Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 210 of 327 (507882)
05-08-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by jaywill
05-08-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Righteous Servant
quote:
I don't think that this offspring matter is a serious obstacle to the prophecy meaning Christ.
The next chapter 54 has some striking words about the barren woman having children and the married one not.
Well that a new flip.
The problem is you're trying to make the songs about one living person. I really don't think they are.
Isaiah 49:3 refers to Israel as God's servant. You quote Isaiah 54 in hopes of a magical solution to the offspring issue of Isaiah 53, but this commentary by David Guzik says that in Isaiah 54 is God speaking to Israel as his wife.
1. (1-3) Israel will be restored like a barren woman who bears many children.
a. Sing, O barren, you who have not borne: In ancient Israel, the barren woman carried an enormous load of shame and disgrace. Here, the Lord likens captive Israel to a barren woman who can now sing - because now more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman.
Isaiah 54 is not going to give you a magical way out for the offspring in Isaiah 53. It is interesting, though, that Guzik can see Israel in Isaiah 54, but can't in the previous 4 Servant Songs. He even considers 49:3 to refer to Jesus.
The reason I show you Guzik, even though I don't agree with him on servant songs, is so that you realize that it is not my twisting of the text. Even my study Bible agrees with him.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2009 1:22 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 211 of 327 (507886)
05-08-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jaywill
05-08-2009 1:40 PM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Righteous Servant
quote:
Please quote the additions to clarify what you mean.
The baptism of Jesus does not signify that He sinned and needed His sins washed away. It does signify that in His incarnation He came in the form of the fallen Adamic nature which needed to be denied, terminated, and buried because it is self bound and so independent.
None of this is in the text of Mark 1 concerning the baptism of Jesus. Your explanation is not an interpretation of the text.
The fallen Adamic nature is gleaned from Paul's letters, not what was written in the Gospels.
You're giving an explanation of the plain text based on later doctrine and tradition inspired by Paul's ministry.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2009 1:40 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by John 10:10, posted 05-08-2009 4:20 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 216 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 7:19 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 212 of 327 (507889)
05-08-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by jaywill
05-08-2009 1:57 PM


Baptism and Denying the Self
quote:
This matter of denying the self was certainly NOT a latter post Jesus concept.
How many times did He say it? If you would follow Him you had to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him.
Denying the self is not the later concept I was talking about. The idea that the act of baptism has anything to do with denying the self at the time Jesus was baptized is a later development.
Yes, those following Christ ideally are to say no to self indulgence, but it has nothing to do with the baptism we speak of.
Yes Jesus denied himself, but again it has nothing to do with his baptism. The text does not support that idea.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2009 1:57 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 218 of 327 (507958)
05-09-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by jaywill
05-09-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Righteous Servant
quote:
This does not constitute adding to the TEXT. No words were ADDED to any passage in Mark 1:4-13. Not one word was added by me. At best you could say that the interpretation I give of why Jesus desired to be baptized was wrong.
Your interpretation is not based on the plain text. Your interpretation is based on your belief and doctrine which adds to the story.
The story of Jesus' baptism says nothing of a fallen adamic nature which needed to be denied, terminated, or buried because it is self bound and so independent. By giving that explanation you are adding to the story information that is not in the story.
Literally no you didn't add words to the scripture. You added a meaning that can't be construed from the plain text of the story or Jewish practices of the time. Figuratively , in my eyes, you've added to the text.
Why the need for Jesus to have never sinned?
It is unnecessary even for what is claimed in the prophecy.
Once a person has repented of a sin and refrains from doing it again, the person is considered righteous.
The need for Jesus to be perfect or sinless is a later development. Jesus didn't present himself as having never sinned or perfection. He did present himself as an example that people could follow. He lead by example. Perfection is improbable since there is no consistent criteria in Christianity.
He repented, was baptized, and then was tested. He didn't give into temptation once he had repented. That is the example that people needed to see and that people today should learn. If Jesus had never sinned, then he already wasn't a person who was easily tempted. That's not an example for people.
