definition necessarily wrong arguments. That's not to say that - just as a stopped clock is right twice a day - they may not have guessed a correct answer, just as I may have guessed correctly about leprechauns. It is though to say that there's no reason to think them to be right - ie, the definition of atheism.There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs. Yet we still have a monarchy in this country. Why? Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better.
This negative proof issue always has had you foxed hasn't it. It really isn't hard though - all you need to focus on is the truism that, "you can't disprove it" does not mean that "it" is therefore true.No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.
No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.It very clearly has, because you continue to make such an egregious error in reasoning - and indeed, have just done so twice within twenty minutes.
No, in the same way that drink-drive laws potentially apply to all the nation - ie anyone can be stopped and breathalysed, even though in practice it is generally only those who are driving erratically who are, and only those who have been drinking who could find themselves being charged under them, God's laws able to everyone, but generally only those who are Christians (or Jews - in regard to the 10 Commandments) who are immediately answerable to them.
If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong.
Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient. That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years
Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.
Gordon, I am arguing that there was no other religious or economic system around in Jesus' time that suggested that slavery or its equivalent was wrong. It was common practice in both Greek and Roman society - some would even suggest that those two societies relied on it; bonded labour has been part and parcel of Eastern cultures for centuries. Likewise, Aztec and Mayan culture used them a lot - and the irony of much of the European slave trade is that it often started off with African tribes taking prisoners from other tribes in warfare and selling them to middlemen - often Arab - for selling on to Europeans.
Can you provide any evidence for systems of belief and thought, other than Christianity, that might have kick-started the change in thinking towards slavery that you outline here?
Unfortunately, we have very little recorded evidence to show whether this is a permanent thing, or a cyclical process that happens every few generations or even decades; as I've pointed out elsewhere before, the 1904 revival in S. Wales saw hundreds od people come to Christ from unbelief, as well as hundreds of people coming back to the church having turned their backs on it previously. Unfortunately, for both of us, as it was deemed that everyone living in the UK was a 'Christian' by the state we have no idea of what the changes really showed.
It still doesn't mean that the Christian message isn't for the 'whole of humanity'
You seem to think that by using this phrase 'grandiose claim' exonerates you from explaining why it can't be the case.I've just used it again since by your claiming that Christianity is for 'all of humanity' you are spuriously claiming more than you are reasonably entitled to claim, since the one instance of humanity who is typing this is firmly telling you that your religion has no claim on me: as such perhaps you should say in future 'all of humanity -1', although there may well be more than I who don't want to be considered a member of your club - even by default.
Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.
There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs. Yet we still have a monarchy in this country. Why? Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better.
You can argue that there is no god, but until you can show that any alternative understanding is any more valid (something that people have been trying to do for centuries, by the way), your arguments are just that, unsubstantiated opinion.
No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.
Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.
There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs. Yet we still have a monarchy in this country. Why? Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better.
You can argue that there is no god, but until you can show that any alternative understanding is any more valid (something that people have been trying to do for centuries, by the way), your arguments are just that, unsubstantiated opinion.
No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.
Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive. Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone.
The same applies to the teachings in the epistles. The epistles were written to Christians in various churches across the Mediterranean area, and deal with issues that concerned the members of those churches. The fact that the foundation on which Christianity exists is open to the whole of humanity means that - once someone joins 'church' - they come under the 'rules and regs' of that body in exactly the same way that anyone joining this board will not have been required to abide by the board's rules and regs before joining, but will be after joining.
There is no contradiction, unless you are suggesting that we are all bound by every rule and reg that exists, even if we aren't involved in the life of many of the organisations/societies/nations/people groups to which each of them apply.
OK, so you're saying that the various letters in the NT don't apply to anyone now as they were written to certain people who were around at a particular time?Khat, I have seldom found so many people as here lately who have been unable to understand plain English. Of course that isn't what I was saying.
You don't have a sound argument Hope - fallacious arguments can simply be rejected, but you haven't quite grasped this.That's largely why I reject yours, Gordon.
Nope the argument here isn't about validity: the monarchy is valid in legal and constitutional terms. The debate is about its fitness for purpose and whether it is morally acceptable in democratic terms.And, as I said, no-one has come up with a convincing argument for saying that its current validity within those parameters is wrong.
I'm not arguing there in no God: I'm arguing that the arguments support the claim of 'God' are fallacious and can therefore be dismissed: not the same thing.Yet there are those who would claim to have started from your POV and - following study and research, decided that it is an invalid POV. How do you answer them>
It has you know!If that's the case, why do you seem so keen to use the same type of argument against me?
That's largely why I reject yours, Gordon.Demonstrate Gordon's arguments to be fallacious. It's been done with yours more times now than the forum's search function can cope with.
And, as I said, no-one has come up with a convincing argument for saying that its current validity within those parameters is wrong.This is what you earlier called that "fallacious rubbish," which is what rational people (i.e. not you) call a fallacy in reasoning, i.e. the sort of thing that you're shit scared of touching with a bargepole, preferring to do the Hope two-step, i.e. a hasty and resoundingly silent retreat from the fray.
Khat, I have seldom found so many people as here lately who have been unable to understand plain English.Hope, I have never ever found anyone as unable to grasp elementary logical fallacies as you.
That's largely why I reject yours, Gordon.
And, as I said, no-one has come up with a convincing argument for saying that its current validity within those parameters is wrong.
Yet there are those who would claim to have started from your POV and - following study and research, decided that it is an invalid POV. How do you answer them>
If that's the case, why do you seem so keen to use the same type of argument against me?
Khat, I have seldom found so many people as here lately who have been unable to understand plain English. Of course that isn't what I was saying.
Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.
No. You have this completely backwards.
1) Someone makes a claim.
2) We don't know whether or not the claim is true.
3) We put it in the bucket labelled undemonstrated.
4) It stays in the undemonstrated bucket until it is shown to be more likely true than not.
If you put it into the demonstrated bucket straight away and insist that arguments are required to move it to the undemonstrated one you will end up hopelessly confused. You will certainly end up holding contradictory claims to be true.
clinging to the negative proof fallacy as a man might cling to a plutonium parachute,How about ''clinging to the NPF as a man might cling to a Leprechaun''?
No, in the same way that drink-drive laws potentially apply to all the nation - ie anyone can be stopped and breathalysedPedantic point: In the UK, you can only be stopped and breathalysed if the police think you have been drinking or you have been stopped for a traffic office or been in an accident.
God's laws able to everyone, but generally only those who are Christians (or Jews - in regard to the 10 Commandments) who are immediately answerable to them.If God's laws are meant to apply to me, it's time you provided some verifiable evidence of his existence.
That's largely why I reject yours, Gordon.
And, as I said, no-one has come up with a convincing argument for saying that its current validity within those parameters is wrong.
Yet there are those who would claim to have started from your POV and - following study and research, decided that it is an invalid POV. How do you answer them>
If that's the case, why do you seem so keen to use the same type of argument against me?
Stephen,
It's actually even worse than that. He implies that the inability to invalidate the claim in some unexplained way validates its presence in the demonstrated bucket -
That is exactly what I was trying to point out.
Maybe I wasn't clear. You need something to move from the undemonstrated to demonstrated. Not the other way around.
Pedantic point: In the UK, you can only be stopped and breathalysed if the police think you have been drinking or you have been stopped for a traffic office or been in an accident.Pedantic point - I mentioned that in the original post that used this analogy. Now when was that posted? Several hours ago!! ;)
If God's laws are meant to apply to me, it's time you provided some verifiable evidence of his existence.Again you have misread what I've written. In Hebrew thinking, the laws that God laid down in what we tend to call the Old Testament were relevant to them - but also for any who chose to live under their jurisdiction as a result of conversion.
Pedantic point - I mentioned that in the original post that used this analogy. Now when was that posted? Several hours ago!! ;)
As I've mentioned in pretty well every post I've made here, the teaching within the epistles was guidance for members of the church (the family of believers) as to how they ought to be relating to each other. Since the message of Jesus, which provides the underpinning support for the Christian faith, was by his own teaching 'for the whole of humanity', those teachings are relevant to the rest of humanity in so far as they apply to anyone who joins the church.
As I've mentioned in pretty well every post I've made here, the teaching within the epistles was guidance for members of the church (the family of believers) as to how they ought to be relating to each other. Since the message of Jesus, which provides the underpinning support for the Christian faith, was by his own teaching 'for the whole of humanity', those teachings are relevant to the rest of humanity in so far as they apply to anyone who joins the church.
Ah yes and we know that one of those teachings is that women need to have babies if they wish to be saved from whatever grisly fate the Bible god has planned for them.
Ah yes and we know that one of those teachings is that women need to have babies if they wish to be saved from whatever grisly fate the Bible god has planned for them.Citation required, Khat
Then your 'whole of humanity' claim is wrong since it is grandiose to suggest that the 'whole of humanity' are potential Christians: this is not so!Gordon, Jesus gave the disciples the instructions - as recorded in the Great Commission - to go into 'all the world' and make disciples. That means that the Gospel is available for all humanity to take advantage of. I'm not saying that all will, but the potential for all to do so is there. Are you trying to suggest that Jesus taught that access to it was to be restricted to specific people groups, socio-economic groups, etc?
So where did Saul establish his "Churches"?Thrud, he wrote letters to churches that he hadn't established as well as those he had done. If you read the letters, you will notice that in almost all of them, he is either writing in response to questions that a particular church had asked of him, or encouraging them to stick to the teaching that he and other people had given them when they were both first established and since that date. He is also warning them to test any new teaching to see whether it fits with existing teaching; he also advises the churches that had been established in areas where other belief systems were prominent, or where immorality was rife, how they ought to be behaving amongst themselves and therefore standing out from the crowd around them.
That should give you a clue as to who his letters were aimed at.
Now can you tell us why his "letters" were fired off to these particular churches and why these "dictates" are important to our understanding of what 'Saul' was preaching?
