Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Shaker]

Hey, it's religion, it's not supposed to be logical, sunshine

[2Corrie]

Hey, it's religion, it's not supposed to be logical, sunshine

It's the logic of the arguments against that I'm questioning!

[Shaker]

Well, it's always good to try something new, that's what I say

[Gordon]

It's the logic of the arguments against that I'm questioning!

Do you similarly question the claims of prophecy: if so, what logic do you apply?

[Dicky Underpants]

You think no one saw the judgement of Jerusalem! Bloody hell you should read Josephus. Ask the 1100000 Jews that lost th or lives.

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".

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

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'.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

I shall have to beware of complimenting you, or any other posters on this forum I admire, wiggi. According to Dante, the flatterers look forward to an eternity in a trench of shit

[Hope]

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. 

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

More tu quoque, Hope.

Never mind science - how about you set out these 'logical and reasoned' arguments for theism.

[jeremyp]

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

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.

[jeremyp]

Anyway it's a poor analogy, the people at the Met office are not omniscient.

But they are better at predicting the weather than Jesus was at predicting the Second Coming. 

[Spud]

... 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 prophecy

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

[Spud]

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?
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. I could do a lie detector for you if you like. How about we meet on the Jeremy Kyle show?

[Gordon]

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

Super - but in the first of your points you haven't said how you've addresses issues of mistake, exaggeration or lies. So these reports are probably best ignored given the I solved risks. In the second case, as has been said before, that people are killed in support of their cause does not indicate the truth of their cause.

You seem to be very gullible regarding these points.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

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.

[jeremyp]

Unless you were one of the people who escaped having been warned beforehand?
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.

There's only a finite number of horses in the Grand National, you could have got it right by chance.

If you claimed to have predicted the result of the National Lottery before the draw, I'd be extremely sceptical unless you had the winning ticket to prove it.

[Gordon]

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've had two winners from 3 bets today on races at Chelmsford - so, am I a prophet?

[Shaker]

More tu quoque, Hope.

As ever

I have to say that while the negative proof fallacy is Hopalong's default fallacy, on recent performance the ignoratio elenchi and tu quoque are certainly giving it a run for their money.

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 ...

[2Corrie]

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".

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.

[2Corrie]

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.

Some people did think it was imminent; because they expected the Messiah to usher in a physical kingdom there and then; they misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven; "My Kingdom is not of this world"...

"Then they gathered round him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’

7 He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’"
Acts 1:6-7

[Spud]

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.

Spot on, 2

[Gordon]

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?

[2Corrie]

How do you know this isn't just self-referential fiction?

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.

[floo]

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.

That is NOT evidence, it is all silly fantasy.