IOW, I would not be a good example for an alcoholic who has to fight the temptation to drink alcohol. I don't have the urge to drink alcohol, so there is no temptation for me to fight. They can't learn from me how to fight that temptation because I've never faced that temptation or any kind of addiction temptation.
Perfection is not something God requires. Check out the Are We Prisoners of Sin thread. I don't want to rehash the sin discussion here. ABE: That goes for your Message 217 also. It was discussed in the sin thread and not appropriate for this thread.
The suffering servant is not described as perfect or having never sinned. So perfection is not a requirement to fulfill the prophecy.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added statement

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 7:19 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:14 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:40 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 225 of 327 (507980)
05-09-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
05-09-2009 10:14 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Righteous Servant
quote:
At the baptism a voice came from heaven - "You are My Son, the Beloved; in You I have found My delight." (Mark 1:11)
The text only shows that God was pleased with what his son just did. It doesn't imply that Jesus never sinned. God is usually pleased when people repent. How much more pleased would he be with his own son?
quote:
In the same Gospel, same chapter Jesus pronounces forgiveness on a sinner and is criticized for it. They thought that ONLY a perfect God has the right to forgive sins. See Mark 1.
"But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why is this man speaking this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except One, God? (Mark 1:6,7)...
Only the sinless God has authority to forgive sins. Jesus responded by demonstrating His authority to heal as well as to forgive sins. The impact of the situation is that He is indeed the Son of God - the Son of Man, the delight of the Father and without sin - who has authority to forgive it.
Actually it's Mark 2:7.
2:7 Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! 14 Who can forgive sins but God alone?
Nothing about perfection is mentioned in the text. In the Jewish religion, God is the one who forgives sins. He's the boss. Now the son of the Boss can forgive sins. It doesn't imply Jesus never sinned.
quote:
You are desperate in your revisionism.
PurpleDawn writes:
He repented,
WHERE ? OF WHAT ? Quote Mark.
PurpleDawn writes:
was baptized, and then was tested. He didn't give into temptation once he had repented.
I'm adding to the text? Why don't you count this as adding to the text then?
Please point out in the text where Jesus repented.
Read the text.
Mark 1:4
In the wilderness John the baptizer began preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 1:5 People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.
Do you think John just dunked people for no good reason? He was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins. So to be baptized by John, Jesus would have needed to confess his sins. His father was happy with what he did and then he was sent to the desert to endure temptation.
1:9 Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. 1:10 And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight. 1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness. 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, enduring temptations from Satan. He was with wild animals, and angels were ministering to his needs.
The other Gospels lead us to believe he passed the test.
What better example is there for mankind?
The suffering servant wasn't required to have never sinned and neither was Jesus. The text in Isaiah did not require "perfection" as classified by you to mean never having sinned.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:14 AM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 226 of 327 (507982)
05-09-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jaywill
05-09-2009 10:40 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Righteous Servant
quote:
Why then was the Suffering Servant called "the righteous One"? (Isa. 53:11)
Why does it say "Nor was there any deceit in His mouth" (v.9)
It further says that "He was crushed because of our iniquities" (v.5)
Where's the hint in Isaiah 53 that He was crushed because of His OWN iniquities?
You're twisting the Bible.
Furthermore Isaiah says that He made Himself an offering for sin. The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin.
In Isaiah 53:11, the usage of righteous may be used more as a legal reference. From the NET Bible notes:
tn Heb he will acquit, a righteous one, my servant, many. צַדִּיק (tsadiq) may refer to the servant, but more likely it is dittographic (note the preceding verb יַצְדִּיק, yatsdiq). The precise meaning of the verb (the Hiphil of צָדַק, tsadaq) is debated. Elsewhere the Hiphil is used at least six times in the sense of make righteous in a legal sense, i.e., pronounce innocent, acquit (see Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 1 Kgs 8:32 = 2 Chr 6:23; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23). It can also mean render justice (as a royal function, see 2 Sam 15:4; Ps 82:3), concede (Job 27:5), vindicate (Isa 50:8), and lead to righteousness (by teaching and example, Dan 12:3). The preceding context and the next line suggest a legal sense here. Because of his willingness to carry the people’s sins, the servant is able to acquit them.
quote:
Why does it say "Nor was there any deceit in His mouth"
Deceit is not the only sin out there. It just implies he didn't lie. I'm sure of your point.
quote:
Where's the hint in Isaiah 53 that He was crushed because of His OWN iniquities?