Gordon, Jesus gave the disciples the instructions - as recorded in the Great Commission - to go into 'all the world' and make disciples. That means that the Gospel is available for all humanity to take advantage of.
I'm not saying that all will, but the potential for all to do so is there. Are you trying to suggest that Jesus taught that access to it was to be restricted to specific people groups, socio-economic groups, etc?
There is nothing 'grandiose' in the claim.
Citation required, Khat
Disingenuous of you, Hope.No, not disingenuous, SK, just using the same means of debate as many others here who seem to have evidence placed in front of them day after day. This particular passage has been alluded to several times on various threads over the months, but rarely a reference actually provided. At least you seem to see the relavance of citations.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.OK, what does the passage mean? If we take the whole section that starts in verse 9 (not jumping in halfway through, as you have done), there are a number of points to be considered. This section follows immediately after a section dealing with 'public worship' and it makes sense to read this section at least partially in that context. It is clear from both that previous section, and historical account that women's status in the early church was a great deal freer than had been the case prior to the appearance of Christianity. The suggestion is that some women were taking advantage of that in terms of the way they dressed - which the passage implies was extravagantly. This was because the writer was more interested in their character shining out than their appearance doing the shining. In a way, a lot of Floo's posts actually reiterate this underlying trait - be it for men or women.1 Timothy 2:11-15
OK, what does the passage mean? If we take the whole section that starts in verse 9 (not jumping in halfway through, as you have done), there are a number of points to be considered. This section follows immediately after a section dealing with 'public worship' and it makes sense to read this section at least partially in that context. It is clear from both that previous section, and historical account that women's status in the early church was a great deal freer than had been the case prior to the appearance of Christianity. The suggestion is that some women were taking advantage of that in terms of the way they dressed - which the passage implies was extravagantly. This was because the writer was more interested in their character shining out than their appearance doing the shining. In a way, a lot of Floo's posts actually reiterate this underlying trait - be it for men or women.
As regards the centepiece of the passage as far as you are concerned - the bit about childbirth - there are a number of explanations that have done the rounds over the centuries. One is your very literal, word-for-word explanation (an approach that is relatively alien to Jewish thinking and therefore comes low on any list); another is that Paul was simply highlighting the fact that pain in childbirth is the result of the Fall that was recorded - even if only as a theological exercise - in Genesis (after all, is it likely that the stretching that childbirth involves could NOT be painful); another that has done the rounds is that it is through Christ that salvation comes to women - not through men. A fourth is that, since this whole section has had an emphasis on women, the role of men in a woman's salvation is pretty minimal - and if anything, a number of other passages suggest that believing women have a very important role insofar as their belief in Christ's saving grace is imputed to their menfolk. As I say, there are a number of explanations for that passage, and the literal one is a contextually and culturally poor one.
Citation required, Khat
But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Here you go....FIFY
1 Timothy 2: 9-15
Hope,
I see that yet again you've just glossed over your reliance on the negative proof fallacy, although you were asked directly whether you understood it at all even in principle, even though you seem not to grasp its undoing of your argument.
Is this to be another of your, "I've demonstrated god already only, um, I seem not to be able to locate where exactly" moments then?
FIFY
FIFY
And Kryten corrects Rimmer once again.Rhi, Khat originally wrote 1 Timothy 11. There aren't 11 chapters in 1 Timothy!!
Doesn't matter really, does it? Khatru was right.
And Kryten corrects Rimmer once again.Ah, but in HopeWorld the man who can correctly format a bible reference must have his interpretation of said passage take precedence over any person who incorrectly formats the reference (or, you know the words that are actually in that bible passage).
Doesn't matter really, does it? Khatru was right.
I can't see how that changes anything.Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists. Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful. But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view. Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation. ;)
The instruction to Christians, well, Christian women, is to get pregnant if they wish to be saved from the god of the Bible burning them.
Ah, but in HopeWorld the man who can correctly format a bible reference must have his interpretation of said passage take precedence over any person who incorrectly formats the reference (or, you know the words that are actually in that bible passage).He didn't wrongly format anything - he gave an non-existent reference, even though the correct one had been given a couple of posts earlier!! Furthermore, he seems to be telling us that his interpretation has to be the correct one, whilst I've pointed out that we don't know what he was trying to say. I know which I regard as being more open-minded an understanding ;)
So shut your overly ostentatious gob woman and get back to your ... not teachin the men folk. Right.
Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists. Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful. But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view. Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation. ;)
But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
But women will be [d]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [e]self-restraint.
But womankind will be saved through her childbearing if nashim remain in emunah and ahavah and kedushah with tznius [2:9].
But women will be saved through the giving of birth to children if they keep on in faith and live loving and holy lives.
But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
But women will be saved through childbearing,[c] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Khat, as I pointed out, that is a literal reading of the passage; Jewish literature (especially religious literature) tends not to go in for literal meanings - which is why I said that that explanation comes fairly low down on the potential lists. Again, as I said, no-one actually knows exactly what Paul was saying in the bit of the passage, but from context and culture, I'd suggest that your interpretation is doubtful. But you're entitled to hold to it, as is anyone to hold to any view. Just don't make out that yours is necessarily the 'real' interpretation. ;)
Well, I choose to think this scripture wasn't written by Paul at all, (and there are some pretty well-sussed biblical scholars who've thought this for a long time, about all the Pastoral Epistles).Interestingly, I'd agree with you. I have to accept that I have partly misled folk by referring to Paul as the author in some of my posts.
But there are arguments that even the nasty passages in Corinthians may be spurious. Though they appear in a quite a lot of the early manuscripts, they don't appear in the same place in each, which suggests they were added by a later, particularly misogynistic redactor.The problem with this argument is that pretty well all of the 'nasty passages' are part and parcel with equally 'nasty' passages that give men pause for thought. In fact, in most cases, the 'nasty' passages aimed at men are longer than their 'misogynistic' parallels.
As for the actual text in Timothy - it is utterly vile, and your lame arguments for thinking it has anything instructive to say all stem from your stubborn belief in that nonsensical idea that "All scripture is inspired by God". It isn't - some of it was written by particularly loathsome individuals, whose only excuse is that they were conditioned by the patriarchal societies of their time.That is why I pointed out that we don't actually know what the writer was trying to say in this particular passage.
St Paul may have been an infuriating customer, but I don't think misogyny was a main characteristic of his./quote]Don't let Floo know this!!QuoteI suppose many of the non-believers here might say "What the hell does it matter who wrote what anyway". Well it really only does matter if you're convinced that the Bible is "The inerrant word of God", and since there are still huge numbers of such deluded people in the world, it is worthwhile to maintain a degree of critical acumen. Christianity isn't going to disappear overnight. But we can at least try to root out some of its most disgusting manifestations.Oddly enough, some of its most 'disgusting' manifestations have generally been shown by scholars and academics to bear little or no relation to the literal interpretations that Floo and several others like to posit, be they believers or not.
Interestingly, I'd agree with you. I have to accept that I have partly misled folk by referring to Paul as the author in some of my posts.
The problem with this argument is that pretty well all of the 'nasty passages' are part and parcel with equally 'nasty' passages that give men pause for thought. In fact, in most cases, the 'nasty' passages aimed at men are longer than their 'misogynistic' parallels.
[33]]As in all the churches of the saints,1Corinthians 14.
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Thrud, he wrote letters to churches that he hadn't established as well as those he had done.So which churches did he establish then?
If you read the letters, you will notice that in almost all of them, he is either writing in response to questions that a particular church had asked of him, or encouraging them to stick to the teaching that he and other people had given them when they were both first established and since that date.You do realise that only half of his letters are considered genuine, those being First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Second Corinthians and probably Romans. All these rest are forgeries, or if you prefer pseudepigraphical.
He is also warning them to test any new teaching to see whether it fits with existing teaching; he also advises the churches that had been established in areas where other belief systems were prominent, or where immorality was rife, how they ought to be behaving amongst themselves and therefore standing out from the crowd around them.Yup, I call them dictates - I'm guessing you prefer to know them as something sweeter?
Furthermore, some of these churches had relatively high proportions of 'ex-pat' Jewish members, others were predominantly Gentile in composition. So, this mix of audience, the questions he has obviously been asked to respond to, etc. all give us a clue as to what his teaching is about.I'm sure there were quite a few Jews in these churches. Christianity hadn't been given a clear label at the time and I agree that the Jesus Movement would have been looked upon as a quaint Jewish cult back then. As more and more heathens joined the movement it diverged from its original concept of impending apocalyptic preparedness to a more Hellenised concept of an apocalyptic revenge GodMan!!
The further fact that many of the issues that Jesus and the disciples/apostles addressed (and I include Paul in this category) are still live today - humanity hasn't changed that much over the centuries (for all the technological advantages we've made) - suggest that their teachings are still relevant.
So which churches did he establish then?The only church that we can be certain that he established is that at Ephesus. However, we also know that he preached in other places that are mentioned in other documents so he may have started several others.
You do realise that only half of his letters are considered genuine, those being First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Second Corinthians and probably Romans. All these rest are forgeries, or if you prefer pseudepigraphical.Have you only recently discovered this? Most Christians that I know of have know of this situtaion for 30+ years. The points I'd argue with are 1) the 'probably' before Romans. The probability of his writing that epistle is the same as the other 6 in the list according to most scholars, 2) scholars are divided equally over whether Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are 'official'or pseudepigraphic: there are similarites in the language and writing style that put them in with the previous 7, but also styles and language that suggest otherwise and 3) the very existence of the term 'forgery' in your post. Even the most cynical scholar wouldn't use that term simply because pseudepigraphy was such an established system, especially within the secular world of the time.