I didn't say that he was.
quote:
Furthermore Isaiah says that He made Himself an offering for sin. The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin.
Well the suffering servant and Jesus wouldn't qualify either. Blemish free deals with physical appearance and health, not actions. It means no cuts, bruises, disfigurement, etc. Plus humans weren't accepted as a sin offering. Literally they don't qualify, figuratively they wouldn't need to die.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2009 10:40 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jaywill, posted 05-10-2009 9:37 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 240 of 327 (508069)
05-10-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by jaywill
05-10-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Isaiah 53 - Righteous Servant
quote:
Nothing in Isa. 53 remotely suggests that one sinner is himself a sin or trespass offering for others. The whole concept of the chapter is that a righteous and innocent Servant made Himself a sin offering for others not righteous. He took on not what He deserved but what they deserved. And doing so justified them as the sin or trespass offering was designed to do.
Again the idea that one is still considered a sinner after one has repented, is a later concept. Show me that contemporaries of Isaiah felt the same way. The servant could have sinned at some point in his life and repented. He is still considered righteous before God.
quote:
Your hunting for indications to the contrary is like looking for hen's teeth. The accumulative effect is to His righteousness. You're going against the tone of the passages in an attempt to twist them.
I'm not looking for anything. I don't have a need for the servant to be sinless, as in never having committed a sin. Isaiah doesn't present the servant as sinless and Jesus didn't present himself as sinless.
You on the other hand need righteous to mean sinless so that it makes Jesus unique. Righteous doesn't automatically mean one hasn't committed a sin. Show me that it does.
quote:
Then where is the hint of His own iniquities period ?
That's not in the text. The point is that righteous does not mean sinless in Isaiah's time.
quote:
PD:
Well the suffering servant and Jesus wouldn't qualify either. Blemish free deals with physical appearance and health, not actions.
Wrong. It is ridiculous to assume that the sin offering was to justify people as to their physical perfection before the priests. It was to their moral corrections the offerings were instituted.
Actions needed to be atoned for, for the most part, and not physical imperfections.
There is some mention of people not being allowed to enter the temple because of physical defects. But the far greater purpose of the Levititcal offerings concerned sinul ACTIONS in need of atonement. In interpreting as you are you are practically destroying ancient Judaism, not to speak of your unwarranted attack on the Christian faith.
Pay attention! We are talking about the sin offering itself. The qualifications of the animal sacrificed. That is what is without blemish and it deals with the physical characteristics of the animal, not its actions. The purpose of the sin offering is different than the specifications of the sacrificial animal.
quote:
Humans were not accepted until the Suffering Servant (Who was sinless) came to offer Himself once for all for the sins of the people. No one before Him was qualified.
This offering of the Human offering for sin was done:
1.) By Jehovah - (v.6) "And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him."
2.) And by the Servant Himself - (v.10) " ... He makes Himself an offering for sin."
His making Himself an offering for sin is pleasing to Jehovah and not displeasing - "But Jehovah was PLEASED to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He makes Himself an offering for sin ..."
Your God changes the rules when it suits him. Good to know.
BTW, Jesus didn't offer himself. He was created for the purpose if you believe God sent his son as the author of John claims.
But then again Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins.
So we really have to figure out what the author was trying to say to his audience since he didn't mean a literal death and sacrifice.
Jesus teaching people to repent of their sins is what atoned for their sins. Not his death.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jaywill, posted 05-10-2009 9:37 AM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 264 of 327 (508181)
05-11-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Huntard
05-11-2009 4:17 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
There's only one tiny little problem with this prophecy.
It was written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem....
But what shows that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem?