So in fact, Paul himself only mentions certain churches. The Church in Thessalonica 1TH. The churches of Galatia in Gal (which may or may not include other towns in the province known as Galatia itself,) but it is all a bit vague so let's consider the possibility of there being more than one church in the town of Galatia and leave it as one location. Only Corinth is mentioned in 1/2 Cor. Phil only recognises Philipp. Philemon is a personal letter so not really addressed to a church as such and last but not least Romans reads like an open letter to all Roman Christians much like the letter to the Galatians...In view of the point I made in my post - that he wrote to churches other than those that he established - what is the point you are trying to make?
Yup, I call them dictates - I'm guessing you prefer to know them as something sweeter?OK, for a start, they are simply a repetition of Jesus'own teachings. Furthermore, they are written to Christians and people who attended the recipient churches (even today, not all those who attend church are believers; some are people trying to discover what Christianity is all about, some are those who enjoy the fellowship but have never signed up to faith and all that that involves). I'll accept the term 'dictates' (though I think the word you're looking for is 'dictats') if you are happy to use the same term for the laws that exist here in the UK, and elsewhere, today.
I'm sure there were a few Jews in these churches. Christianity hadn't been given a clear label at the time and I agree that the Jesus Movement would have been looked upon as a quaint Jewish cult back then.Not sure that there would have been as much opposition to the early church in its first few decades if it bhad been ooked upon as simply a "quaint Jewish cult".
As more and more heathens joined the movement is diverged from its original concept of impending apocalyptic preparedness to a more Hellenised concept of a apocalyptic revenge GodMan!!Do you have any definitive evidence from within the New Testament documents for this pattern of development? Or is it just an attempt on your behalf to suggest what some of the writers might have been thinking and expreesing? After all, the concept of a (sic) "apocalyptic revenge GodMan" is a relatively modern one.
OK, now we are more or less on the same page.I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud. We're only 4 pages into the thread!! ;)
But, it also lays the foundation of Pauls doctrine. "10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath". Paul very much believed that the apocalypse was coming and to be saved from this wrath his followers needed to believe in his "Christ".But at no time in this or any other epistle does he state a date or time for that apocalypse.
In the next chapter, he mentions his church in Philippi, (Macedonia), and about how his version of "God" understands righteousness. It also gets a bit antisemitic: "14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: you suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone". Awkward!!Yes, it is rather awkward, especially as he used to be amongst those who he implicates in persecution. As for anti-Semitism, I'm not sure that a Jew can be accused of anti-semitism, especially one as integrated into the Jewish system as Paul. Let me give you an example. If, during a discussion about the horrors of concentration camps, I (a Brit) mention that the first to use such camps weren't the Nazis but the British - in South Africa in the last 19th century - am I being anti-British? Or am I simply stating a fact? Regarding 'his version of "God"', are you making reference to his Jewish upbringing here? How does this 'version of God' differ from that outlined by other Jewish authors of New Testament material?
Athens, we get to read Paul is living it up in Athens at the start of chapter 3,...I suspect that he was having a rather different lifestyle than 'living it up'. Disputing with people isn' the easiest - as I'm sure you'll agree.
... but he is sending Tim to allay their concerns and strengthen their faith that the Christ will save them from the encroaching apocalypse, and from the abuse from.. [other Jews]? "7 Therefore, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and persecution we were encouraged about you because of your faith."And your point?
More to follow!!May I suggest that, before you 'more to follow', you actually explain what you're trying to express in this post of yours.
I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud. We're only 4 pages into the thread!! ;)
But at no time in this or any other epistle does he state a date or time for that apocalypse.
You can also relate this to John the Baptist, whose vision sounds pretty imminent. 'Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees', and so on, and Jesus starts off being linked with John.I think the building of churches came some centuries after the apocalyptic fervour cooled. ;) As for your reference to the 'axe lying at the roots of the tree' could this not have equally been referring to the fact that Jesus was going to upset the Jewish apple-cart?
The other point, which has probably already been made here, is that the apocalyptic fervour cooled, and Christians had to adapt to a new situation - the parousia had not happened. Time then to build churches, pay tithes, sit on committees, join the House of Lords, and so on.
Well, he certainly didn't imply that it was over 2000 years in the future!Do you have any evidence - linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.
And it's quite amazing how his and Jesus' reported words have been twisted to imply that such was his meaning.Do you have any evidence of any sort to support this suggestion? Could it not be that those who argue as you and others do are twisting the language to suit their purposes?
How the hell do you get an interval of two millennia out of the following? :Dicky, if you are told that you will inherit £X000 when your uncle dies, the legacy is 'nearer to you than when you first learnt of the legacy' at a point in time a few years later (and before he dies). Similarly, if any of us here were to learn that we had won the National Lottery, but that the awarding ceremony wouldn't be until next September we would be closer to that time a week after we learned the news, a month after, 3 months after- but we still wouldn't have received the money. Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event.
"[11]
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed;
[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;" ... Romans 13
Note those words "we who are alive, who are left" - for they and the whole passage mirror the reported words of Jesus in Matthew 16*, and may even be a true memory of Jesus' actual words:I'm fully aware that they are common knowledge, but then we don't actually know whether Jesus' and Paul's use of the present tense was literally 'present' or meant to refer to the future. Remember that Jewish thought and writings use this kind of pictorial language far more often that we do in modern times.
"[27] For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
[28] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Matt.16
*Shaker has recently quoted this passage as indicative of Jesus believing that the Apocalypse was imminent. These ideas are in fact common knowledge, but it was Schweitzer in particular who drew attention to them.
Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event.
Going back to the OP, there is a strong them and us in the NT and the epistles, the elect etc., ...Not sure that there is any 'them and us'; rather its an us 'before' and 'after'. Otherwise, the fact that all the NT documents but the Gospels were written specifically to churches, and church members (and attendees) is very important.
and so it seems correct to me that much of the epistles were aimed at educating them and keeping them true to the faith.' ... educating them and keeping them true to the faith'. That sounds an interesting combination, JK. Surely education involves people making up their own minds: so 'keeping them true to the faith' is a bit obsolete. Finally, I'm not sure that the 'much of' (the epistles) is necessary, either. After all, exhortation and warning are as much a part of education as anything else.
Further evidence comes from Paul, who actually says, it's better not to get married, because the end is quite soon.But that advice is also within a section which Paul prefaces with the comment "that this is my own opinion" and not Jesus' teaching. Paul also gives teh advice for reasons other than apocalyptic ones.
But also Jesus existed in apocalyptic times, by which I mean, that Jewish thought was shot through with apocalypticism. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of this stuff, including a Messiah, in fact, two.But the whole apocalyptic context in which Jesus and his crew grew up was one of politico-militaristic apocalypse; the idea that the Jews would rebel and overthrow the invaders - a belief that had been in place for 4 or 500 years prior to Jesus' appearance - an eventuality that Jesus seems to be very antagonstic to.
This doesn't prove that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but I think quite a lot of scholars are convinced about this, and that Schweitzer's thesis is basically correct.
Of course, there are scholars who disagree, and as far as I can see, many evangelicals also disagree.
Do you have any evidence - linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.
Do you have any evidence - linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.
Do you have any evidence of any sort to support this suggestion? Could it not be that those who argue as you and others do are twisting the language to suit their purposes?
No - I am not twisting the language. Given just one instance, then you might say "That's just a trope" or "It's metaphorical". Given the huge, cumulative instances when this idea of imminent apocalypse is mentioned, the miracle is that it could have been interpreted any other way.Yet Jesus doesn't indicate that it was necessarily to be imminent. I'd echo your comment, but with a very different meaning - there is nothing in the New Testament documents that states even remotely definitively an imminent return of Jesus. It is clear - from a variety of passages - that some people at the time 'believed' that the return was to be imminent, or why else are there passages in the epistles (especially Pauline ones) explaining that the idea was erroneous?
We know of course that it was - each individual instance was given its own specific interpretation. Typical of this would be Augustine's statement that the only 'Kingdom' being referred to was the establishment of the Church.Well, this is a fairly commonly held view based on Jesus' own teaching.
Or when St. Paul says "we", he means the whole corpus of Christians throughout history, up to the time of the supposed Apocalypse. And so on, making a complete dog's breakfast of a fairly straightforward idea. Managed to get an established church to survive, though, didn't it?Not sure that the survival of an established church had any basis on your argument. I do, however, wonder who created the dog's dinner. The simple certainly does appear to have been complicated in order to reach your conclusion.
eh? If he hadn't put a time or date on it, then why would they have thought that? Surely they would have thought he might be back in their lifetime or then again maybe not?[Precisely, which is why some believed that he would return in short order, and others believed that he wouldn't. You've summed the issue up very neatly.
If however, he did mean he would be back in their lifetime then that would have explained why they thought that.Do you mean, 'some thought that'?
That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.Not sure that there was any clear suggestion from Jesus, or most of his disciples, that 'the world is going to end soon', Stephen. Nor am I convinced that there is anything to do with prophecy involved.
"Hey guys, the World is going to end soon"
"Really, how long have we got?"
"Well you know the whole of Israelite history? About the same again, give or take a thousand."
A prophecy of doom in a few thousand years isn't really anything to get worked up about.
Not sure that there was any clear suggestion from Jesus, or most of his disciples, that 'the world is going to end soon', Stephen. Nor am I convinced that there is anything to do with prophecy involved.
No, technically he said the Temple will be destroyed:
That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.
"Hey guys, the Temple is going to be demolished soon"
"Really, how long have we got?"
"Until this generation has died out."
"When will that be?"
"Well if we define 'generation' as "when all the Jews are dead", it means some time in the next few hundred thousand years."
Your Jesus gets less impressive with every argument you attempt.
No, technically he said the Temple will be destroyed:Yes, he said that the Temple would be destroyed and so it was - 72 AD. Pretty well the time that the generation that had followed and listened to him came to an end. However, he also said that it would broken down and rebuilt within 3 days. Now, there seems to be a 'discrepancy' as to what he was referring to in these two passages. I'd suggest that, rather than his becoming 'less impressive with every argument ... ', it's your arguments that are becoming increasingly less impressive.