We keep saying that we want prophecy to be specific and not vague and yet when we are provided a prophecy that is more specific such as the one concerning the temple in Mark, we say it is written after the fact.
I agree that Matthew and Luke are later writings. They copied from Mark.
What is the proof that clearly shows the author of Mark wrote after the fact?
Tradition says the author of Mark is supposed to be John Mark, who is described as companion of Paul and Peter. Some of the author's geographical and cultural mistakes show us that the author probably wasn't a companion of Paul or Peter and probably gained his information from various anecdotes.
To me the most compelling information is that, like Daniel, part of the prophecy matches, but the rest doesn't come to pass. This gives one the impression that part was written after the fact and the second was an attempt at predicting the future and failed.
Following the distress (destruction of the temple) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken (Mark 13:24-25).
Then we have the grand finale which didn't happen that we know of:
Mark 13:26
At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
The author has Jesus guarantee that that generation would certainly not pass away until all those things had happened. That would include the finale.
I also find the statement that "those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--never to be equaled again." to show a limited view.
Was this destruction really worse than the flood that is supposed to have wiped out all of mankind aside from one family?
Was this destruction really worse than the times when Israel was conquered before?
Was this destruction really worse than the later Holocaust?
Do we have anything more specific for the dating of the Book of Mark?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Huntard, posted 05-11-2009 4:17 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 9:19 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 272 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 11:15 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 318 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2009 10:08 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 279 of 327 (508219)
05-11-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by jaywill
05-11-2009 11:15 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Does "this generation" insist on the meaning of those physically composing His audience listening to that particular conversation?
Since Jesus is only talking to four people, they aren't themselves a generation. Unfortunately Jesus doesn't provide descriptive words to make it more specific than the current age or that the generation in question is in the time of the disciples. We can't infer any more than that.
quote:
Generation in Mark 13:30 there does not refer to a generation defined according to the age of a person, like the generations mentioned in Matthew 1:17. It refers to the moral condition of the people, like the generations in these passages:
Actually it is the same word. Genea
      3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
      4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years
    quote:
    These instances of "generation" refer not to age of people but to moral condition. Such a generation would not pass away in Mark 13:30 until all that Jesus predicted should come to pass.
    Generation is a noun and means nothing more than the definitions above. Another word is needed to either describe the moral condition of the generation or which generation is being referred to, as you examples did. In this verse the word "houtos" is used, which means this. As written it is speaking of a current generation.
    Yes, even the part about the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South. Jesus is saying that the current generation (the one at the time he is speaking) will be condemned by those people when they are resurrected at the judgment.
    quote:
    Had He meant that all this culmination was to occur before those immediate disciples had died, He could have easily reminded them that He told them already, that all these things were to occur in their "generation" in the sense that Purpledawn means.
    What you're saying doesn't make sense. The author of Mark is supposedly telling us what Jesus said to his disciples. When was Jesus supposed to remind them and what does that have to do with the text?

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 272 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 11:15 AM jaywill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 283 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:54 PM purpledawn has replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 287 of 327 (508233)
    05-11-2009 3:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 283 by jaywill
    05-11-2009 1:54 PM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    quote:
    Since (b) is a valid definition of the word, my case is established that this is what He meant. Especially since in Acts chapter one He told them that they WOULDN'T know when all these things were to happen. Otherwise He would have been self contradictory about it.
    I agree that the usage of generation in Mark could mean a group of people very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, etc.; but the statement didn't describe characteristics of the generation. What we do know from the text is that he was speaking of the current generation of the time in which he spoke.
    Just because he said they wouldn't know the exact day and hour is irrelevant to what was said about the generation. According to his statement, once the signs start happening the end is near and the signs would all happen with Jesus riding in on the clouds before that generation, at the time he was speaking, would pass away. That's what the text says.
    quote:
    Definitions you provided which allow for my interpretation.
    You have not yet explained how all such definitions make my interpretation impossible. But let me read on.
    The usage of the word in the sentence and the rest of the words in the sentence. We can pick any definition of the word we want, but it has to fit in the sentence. This isn't so much about what generation means, it is the use of the word "this" that makes the statement refer to the time of the speaker.