That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.
"Hey guys, the Temple is going to be demolished soon"
"Really, how long have we got?"
"Until this generation has died out."
"When will that be?"
"Well if we define 'generation' as "when all the Jews are dead", it means some time in the next few hundred thousand years."
Your Jesus gets less impressive with every argument you attempt.
Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.
70 AD? You so need to read this:
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php
The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.Again, completely the opposite is true. There isn't a single hint in any of them that Jerusalem had already fallen. Even Luke's second book describes the temple as though it was still standing. (Acts 3:2,11)
Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.
[Precisely, which is why some believed that he would return in short order, and others believed that he wouldn't. You've summed the issue up very neatly.
Do you mean, 'some thought that'?
Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event.
Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.
I was replying to your previous comment.
I'll try again.
If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in there lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.
Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.
Which coming are you referring to? The Lord's warning to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies most certainly applied to that generation. The sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in Daniel. Coming in the clouds means judgment, this imagery is used throughout scripture. The tribulation and destruction of the temple took place as prophesied and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting kingdom. Again compare to Daniel.
What total nonsense!What a lucid and intelligent rebuttal!
The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple are matters of historical fact Floo. It may be uncomfortable to consider that these events were prophesied in a timebound manner by both Daniel and the Lord, but these things deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders don't you think?
Which coming are you referring to? The Lord's warning to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies most certainly applied to that generation. The sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in Daniel. Coming in the clouds means judgment, this imagery is used throughout scripture. The tribulation and destruction of the temple took place as prophesied and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting kingdom. Again compare to Daniel 7:13-14
Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event.
I was replying to your previous comment.
I'll try again.
If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in there lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.
Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.
Well put. I think many evangelicals have to erase notions of imminence, as this would show Jesus as not just an apocalyptic prophet, but a failed apocalyptic prophet. This is theological Kryptonite, so must be shown to mean something else, hence all the gyrations over 'this generation' and so on.
The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple are matters of historical fact Floo. It may be uncomfortable to consider that these events were prophesied in a timebound manner by both Daniel and the Lord, but these things deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders don't you think?
and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting kingdom. Again compare to Daniel 7:13-14
' ... educating them and keeping them true to the faith'. That sounds an interesting combination, JK. Surely education involves people making up their own minds: so 'keeping them true to the faith' is a bit obsolete. Finally, I'm not sure that the 'much of' (the epistles) is necessary, either. After all, exhortation and warning are as much a part of education as anything else.You seem to be seeing education in its evil, manipulative sense. And your take of people making up their own minds is a very modern take - my post was referencing the people at the time of the NT, i.e. with regards to the title of the OP I was looking more at 'were' than 'are'.
That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.Yes it is that's where we are. :o
"Hey guys, the World is going to end soon"
"Really, how long have we got?"
"Well you know the whole of Israelite history? About the same again, give or take a thousand."
A prophecy of doom in a few thousand years isn't really anything to get worked up about.
Well put. I think many evangelicals have to erase notions of imminence, as this would show Jesus as not just an apocalyptic prophet, but a failed apocalyptic prophet. This is theological Kryptonite, so must be shown to mean something else, hence all the gyrations over 'this generation' and so on. The Schweitzer idea (Jesus being apocalyptic), was (I think) unpopular at first, but became more popular after the war, but I can't remember all the details.When the Lord said 'this generation' He really did mean the generation that He was talking to. That's why the Christians knew to escape Jerusalem before its destruction. No failure of prophecy there.
(Schweitzer's book was published in 1906, 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus').
As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, not just the destruction of the temple was prophesied to occur within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, but the end of the whole world - that's what most of Matthew 24 is about, as well as the text in 1Thessalonians referred to earlier.
Have you not noticed that this did not occur?
The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.But the epistles hadn't been, and nor had Mark's Gospel. It is also likely that Matthew's and Luke's Gospels had also been written before it was torn down - so you're right - one Gospel was definitely written after it was torn down.
Aha! So something happened which which no one saw at that time? Can you give any reason why we should accept this strange theological interpretation?
Actually, the JWs go in for something similar: having decided that "this generation" should be "that generation", they identify the period in question as having started in 1914, at which point "Jesus cleansed the heavens and entered his spiritual temple".
Ahem! One could spin out this kind of fantastical burbling indefinitely - and no doubt the various evangelical and fundamentalist sects will continue to do so.
Anyone else witness Jesus "entering the throneroom of God" or "entering his spiritual temple"?
Anyone else with a variant interpretation? Roll up, roll up....
I was replying to your previous comment.Well done, Stephen; it is because some people 'took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent' that the various writers of the early epistles had to write to them to explain that Jesus hadn't put a time to the event, and that they were therefore wrong in any certainty as to the timing.
I'll try again.
If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in their lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.
Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.If - wherever you live - there is a flood alert, there is seldom a definitive timing of the event. Rather, those responsible for the alert want people to be prepared and even when the alert is cancelled they encourage people to continue to be on their guard into the future. This is by no means an unusual use of language. To suggest that it requires only an understanding of imminence is clearly erroneous.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, not just the destruction of the temple was prophesied to occur within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, but the end of the whole world - that's what most of Matthew 24 is about, as well as the text in 1Thessalonians referred to earlier.I've had the idea pointed out to me on more than 'numerous times', but never been given any evidence to the validity of the idea. Perhaps you could provide some, something that many others have signally failed to do.
Have you not noticed that this did not occur?
I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud. We're only 4 pages into the thread!! ;)
<SNIP>
Again, completely the opposite is true.Nope. You are wrong.
There isn't a single hint in any of them that Jerusalem had already fallen.\
Even Luke's second book describes the temple as though it was still standing. (Acts 3:2,11)So what? If you were claiming a prophecy about something that had already happened, the last thing you would do is put any material in that gives the game away.
The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.I don't agree that the gospels were written after AD 70, however even if they were, Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy in AD30 and the evangelists been reporting what he said. If that was so then it was prophecy, as you pointed out to Hope. And it was not unremarkable, since 'this generation' did not refer to the Jewish race. That was my point.
Well done, Stephen; it is because some people 'took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent' that the various writers of the early epistles had to write to them to explain that Jesus hadn't put a time to the event, and that they were therefore wrong in any certainty as to the timing.
If - wherever you live - there is a flood alert, there is seldom a definitive timing of the event. Rather, those responsible for the alert want people to be prepared and even when the alert is cancelled they encourage people to continue to be on their guard into the future. This is by no means an unusual use of language.
To suggest that it requires only an understanding of imminence is clearly erroneous.
I don't agree that the gospels were written after AD 70, however even if they were, Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy in AD30 and the evangelists been reporting what he said.
my prophecy for today is that the winner of the first race at Lingfield yesterday will be called 'Rapacity Alexander' - easy peasy!Can I have £5 each way on that please? ;)
Can I have £5 each way on that please? ;)
Hey, it's religion, it's not supposed to be logical, sunshine ;)
It's the logic of the arguments against that I'm questioning!
You think no one saw the judgement of Jerusalem! Bloody hell you should read Josephus. Ask the 1100000 Jews that lost th or lives.
I'm not suggesting it required only an understanding of imminence, just that some people thought it did and others didn't. It doesn't matter to me who was right, but of course you have to read it in a certain way otherwise it means that Jesus could be wrong.
Who was it who used to talk about the Great White Throne, cue many jokes? Hence, the Great White Throne Judgment. Beware, Dicky, the clock is ticking.
That's all it boils down to. Hope's talk about the writers of the epistles (actually only one definitive reference, written probably well into the 2nd century) trying to explain what they thought Jesus really meant, are simply what is known as 'a face-saving job'. Commonly known as 'spin'.Not sure what you're one about, DU. Most scholarly opinion dates all the 'official' Pauline epistles to well before the destruction of the Temple - with 1 Thessalonians having a date of 51AD (and Galatians one of 49AD according to some scholars). Similarly, only the 4th gospel (John) definitely post-dates 70AD.
Hey, it's religion, it's not supposed to be logical, sunshine ;)Except that, when one actually looks at the arguments, it is no less logical and reasoned as any scientific argument. I know that you don't like to admit/accept that, but then not all scientific arguments are all that you and others like to claim for them.
Except that, when one actually looks at the arguments, it is no less logical and reasoned as any scientific argument. I know that you don't like to admit/accept that, but then not all scientific arguments are all that you and others like to claim for them.
I don't agree that the gospels were written after AD 70, however even if they were, Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy in AD30But, if the gospels could have been written after 70, there is nothing miraculous about their reports that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.
Anyway it's a poor analogy, the people at the Met office are not omniscient.
... you have no way of showing that any statements attributed to Jesus aren't mistakes, exaggeration or lies for the purposes of propaganda: since these are known risks involving human artifice you'd need to exclude these, and if you can't then you could be dealing with retrospective prophecyTwo things. Firstly, the people who were the source of the gospels (the Twelve, the women and various other witnesses described. Paul too, for that matter) allowed their weaknesses to be exposed by the authors (the evangelists) thus had no regard for their reputation.
But, if the gospels could have been written after 70, there is nothing miraculous about their reports that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple.Unless you were one of the people who escaped having been warned beforehand?
Two things. Firstly, the people who were the source of the gospels (the Twelve, the women and various other witnesses described. Paul too, for that matter) allowed their weaknesses to be exposed by the authors (the evangelists) thus had no regard for their reputation.
Secondly, we are told all but one (John) of the twelve died in horrific ways rather than denounce Jesus. And the first generation of Christians was fed to lions, burned alive etc.
So no retrospective prophecy, imo
As for 'face-saving' and 'spin', have you ever tried to look at the original languages, the context of Jewish literary tradition and how that effects what is written on the page, etc? If you have you will find that your simplistic interpretations (and those of others here, on both sides of the debate) leave a lot of scholarship out of the equations.