    That's why I said, generation by itself doesn't tell us anything. We need the descriptive words to define the generation, not the meaning of the word "generation".
    Houtos is the word for "this" which comes before the word generation in English.
    The word generation by itself doesn't mean a bad group. We need the sentence to tell us what they mean by generation. The sentence we are using could be using the word generation to refer to the current age. Unfortunately it isn't descriptive as far as good, bad, or other grouping; but it is specific as to when. It was the generation the disciples could see in front of them, so to speak.
    We are looking at the whole sentence: (Mark 13:30)
    I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 283 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:54 PM jaywill has not replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 293 of 327 (508294)
    05-12-2009 6:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
    05-11-2009 8:30 AM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    quote:
    I am light on the side of extra-biblical confirmation perhaps. I am purposely not going to give some of you credence to the implication that biblical confirmation is not valid. Luke was writing history. He was not writing a "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Land" kind of document.
    What makes you think the author of Luke was writing History?
    Facts are boring. Technical manuals are boring. Writers make information interesting. The gospels weren't biographies as we understand biographies today.
    L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.
    The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about.
    Even our own history textbooks have misinformation.
    Lies My Teacher Told Me
    Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[7] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The knowledge that the Earth was spherical was widespread, and the means of calculating its diameter using an astrolabe was known to both scholars and navigators[8].
    And George Washington did not throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River.
    "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Robert Wuhl
    Why do you assume the authors of the Bible don't have an agenda for their writings?
    Writings come from the minds of people and people have agendas.
    Why the need for it to be absolute fact or absolute lies? Absolute perfection or absolute corruption?
    Life isn't that cut and dried.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 265 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 8:30 AM jaywill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 294 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:44 AM purpledawn has replied
     Message 308 by Peg, posted 05-13-2009 6:04 AM purpledawn has replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 298 of 327 (508300)
    05-12-2009 8:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 294 by jaywill
    05-12-2009 6:44 AM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    quote:
    Are you saying historical should be boring? You know they are "Facts" if they are related boringly?
    All historical writing should be like a technical manual?
    If the writer has interest and enthusiasm in in the facts then it cannot be true history?
    No, I'm saying, straight facts are boring. A writer adds life to the facts.
    One has to understand the purpose the writer's had for writing the story. If outside records (the unvarnished facts) do not substantiate assumed facts within the story, then we have to look at the writer's intent.
    Example: In Acts 527-37, the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin. When the members got furious and wanted them put to death a Pharisee named Gamaliel addressed the Sanhedrin and said:
    "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it call came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers scattered.
    We can check when the event with Theudas and Judas took place.
    According to Josephus, the Theudas event took place about 44-46CE and the Judas event took place 6CE.
    From the book entitled A History of the Jews, by Paul Johnson, a conservative Catholic. (Page 119)
    There was a rising, led by Judas of Camala, in 6 aD, in protest at the direct rule imposed after Herod the Great's death. There was another, for similar reasons, when direct rule was restored following the death of Herod agrippa in 44 AD, led by a man called Theudas who marched down the Jordan Valley at the head of a mob.
    quote:
    I think he encouraged his reader to verify the accuracy of the things he wrote.
    So when we verify the accuracy of the things he wrote we find that the author of Acts has them in reverse order and has Theudas show up before his event even took place. So the author has the facts wrong, which means the speech by Gamaliel didn't happen as it was written.
    Even in works of fiction there can be correct facts. That doesn't mean everything in the manuscript happened in reality.
    That's why we have to look at the purpose of the entire work of an author and not just one line here and there.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 294 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:44 AM jaywill has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 8:37 PM purpledawn has replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 300 of 327 (508377)
    05-12-2009 9:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 299 by jaywill
    05-12-2009 8:37 PM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    quote:
    Not one of your stronger arguments Purpledawn.
    The degree of "boringness" depends on the interest of the reader.
    It isn't an argument, it's reality.
    quote:
    Now I think you would have to admit that the miracles recorded in the New Testament are related in a very "matter of fact" way. There is little to no theological commentary on them. There is no embellishment or begging the reader to believe. They are related in a very dry and straightforward way. You get it or you don't - periohd. Would you agree ?
    No I don't agree they are presented in a matter of fact way. We may read it that way because we are so far removed from the time and drama. Embellishment has nothing to do with begging the reader to believe.
    I do agree that the text we are discussing concerning "this generation" is straightforward. Either Jesus returned soon after the destruction of the temple and fulfilled the prophecy or the prophecy was wrong and not fulfilled. The phrase "this generation" does not refer to future people. It very clearly referred to the people of the time. You haven't shown me otherwise.
    Whether the author of the Book of Luke is actually a man named Luke is irrelevant to that statement. Whether the gospels were written before the fact or not is irrelevant to that statement.
    Since Christians are still waiting for the return of Jesus (like the Jews are still waiting for their messiah), everything did not get fulfilled in the allotted time, so the prophecy was wrong.
    quote:
    Doesn't seem like a closed case on Luke's "error" yet.
    Sure it does. We're looking at the bland facts. When the events happened. Show me that another one happened, not could have happened.
    The only Glen Miller I know is a band leader. I was courteous enough to give you a little background on the authors I've used.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 299 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 8:37 PM jaywill has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 301 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 12:14 AM purpledawn has replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 310 of 327 (508410)
    05-13-2009 6:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 301 by Theodoric
    05-13-2009 12:14 AM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    Thanks for the link. He seems to support critically examining everything, but given the response jaywill provided, he seems to fudge when the critical endangers doctrine or belief.
    Miller does show scripture that supports what we've been trying to say concerning prophecy.
    Deut 18 - God is VERY explicit-if a prophet EVER misses a prediction, this proves he is not a prophet of YHWH. The test was evidential--pure and simple.
    It's all or nothing when it comes to prophecy, not two out of 5 is close enough.
    I did notice that Miller's thoughts on Theudas were more could be's than reasonable evidence.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 301 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 12:14 AM Theodoric has not replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 315 of 327 (508425)
    05-13-2009 9:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 308 by Peg
    05-13-2009 6:04 AM


    Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
    quote:
    what makes you think he wasnt?
    Don't waste a post to ask a question that has already been answered.
    I already answered that question with a quote from L. Michael White in the post where I asked the question. Message 293
    L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.
    The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about.
    If the author of Luke really intended to write factual history, his skills were lacking. His account of Paul's life in Acts differs from what Paul himself claims in his letters. This doesn't bode well for an author who was supposedly Paul's traveling companion according to tradition. Then we have the incorrect usage of Theudas and Judas and yes, I do think they are the same ones mentioned by Josephus because the author of Luke also used "the Egyptian" (Acts 21:38) as Josephus did. (JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171)
    If you really want to discuss the authorship or accuracy of the gospel authors, I suggest you start a new thread. This one has reached it's limit and further discussion would be off topic unless you can tie it back to the prophecy in the subtitle.
    As far as the 70CE prophecy, the author of Luke kept the same wording as the author of Mark. To be fulfilled it had to have happened within the disciples generation (Mark 13:30) and that includes the coming of Jesus to gather his elect. (Mark 13:26) Once the temple was destroyed the return of Jesus was near, right at the door. (Mark 13:29)
    Even the author of Luke keeps the immediacy of God's kingdom. (Luke 21:28)
    When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.
    Still waiting 2,000 years later is not a "right at the door" image and rather useless for the people who survived the destruction of the temple.
    Before you quote 2 Peter 3:8
    But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    If you wish to use that verse as an explanation, then you would need to show that God did view one day as a thousand years or that God didn't present his messages to humans in values they would understand. If he didn't present his messages in human values, that really messes up your figures concerning the Daniel prophecy.
    Bottom line: Either Jesus came after the destruction of the temple and the elect are already gone or the prophecy was not completely fulfilled.

    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 308 by Peg, posted 05-13-2009 6:04 AM Peg has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024