Unless you were one of the people who escaped having been warned beforehand?There's only a finite number of horses in the Grand National, you could have got it right by chance.
If I told you now that I predicted the winner of the Grand National in 2014 two minutes before the end of the race (while watching it), of course that doesn't prove it to you but it still happened.
But you admit that some people at the time thought it was imminent. Therefore, you have to accept that there were some people who thought that it would be in their lifetime. How do you know they were wrong?
I raised all this in msg 143.
More tu quoque, Hope.As ever ::)
Never mind science - how about you set out these 'logical and reasoned' arguments for theism.He already has ... somewhere or other ... once upon a time ...
Yes, we know that great numbers of people witnessed the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem. You have chosen to equate this in your mind with something no one saw: "The Lord entering the throneroom of God".
But you admit that some people at the time thought it was imminent. Therefore, you have to accept that there were some people who thought that it would be in their lifetime. How do you know they were wrong?
I raised all this in msg 143.
I am equating it with the Lord's judgement on Jerusalem; He said to the Sanhedrin: "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14. The Sanhedrin certainly saw his judgement. Do a study of OT references to the Lord coming on clouds and you will see.Spot on, 2
This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.
I am equating it with the Lord's judgement on Jerusalem; He said to the Sanhedrin: "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14. The Sanhedrin certainly saw his judgement. Do a study of OT references to the Lord coming on clouds and you will see.
This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.
How do you know this isn't just self-referential fiction?
I am equating it with the Lord's judgement on Jerusalem; He said to the Sanhedrin: "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14. The Sanhedrin certainly saw his judgement. Do a study of OT references to the Lord coming on clouds and you will see.
This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.
Because it happened. Because Daniel predicted when the Messiah would come, that He would be killed, and that the temple would be destroyed, and it happened. And the temple and sacrificial system were swept away, a sign that they had been replaced by the new covenant.
Aside from the inconvenience of 'Daniel' being written around 400 years later than when Daniel allegedly lived it is also the case, is it not, that these prophecies aren't exactly clear and concise predictions and in reality is an example of a mish-mash of stuff that has been subject to 'interpretations'.
This chap goes into it in detail, albeit he has produced a tortuous read, but he does highlight a number of issues around chronology, with different views on when these '70' weeks start, and also those 'prophecies' in Daniel which failed. Hard to imagine anyone taking prophecy seriously to start with, and especially so when it consists of a veritable dogs breakfast of stuff that is as clear as mud (I love mixed metaphors before anyone points this out).
http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html
The temple was rebuilt.
The Messiah did come.
The Messiah was killed.
The temple was destroyed.
A ten year old could understand Daniel 9:25-26.
I can understand that people like to obfuscate because the implications of these prophecies having been fulfilled are tremendous. Daniel was definitely B.C. so the dating of Daniel doesn't come into it. By the way, did the sceptre depart from Judah when Shiloh came? Yes. Another related fulfilment of prophecy.
“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Well the dating of Daniel does come into it, since glossing over the fact that it doesn't actually date from the time of Daniel, and that it provenance is unknown, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the content - I can see why some may seek to skirt round this inconvenient fact but they are only fooling themselves if they do.I can also see why some want to skirt around the inconvenient fact that scholars still date it as earlier than the time of Christ - and therefore the prophetic nature of the book still stands.
Yet is seems, according the link I provided earlier, that the 'seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens' isn't exactly precise since their are different views of what this means among Christians and the language (as translated in the NIV) isn't exactly clear and precise.'Seven' has a very important part to play in Jewish thinking and culture. It's not as if it is simply used to refer to number that matches the days in a week.
So, we get creative interpretation (theology) in order to claim it means something - but whether this something is justified by knowledge is another matter entirely given the imprecision inherent in the text.Which is where understanding the cultural context is so important.
I suspect you are taking the Bible too literally (and seriously).Many on your side of the debate seem to forget that English isn't the original language of the material, that translating anything from one language to another is difficult at the best of times, and translation and interpretation is central to any exchange of infomation, be that within the same language context or without.
I can also see why some want to skirt around the inconvenient fact that scholars still date it as earlier than the time of Christ - and therefore the prophetic nature of the book still stands.The real inconvenient thing here, Hope, is the claim of prophecy in the first place, which is another of these unfalsifiable claims since beyond logical or lucky guesses the future cannot be accurately foretold on any basis that is verifiable. Where these 'prophecies' date from antiquity and are expressed in gloriously imprecise terms then we stray into theological 'interpretations' - so not to be taken seriously in the absence of a reliable method of evaluating 'prophecies'.
'Seven' has a very important part to play in Jewish thinking and culture. It's not as if it is simply used to refer to number that matches the days in a week.
Many on your side of the debate seem to forget that English isn't the original language of the material, that translating anything from one language to another is difficult at the best of times, and translation and interpretation is central to any exchange of infomation, be that within the same language context or without.If prophecy is to be taken seriously then I don't suppose it matters what language is used - the problem here is the notion that 'prophecy' should be taken seriously in the first place and that Christianity does is why some of us find Christianity impossible to take seriously.
70 AD? You so need to read this:
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php
Hi Corrie,
I think I agree with all of what you have said in this thread. I have been pleasantly surprised, particularly because you have previously talked about the significance of the Jews being back in Israel since 1948, and, iirc, seem to have agreed with a lot of Freeminer's ideas - a third temple and a literal 1000 year reign of Christ after his second coming, for example. Yet the above link disagrees with that. I'm pleased to see you've discarded those ideas- nice one.
This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.
also those 'prophecies' in Daniel which failed.
I disagree, many of the prophecies in Daniel succeeded.
But that doesn't help the Christians because they were predicting the history of the Greek world leading up to around 164BCE. After that, they started to go wrong. This is how we know that Daniel was written in around 164BCE.
The gospel authors simply retconned Jesus' life to fit with all these old prophecies.
I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.
I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.
Of course not - but they may have 'interpreted' the prophecy so that it seemed to fit later events that occurred in Jerusalem especially since the prophecy itself (presumably the verse from Daniel that you referred to and that I quoted earlier) is, as I said then, so gloriously imprecise to start with.
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/daniel11.php (from Corrie's link)
Daniel 11:36 speaks of "the king". It is not clear who is meant, though some think it is Antiochus Epiphanes. Herod the Great is a possibility, as the immediate context is not Syria or Egypt but the nation of Israel. If so, Daniel's prophecy extends all the way until the events of AD 70.
I am equating it with the Lord's judgement on Jerusalem; He said to the Sanhedrin: "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14. The Sanhedrin certainly saw his judgement. Do a study of OT references to the Lord coming on clouds and you will see.
This was evidence to them that He was the Son of Man who had received the everlasting kingdom; it refers back to the imagery used in Daniel 7.
So what you are saying is that the author of Mark ripped off Daniel to make it look like Jesus was special.
And presumably you would like this imagery from Daniel re-applied at the Second Coming of Christ sometime in our future* - though by your logic this would be the 3rd Coming.
The verses at the end of Matthew 16 also refer to the Son of Man coming with all his angels in judgment (in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners). Which particular 'judgment' would you like this to refer to?
*I should point out that some fundamentalist sects think that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would have to be resurrected in the distant future sometime, in order to witness the Second Coming. Interesting to see your linguistic tangles by which you've managed to assert that these characters actually did see "The Son of man coming in judgment" during their own lifetimes.
Incidentally, anyone know when Caiaphas actually died?
More lies and you misunderstand what is being said here please note no mention of angels------28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” ----You need to quote what is there and you need to study more.Also just to add Matt 16 is fulfilled it is history.
~TW~
I suppose the Gospel writers orchestrated the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem too.How would they orchestrate something that had already happened?
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/prophecy/daniel11.php (from Corrie's link)So it is not clear. How, then, can you claim it is Jesus when Jesus was, factually speaking, not a king?
Daniel 11:36 speaks of "the king". It is not clear who is meant, though some think it is Antiochus Epiphanes. Herod the Great is a possibility, as the immediate context is not Syria or Egypt but the nation of Israel.
If so, Daniel's prophecy extends all the way until the events of AD 70.Why?
So it is not clear. How, then, can you claim it is Jesus when Jesus was, factually speaking, not a king?The claim is not that Jesus is the king mentioned in Dan 11:36, but that Herod the Great is.
Quite possible that Jesus was actually making reference to the Son of Man figure in Daniel. However, there is some evidence that he thought this figure was someone quite distinct from himself (though the synoptic evangelists have ended up conflating the two).Can you elaborate on that? I thought he used the title for himself?
As I said, Spud, gloriously imprecise - hence your 'not clear who is meant', 'some think', 'a possibility' and 'if so' in your fairly brief post above: you yourself have packed quite a bit of this imprecision into just a handful of sentences!Going back to Daniel 9, Gabriel gives Daniel a summary of the events that would take place between the returning exiles rebuilding their city, and the eventual atonement made by the coming Davidic king for the forgiveness of sins. This would be followed soon after by the destruction of the temple. It's fairly clear that because of the permanence of this atonement, the sanctuary would no longer be needed for sacrifice and offering, and so its destruction is permanent. If we take the seventy sevens as 470 years, and the decree to rebuild as being one of the two (three?) issued by the Persian emperors, the time interval between that and Christ's death fits exactly.
You guys seem to accept the notion of 'prophecy' as a given when it is no more than just another unfalsifiable conjecture, and since 'prophecy' is part of the tradition you subscribe to there seems to be an underlying assumption that these prophecies must mean something - so we see these creative 'interpretations' which, as you've just demonstrated, are bereft of any precision.
Going back to Daniel 9, Gabriel gives Daniel a summary of the events that would take place between the returning exiles rebuilding their city, and the eventual atonement made by the coming Davidic king for the forgiveness of sins. This would be followed soon after by the destruction of the temple. It's fairly clear that because of the permanence of this atonement, the sanctuary would no longer be needed for sacrifice and offering, and so its destruction is permanent. If we take the seventy sevens as 470 years, and the decree to rebuild as being one of the two (three?) issued by the Persian emperors, the time interval between that and Christ's death fits exactly.
Daniel 11 gives more detail about the Greek empire after Alexander's death, up until the coming of the Messiah (ch 12) in the time of the Herod the Great, who was king over the Jews but not himself the Davidic king, in 11: The link I gave goes into more detail.
The fact that there is differing opinion about this does not mean there isn't a correct one.
:)
If we take the seventy sevens as 470 years,Why would we pretend that 70 x 7 = 470?
and the decree to rebuild as being one of the two (three?) issued by the Persian emperors, the time interval between that and Christ's death fits exactly.So you don't know which of two (or possibly three) decrees to start from and you've wrongly decided that 7 x 70 is not 490. All we need now is for the Temple rebuilding (516BCE) and Christ's death (~30 - 35CE) to be more than 490 years apart and your credibility is utterly destroyed.
Daniel 11 gives more detail about the Greek empire after Alexander's death, up until the coming of the Messiah (ch 12) in the time of the Herod the Great,
Well, either you are a liar, or simply someone who does not know his Bible, since the two verses at the end of Matthew 16 definitely do contain a reference to angels "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels and judge each man according to his works: 28 Truly I tell you etc."
Did you conveniently forget that?
Your problem is you cant read you quoted in your post the last verse of Matt 16 and we have no mention of Angels now that makes you wrong also note the word SOME in that verse.This verse does not refer to the second advent.when the second advent takes place ,----not SOME but EVERY eye will see him.
You must do better leave it to people like me to teach you.
~TW~
‘For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’
Here is the relevant section (from the NRSV).
I've highlighted the relevant word, because it appears you are unable to see it.
The quote first describes how Jesus will come (with angels), then it gives a time scale. Jesus and his angels haven't come back yet and everybody who heard those words is dead.
The prophecy fails.
Clever but you did quote the verse cunning and sneaky but that is you.
~TW~
Why shouldn't I quote the Bible to show it says what it says? It definitely says "angels". You ended it for some bizarre reason. I quoted the Bible to prove you were wrong. Nothing sneaky about that.
Because as usual you quote the wrong scripture we are referring to verse 28--------------28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Is this really your argument? Are you really trying to claim that Jesus' prophecy does not involve angels because he said he would bring angels in the line before the one that somebody quoted up thread?
Is this really your argument? Are you really trying to claim that Jesus' prophecy does not involve angels because he said he would bring angels in the line before the one that somebody quoted up thread?
Being such a brilliant person as I am I read this,
28This is dishonest of you. \you should start at the beginning, not conveniently just after the angles bit.
And then I read the fulfilment of verse 28 here
17 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
So JP your nonsense is dealt with.
~TW~
Here is the relevant section (from the NRSV).
I've highlighted the relevant word, because it appears you are unable to see it.
The quote first describes how Jesus will come (with angels), then it gives a time scale. Jesus and his angels haven't come back yet and everybody who heard those words is dead.
The prophecy fails.
This prophecy was fulfilled. Read http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php in full, then come back if you have any questions.
This prophecy was fulfilled. Read http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php in full, then come back if you have any questions.
This prophecy was fulfilled. Read http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php in full, then come back if you have any questions.Where were the angels in 70?
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php
Where were the angels in 70?Where were they in John I: 51?
People are so gullible if they think that twaddle is meaningful. You can interpret the Bible any which way to suit your POV.
You could make a statement as above had you read up about the Prophecies.
Ignorance breeds ignorance. Your ignorance is completely unjustifiable. You are not in a position to make such comments
when you KNOWINGLY have no idea what they are talking about. Grow up Floo, no one is interested in the venom of ignorance your projectile vomit all over the board.
A delightfully nutty site, devoted to an evil and unjust god...
If a person never hears and/or rejects the Bible history of Adam, it does not matter - he is still guilty for Adam's sin and condemned to death and eternal judgment. If a person were not to sin himself, it does not matter - he is still guilty for Adam's sin and stands condemned before God.http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/salvation/unconditional-salvation/sermon.php#p4
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
The problem here Spud, and one you'll no doubt avoid addressing, is that any bits that aren't after the event reporting (the easy way to do 'prophesy') are indistinguishable from fiction and, as such, should be taken with a pinch of salt - especially since the provenance is unknown.It looks suspiciously like you've assumed that some bits are retrospective prophecy here.
It looks suspiciously like you've assumed that some bits are retrospective prophecy here.
So you don't know which of two (or possibly three) decrees to start fromCyrus' decree authorized the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple, but Daniel 9:25 concerns the rebuilding of the city. It isn't until Artaxerxes that we see them rebuilding the city.
Cyrus' decree authorized the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple, but Daniel 9:25 concerns the rebuilding of the city. It isn't until Artaxerxes that we see them rebuilding the city.
If we take Artaxerxes' letter to Ezra (Ezra 7) in 457 BC as the starting point, the 490 years end around the time of the stoning of Stephen.
This is where I found the above information:
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/457.html
Heads up: Ezra is quite confusing chronologically. The opposition that occurred during Artaxerxes' reign is detailed in Ezra 4. In verse 12 we read, "The king should know that the Jews who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city". This is the first mention of rebuilding the city.
I thought you were supposed to start from the rebuilding of the Temple (520 - 516BCE)? It looks to me like you are taking the presumed date of Jesus' execution (which is not really known btw), counting back and looking for some significant event to pretend is the start of the prophecy period.
It looks to me like you are taking the presumed date of Jesus' execution (which is not really known btw), ...about as 'really known' as your suggested range of dates for the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC
"There are many ways this is calculated....Either way it's calculated, only Yeshua could be Mashiach -- no one else fits into Daniel's timeframe"
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/daniel9_26.html
Then you have to explain away His death and the destruction of the temple.
about as 'really known' as your suggested range of dates for the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC
Peake's Bible Commentary says Daniel 9:24-27 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 and 2 Maccabees seem to confirm this, although the time frame doesn't fit with 490 years at all. Another possible solution is to take the decree in Nehemiah 2 by Artaxerxes in 445 BC as the start of the 70 weeks, and use 360-day (lunar) years. Apparently 69 'weeks' then takes us to AD 30:
http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-sevens.html
"There are many ways this is calculated
Then you have to explain away His death and the destruction of the temple.We all die.
about as 'really known' as your suggested range of dates for the destruction of the Temple in the 6th century BC
Peake's Bible Commentary says Daniel 9:24-27 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 and 2 Maccabees seem to confirm this, although the time frame doesn't fit with 490 years at all.The 490 years is something that Christians have arrived at by working backwards from the answer they want.
The 490 years is something that Christians have arrived at by working backwards from the answer they want.There is the temptation to do that, but if one is simply checking whether or not it fits I can't see anything wrong with it. However, Keil & Delitzsch say that the 70 x 7 should not be taken to represent years:
There is the temptation to do that, but if one is simply checking whether or not it fits I can't see anything wrong with it. However, Keil & Delitzsch say that the 70 x 7 should not be taken to represent years:
But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שׁבעים or שׁבעות [weeks], therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Leviticus 25:2, Leviticus 25:4-5; Leviticus 26:34-35, Leviticus 26:43; 2 Chronicles 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Leviticus 25:8.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שׁבעים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שׁבעים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/daniel/9.htm
(red insertion mine)
There is the temptation to do that, but if one is simply checking whether or not it fits I can't see anything wrong with it. However, Keil & Delitzsch say that the 70 x 7 should not be taken to represent years:
More evidence that Christians start with the answer they want and work backwards. There's nothing credible to suggest that anything in Daniel refers to Jesus, so you just make something up.If there is a claim that it refers to Jesus, what is wrong with checking it out?
If there is a claim that it refers to Jesus, what is wrong with checking it out?
And even if it is found not to refer to him, there is still the claim that it is predictive and not retrospective prophecy. Chapter 8 predicts Alexander the Great, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in detail, yet claims to have been written at the time of the Persian empire. This is verified by references to Daniel in Ezekiel (14:14,20; 28:3), 1 Maccabees 2:59,60, and Josephus (Antiquities XI, VIII, 3-5). Yippy!
Chapter 8 predicts Alexander the Great, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in detail, yet claims to have been written at the time of the Persian empire. This is verified by references to Daniel in Ezekiel (14:14,20; 28:3), 1 Maccabees 2:59,60, and Josephus (Antiquities XI, VIII, 3-5). Yippy!
Just how precise is this 'detail' in Daniel 8 - is it clear and unequivocal?As in, does it tell us what colour Antiochus' underpants were? Nah.
As in, does it tell us what colour Antiochus' underpants were? Nah.
There is however a figure given for the number of days during which the daily sacrifice would be taken away (1,150); according to 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 4:52 the time was roughly 3 years (15 Kislev 168 BC - 25 Kislev 165 BC))
Following on from Rose's post# 113 on the '1H - what type of board do we want' thread:
Interestingly, a lot of what is in the New Testament epistles is aimed at the church and those within it. I would agree that the church has sometimes tried to impose those ideas on those outside of the church (though when a society has an official religion or denomination - as has been the case in Europe over the centuries - it can sometimes be difficult to practically know who is outside of the church). I often think that some here think that they are aimed at global humanity. In a way they are, but only as humanity individually becomes part of the church.
Terms like 'according to' and 'roughly' don't inspire confidence precision-wise, I'd say.If you need precision, have a Google of a quote from Herodotus which shows that the early Greeks used to add an intercalery month every other year. A year was 360 days. This gives 390 + 360 + 390 + 10 = 1,150 days.
When Paul does refer to "the church of God" it was obviously not the "Church" as we know it today. In his epistles, it is only a small "church".
Have we established who you 'think' "the NT epistles" are "aimed at" yet?
then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Chapter 8 predicts Alexander the Great, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in detail, yet claims to have been written at the time of the Persian empire.The predictions are pretty accurate. Clearly the claim that the book predates the predictions must be false.
This is verified by references to Daniel in Ezekiel (14:14,20; 28:3),Those two passages reference a character named Daniel, they provide no evidence that he ever wrote a book or even that this is the correct Daniel
1 Maccabees 2:59,60, and Josephus (Antiquities XI, VIII, 3-5). Yippy!
Those two passages reference a character named Daniel, they provide no evidence that he ever wrote a book or even that this is the correct DanielThe Jews had a pretty good grasp of their national history, and believed/believe that he was.
The Jews had a pretty good grasp of their national history, and believed/believe that he was.it doesn't matter. Those two passages make no reference to any of Daniel' prophecies or the book he allegedly wrote. They cannot be used to date the Book of Daniel.
Daniel was written around 164BCE, 1 Maccabees around 100BCESo either you think the author of 1Maccabees 2:59-60 made up the quote by Mattathias concerning Daniel and his three friends, or, if Mattathias was a real person, you think he himself believed in four characters who had been invented just the other day?
When Paul does refer to "the church of God" it was obviously not the "Church" as we know it today. In his epistles, it is only a small "church".
Have we established who you 'think' "the NT epistles" are "aimed at" yet?
Well.
Got a generic answer to this question yet?
Ignore all the Daniel crap, totally irrelevant to your question, which is NT-based, and fuck all to do with the book "jesus" knew...
..although TBF. The NT'ers trawled through it to find shit they believed prophesied the Christ Paul propagated in his letters, but didn't really understand what they collated and mistakenly thought it was prophecy.. which it ain't.. more like mythology..
There we go hope, a get out clause to answering the above!
The letters written to people and the church in different parts of the world explained and gave instruction to the elders and believers in each church. What it did not do and cannot do is replace Christ and the way of coming to God the Father through him. The word of God is given to us through the Spirit. It is through Gods Spirit the individual receives the truth from God.
More unsubstantiated assertions from Sass.
The Epistles of the Bible are the 21 books in the New Testament that constitute formal letters of instruction from elders to leaders and members of the new Christian church. Thirteen of the Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul, three by the Apostle John, two by the Apostle Peter, and one each by James and Jude.
Jesus made reference to Daniel. He said that the abomination of desolation which Daniel spoke of would appear again within that generation.
As with much of OT prophecy, you have a near fulfillment which points to something greater, such as the sacrificial system (unblemished animal pointing to a sinless man who would make a once for all sacrifice for sin), or the exile to Babylon and restoration which is a picture of mankind's sin against, and reconciliation with God effected by the Messiah. The restoration of the Jews prefigures the resurrection of the body, etc.
The near fulfillment of the abomination of desolation occurred at the time of Antiochus IV. The greater fulfillment, whatever it was exactly, was accompanied by armies surrounding Jerusalem, signaling to the Church that the city's desolation was near.
God also warned the Church in Revelation that it would suffer great persecution before being eventually vindicated. This was prefigured by the persecution under Antiochus.
The lesson from Daniel is that God literally warned the Jews of coming tribulation but with the comfort that it would 'refine' them and that their enemies would eventually be defeated. If you believe Daniel is actual prophecy, you have evidence that God exists and is involved in this world. Same goes for Christ's prophecy of regarding that generation. The Evangelists say it was true prophecy; the skeptics say it was fabricated after the event. It all depends who you trust.
If you trust the NT you can be sure Jesus will return.
GOOGLED NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES...QuoteThe Epistles of the Bible are the 21 books in the New Testament that constitute formal letters of instruction from elders to leaders and members of the new Christian church. Thirteen of the Epistles were written by the Apostle Paul, three by the Apostle John, two by the Apostle Peter, and one each by James and Jude.
Nothing I said which could not be substantiated by anyone wanting to learn the truth.
My writings are substantiated it is your knowledge which is lacking and causing you to make uneducated and untrue statements.
So now you have again been prove wrong are you going to shut up! And give the educated a rest from your uneducated and proven untrue assertions?
No, you are absolutely wrong with this assertion on so many levels:
The (anonymous) writers who put these words into "Jesus'" mouth claim that this is what they wanted "Jesus" to say to validate their claim about Jewish 'prophecy'.
You don't know that. As I said, it depends whether you trust Daniel or the skeptics.
More unsubstantiated assertions from Sass.
Nothing I said which could not be substantiated by anyone wanting to learn the truth.
My writings are substantiated it is your knowledge which is lacking and causing you to make uneducated and untrue statements.
So now you have again been prove wrong are you going to shut up! And give the educated a rest from your uneducated and proven untrue assertions?
Really. 13 written by Paul. 3 by John, 2 by Peter and 1 by James and Jude?
Which website claims this?
Everybody else on the planet KNOWS that only 7 letters were probably written by 'Paul'., the rest were accredited to "Paul" to give gravitas to their claims. I.E. Forgeries.
As for J.P.J2 and J3.. all anonymous I'm afraid.. yet more lies propagated by the "Church".
Think on it this way.
Is the Qu'ran the true word of God?
It is mainstream Christian teaching, floo. You would have been taught the same, as I was. You may consider it 'unsubstantiated' of course, as you no longer believe, but it is what the vast majority of Christians believe.It isn't the belief, it is the claim of the belief saying what I have said about it is unsubstantiated when as you agree the belief exists... She is not educated and never had any religion rammed down her throat. Just rebelled without just cause.
It isn't the belief, it is the claim of the belief saying what I have said about it is unsubstantiated when as you agree the belief exists... She is not educated and never had any religion rammed down her throat. Just rebelled without just cause.
We have no evidence that is was anything but her rebellion. Her lack of knowledge would show no religious belief ever got near her.
It beggars belief that in this day and age, in the 21st C, there are people who actually believe this nonsense!
Sassy, please look at these stories with some degree of reality. Those Old Testament stories were written over 3000 years ago when they could be forgiven for thinking we were magically created. They sacrificed animals in the hope that their crops would grow, they tried to reassure their people by saying that there was some great magician in the sky looking after them, they did their best for their time but we have learned quite a lot since those days. We have realised, for over three hundred years now, that they got those things wrong.
If the wise men who wrote Genesis could have our knowledge they would laugh at someone still believing the stuff that came out of their vivid imaginations three millennia ago!
Oh, and it would be nicer of you if you thanked the hospital staff as well as your god for your relative's recovery in the prayer section.
100% with you jj on this; some of us have tried to get poor old Sass away from, the so well summed up by Bluehillside, her circular attempt at reasoning in all biblical matters.
Usually when you ask Sass to explain anything that might challenge her reasoning, or lack of reasoning, is followed by abuse in various amounts, in place of answers.
I have asked Sass where she gets her validation of the words she quotes, at ever increasing lengths, from this bible of hers; a validation that the words in her book are actually sourced from this he she or it thing, whatever it might be, she refers to as god, to date no answer, only abuse dressed up in various forms one way or another.
ippy
So often we stray from the path of reality because we look too hard at the inconsequential matters.
The Epistles were mainly aimed at the uneducated in the way of the OT and Jewish religion.
However, though they were to explain they were not there to take the place of the Way and the Truth.
The letters written to people and the church in different parts of the world explained and gave instruction to the elders and believers in each church. What it did not do and cannot do is replace Christ and the way of coming to God the Father through him. The word of God is given to us through the Spirit. It is through Gods Spirit the individual receives the truth from God.
There is no aim at anyone but the persons they were sent to.
The path of realityyou say?
It beggars belief that in this day and age, in the 21st C, there are people who actually believe this nonsense!
Sassy, please look at these stories with some degree of reality. Those Old Testament stories were written over 3000 years ago when they could be forgiven for thinking we were magically created. They sacrificed animals in the hope that their crops would grow, they tried to reassure their people by saying that there was some great magician in the sky looking after them, they did their best for their time but we have learned quite a lot since those days. We have realised, for over three hundred years now, that they got those things wrong.
If the wise men who wrote Genesis could have our knowledge they would laugh at someone still believing the stuff that came out of their vivid imaginations three millennia ago!
Oh, and it would be nicer of you if you thanked the hospital staff as well as your god for your relative's recovery in the prayer section.
You don't get it do you. Like those people in the bible I know God.
The reality is not what you read but the truth and power of the God behind those words.
You live for you and no it isn't okay because you and your loved ones miss out on the power and presence in your life of the one person who defines it's meaning,
So what there are a couple of people or so fighting a corner. But a corner where you have no hope, nothing outside yourselves which is able to sustain on help you with life.
The truth is you have never gone beyond your own pride and selfish reasoning.
My life has been incredibly difficult at times. It is fair to say many of you would never survive.
However, the truth about God is not dependent on our feelings or what the book says. The truth is dependent on the being who is God. No matter how hard life might get or be, the one sustaining truth within this universe and world is the existence of God the creator.
My family and I, go through much difficult times. But I believe I will live to see the LORD's goodness to me in this life.
What I do not need is people reflecting their own pessimistic and lack of belief at me. We who believe know that our circumstances do not change who God is. Whilst difficult for a time God will come and take us to another level and provide our needs.
You choose what you will but I will serve the LORD, because that truth never changes regardless of the world or people.
You choose your own way, I choose the LORD's way.
You don't get it do you. Like those people in the bible I know God.
The reality is not what you read but the truth and power of the God behind those words.
You live for you and no it isn't okay because you and your loved ones miss out on the power and presence in your life of the one person who defines it's meaning,
So what there are a couple of people or so fighting a corner. But a corner where you have no hope, nothing outside yourselves which is able to sustain on help you with life.
The truth is you have never gone beyond your own pride and selfish reasoning.
My life has been incredibly difficult at times. It is fair to say many of you would never survive.
However, the truth about God is not dependent on our feelings or what the book says. The truth is dependent on the being who is God. No matter how hard life might get or be, the one sustaining truth within this universe and world is the existence of God the creator.
My family and I, go through much difficult times. But I believe I will live to see the LORD's goodness to me in this life.
What I do not need is people reflecting their own pessimistic and lack of belief at me. We who believe know that our circumstances do not change who God is. Whilst difficult for a time God will come and take us to another level and provide our needs.
You choose what you will but I will serve the LORD, because that truth never changes regardless of the world or people.
You choose your own way, I choose the LORD's way.
You don't get it do you. Like those people in the bible I know God.
The reality is not what you read but the truth and power of the God behind those words.
You live for you and no it isn't okay because you and your loved ones miss out on the power and presence in your life of the one person who defines it's meaning,
So what there are a couple of people or so fighting a corner. But a corner where you have no hope, nothing outside yourselves which is able to sustain on help you with life.
The truth is you have never gone beyond your own pride and selfish reasoning.
My life has been incredibly difficult at times. It is fair to say many of you would never survive.
However, the truth about God is not dependent on our feelings or what the book says. The truth is dependent on the being who is God. No matter how hard life might get or be, the one sustaining truth within this universe and world is the existence of God the creator.
My family and I, go through much difficult times. But I believe I will live to see the LORD's goodness to me in this life.
What I do not need is people reflecting their own pessimistic and lack of belief at me. We who believe know that our circumstances do not change who God is. Whilst difficult for a time God will come and take us to another level and provide our needs.
You choose what you will but I will serve the LORD, because that truth never changes regardless of the world or people.
You choose your own way, I choose the LORD's way.
The trouble is, Sassy, you see The Truth as what's written in an ancient book by ancient men.
They had good reason to see things the way they did - you don't have any excuse, other than wilful ignorance and a refusal to look beyond the words they wrote.
I note Sass no evidence offered again only the eqivilent of the bible said or god said, if either one does say how do you know, if god said it to you, how do you know it wasn't a nearby ventriloquist.
The reason you don't answer Sass, is because you haven't got an answer, shelling out a load of old bygone text doesn't amount to an answer, I suspect you might go back to your more usual tack and keep your head down when you can't answer, like now.
I look forward to perhaps getting a rational answer from you one day, you might get Hope to help you with the aquisition of some evidence that might support this god idea the pair of you keep hanging on to.
ippy
Sass you keep filling the forum with your nonsensicle second rate bilge, can't think of anything that makes any sense?ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you and then you will know.
Just an admision that you have no credible evidence will do.
ippy
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you and then you will know.
The truth is you simply do not want to know God or the truth.
You choose to be ignorant that you must want the truth and search for the truth yourself.
Till you do you won't have your own proof. You have been told the way now stop making yourself look ridiculous.
You chose what you believed. Your action to not read the bible so ignore the way to know the truth is down to your own choice and pride. God can prove to you he is there, but you choose not to do as he tells you.
Your epic failure nothing to do with me.
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you........
Pot and kettle, you choose what you believe too, that is obvious from your posts!
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you and then you will know.
The truth is you simply do not want to know God or the truth.
You choose to be ignorant that you must want the truth and search for the truth yourself.
Till you do you won't have your own proof. You have been told the way now stop making yourself look ridiculous.
You chose what you believed. Your action to not read the bible so ignore the way to know the truth is down to your own choice and pride. God can prove to you he is there, but you choose not to do as he tells you.
Your epic failure nothing to do with me.
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you and then you will know.
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you and then you will know.
You don't know that. As I said, it depends whether you trust Daniel and the NT or the skeptics. Maybe I didn't make my thinking clear enough. I believe that Daniel's prophecy applied to 164 BC, but that Jesus foresaw the same thing happening in his generation, and that he fulfilled texts like Daniel 9:24 in a greater sense than how the Maccabees did.
For those who trust that Daniel (and Isaiah for that matter) is not fabricated, his prophecy and its fulfillment in the Greek empire are proof that God is real and was acting in Jewish history.
The next step is to see how the Jews, who were given God's standard so that they could live it and show the world it, were themselves incapable of attaining it and thus unable to save themselves from being invaded and booted out of the promised land over and over again.
There was a bigger plan all along, which was for God to rescue the Jews and all humanity from the consequences of sin, ie death itself, by coming as a man, and attaining that standard, which no man on his own could do.
What don't I know?What documents are they based on?
That the "Gospels" are anonymous?
That they were written generations/decades after "Jesus" was executed?
That they were written AFTER Pauls letters.
What don't I know?
What documents are they based on?
Does it really matter Hope?In the context of this discussion, yes. In the context of your particular, individual life, probably not.
ippy
Bumped for Thrud's attention.What don't I know?What documents are they based on?
That the "Gospels" are anonymous?
That they were written generations/decades after "Jesus" was executed?
That they were written AFTER Pauls letters.
What don't I know?
What don't I know?You implied that the gospel writers made up Jesus to fit their ideas about prophecy. How do you know that?
You implied that the gospel writers made up Jesus to fit their ideas about prophecy. How do you know that?
As the life of Jesus was written up many years after he died, it is quite likely there was plenty of exaggeration, and untruths in their accounts. There is no proof whatsoever Jesus did the fanciful things attributed to him.But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario? Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?
But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario? Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?
Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence. Its called the New Testament. Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up. I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.
Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence. Its called the New Testament. Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up.
I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.
But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario? Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?
Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence. Its called the New Testament. Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up. I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.
Most scholars, whatever their belief system, believe that the gospels are based on one or more pre-existing, but no longer extant documents written before Paul's Epistles. The best known one is called 'Q'. Mark is often considered to have been dictated - at least in part - by Peter, thus providing a first-hand account.
But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario? Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?
Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence. Its called the New Testament. Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up. I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.
Most scholars, whatever their belief system, believe that the gospels are based on one or more pre-existing, but no longer extant documents written before Paul's Epistles. The best known one is called 'Q'. Mark is often considered to have been dictated - at least in part - by Peter, thus providing a first-hand account.
As the life of Jesus was written up many years after he died, it is quite likely there was plenty of exaggeration, and untruths in their accounts. There is no proof whatsoever Jesus did the fanciful things attributed to him."...it is quite likely that..."
"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.
"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.
"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.
SpudI might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.
If you read tomorrow's newspaper and it says ten Arabs somewhere in the Middle East claim their leader was killed last week but came back to life three days later ... would you believe it?
No, you wouldn't, you're not stupid. But that would be a week old account, not a two thousand-year-old account.
I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.
Exactly.
But the default position is to NOT BELIEVE.
You move from this default position, when compelling evidence is presented.
I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.
I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.
What documents are they based on?
Bumped for Thrud's attention.
You implied that the gospel writers made up Jesus to fit their ideas about prophecy. How do you know that?
Ok, you've got my attention!
We have to establish which one of the compendium of stories you are referring to, or if you are talking about the whole book?
No. Well possibly yes... but all in all the fact remains, and I cannot stress this fact enough as it is something that most evangelical Christians seem unable to understand. Whoever wrote down the original versions we now know as the gospels of the NT were NOT witnesses to the ministry of their protagonist. The names/titles given to them WERE just an afterthought to give the "accounts" gravitas. Out of the 27 separate parts contained in the present version, there are only 7 accounts in the NT that can be universally attributed to their author and all of them were written by Paul.
Now, what was the prophecy that Jesus taught? What was the Prophecy that Paul was most worried about in his letters?
Ok, you've got my attention!
We have to establish which one of the compendium of stories are you referring to, or if you are talking about the whole book?
Pot and kettle, you choose what you believe too, that is obvious from your posts!
...and how, exactly, does one do that?
Floo, like you I haven't seen any positive evidence for a god or gods of any kind, it's not a case of me believing there is no such thing as a god.Would you know what you were looking for by means of evidence?
ippy
Your quoting Einstein and yet cannot understand such a simple instruction?
Should you be discussing things about God when you cannot process the easiest and simplest of instructions??? :D
Would you know what you were looking for by means of evidence?
It was a simple question!
You are quoting Einstein and yet cannot answer such a simple question?
Should you be discussing anything when you cannot answer the easiest and simplest of questions???
::) ::) ::)
ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you........
Would you? ::)In my case being a Christian and knowing about God and his word, the answer is an obvious 'YES'. Your reply shows the answer in your case to be an OBVIOUS 'NO'.
OK.
Hope was chatting about the letters of "Paul"..
What was his question again??
been away a whole month...Remind us, why was that??
Don't you look stupid now.As you have not yet answered the simple question, it is you who should be wondering that..... ::)
As you have not yet answered the simple question, it is you who should be wondering that..... ::)
Remind us, why was that??
How can I remind you about something you do not know about?
Silly boy it is against the rules to discuss the issues of peoples private pms with others.
I was set up that is all you need to know. I don't fall twice.
Who are the NT epistles aimed at?
Anybody who is daft enough to believe them.
And why would anything that has no foundation in fact be important??
ippy
And why would anything that has no foundation in fact be important??
ippy
St Paul existed - that's a fact. He has had a great influence on various societies down the ages, for good and ill. That is also a fact. What particular definition of 'fact' would you like us to adhere to?
Yes, the supernatural is certainly not a fact. However, there are other matters spoken of in these ancient scriptures. Not saying you should bother to read them - I can't imagine them being quite your cup of tea (and I don't consider them bedtime reading myself :) ) However, if you are going to make sweeping statements about certain matters, it does help if you've read some of the material in question.
Who are the NT epistles aimed at?
Anybody who is daft enough to believe them.
Sebastian ToeQuoteQuote from: Sassy on July 17, 2016, 12:37:27 AMRemind us, why was that??
been away a whole month...
I was set up that is all you need to know.God didn't have your back then? ::)