Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible.

Genesis 3:15 seems to predict hostility between humans and snakes. There is nothing indicating that this is even supposed to refer to a single individualIsaiah 4( 1-7 seems to be about a purely human individual - not the Christian idea of Jesus at all. The rest of the chapter appears to predict Israel ruling over the world - or at the least a large poriton of it. Something that was not the case in Jesus' time, nor at any time after that.Isaiah 52 seems to be about the Babylonian exile (52:4-5) and I do not remember Jesus being described as being deformed or ugly (52:14)Isaiah 53 is also rather dubious - the translation uses the past tense, and states that the man in question had done no violence - Jesus on the other hand had attacked the moneylenders in the Temple.

So you say Jesus used no violence in the Temple ?Matthew 21:12
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,How did he throw people out of the Temple without using violence ?Mark 11:15 says the same as does Luke 19:45John 2:14-15 goes into more detail
"14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and
doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove
them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and
poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"If he was running around waving a whip, what makes you assume that he didn't use it ?

No, Isiah did not not even once refer to Jesus. At most one or another of the authors of Isaiah (there were at least two, quite likely three) made some prophecies which are assumed to refer to Jesus. And at least one obviously doesn't - provided you read it in context.

I'm sorry but I'm simply reporting the mainstream view of Bible scholars. I would have thought that that would be sufficient for a side issue like this, and preferable to going into an off-topic diversion.

I think that it is intended to be about a future (to the writer) King of Israel. One that actually sits on the throne. So it certainly isn't about Jesus in his life on Earth.

Well it talks about someone who is actually ruling so I don't see how the throne could be purely symbolic. Moreover it's in the middle of a section talking about the Assyrian conquest of Israel - you might think that it had some relevance to that - if you folow Iasiah 10-11 it appears that this will happen immediately following the defeat of Assyria, and we see that this King will lead Israel on a campaign of oncquering the immediate region (Isaiah 11:14)

Just to correct a couple of points. Firstly the prediction of the Second Coming as it appears in the Bible is addressed to the disciples and implies that some of them would live to see it. On the other hand there is no indication that it was intended as a message to a future generation at all. If your explanation is to be accepted there should at least be some positive indication that there could be a delay of many generations.Secondly, demanding proof for the non-existence of an entity is not always equally as reasonable as demanding evidence or even a proof of existence. It is certainly not equally reasonable if the existence of the entity is non-falsifiable - but that is the whole point of demanding proof of the non-existence of God, is it not ?

Try Mark 13 for a prediction of the Second coming.As for my second point your answer seems to be that all guesses must be considered equally reasonable. But this is not the case. In fact given the absence of information non-existence should be the assumption for anything other than broad classes which cover so many possible entities that it is reasonabbel to assume that at least on example exists. I would add that complex ordered entities are sufficiently unlikely - as is often stated by people attempting to argue FOR the existence of God - that we can reasonably reject the existence of any such entity in the absence of relevant evidence that renders that existence more likely (e.g. we can legitimately propose the existence of an ordinary human since we know that humans exist - but we could not propose the existence of, say, a Klingon because our only acquiantance with Klingons is fiction).

I notice that you omit Mark 13:1-4'3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple,
Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when
will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all
about to be fulfilled?"'And what are these things ? - the destruction of the Temple.'2 Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one
stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."'You omit verse 9, clearly addressed to the disciples as is verse 11 - is verse 10 then to be understood as applying to the efforts of people centuries in the future ?Is not the "let the reader understand" best understood as an insertion by the author of the Gospel ? Jesus has not told anyone to write down the words, there is no writing or reader in the context of the actual discussion.Is not verse 21 instructing the disciples what they should do in those times ?And which generation saw the destruction of the Temple, that was in Jerusalem when Jesus lived ? Even if you take the questionable reading of implying that the generation which sees the signs will be the generation which sees the end (rather redundant when they are supposed to be signs of the end !) the generation appears to be that of the time when Jesus was speaking or shortly after.And, by the way, can you tell me where I stated that the non-existence of God was an established theory ? Or scientific ? All I stated was that assuming non-existence was more reasonable than assuming existence in the absence of significant evidence either way. And appealing to evidence or theories that MIGHT be produced is hardly a convincing argument to the contrary.

Since I went back to Mark 13:2 to EXPLAIN the context of Mark 13:3-4 I don't see how any suggestion that I was mixing up the context can carry any weight.Indeed it is your explanation that ignore the context. How can "these things" mentioned in Mark 13:4 refer to anything other than the events mentioned in Mark 13:2 ? There is no other referent within context.The fact that Jesus made his statement in reply to a statement made by one disciple does not mean that it was not generally made to all the disciples - any more than the initial statement would have been supposed to be for Jesus' ears only.It is the summary you quote that seeks to distort the context by alleging that the statements of Mark 13:1-2 are part of a private conversation (although there is nothing in the verses as I read them to suggest that at all) and using that to deny the reference back to that conversation in Mark 13:4. But that goes against the context as well as against a natural reading of the earlier verses - there is no other referent for "these things" within the context.In short, the summary misrepresents the text.

What is this point I am supposed to be missing ?It seems that you are simply ignoring my point and insisting that these are two seperate and unrelated conversations despite the clear indications to the contrary in the text.My post already answers what you said by pointing out that there the statements in Mark 13 1-2 appear to be general statements made to the group and that Mark 13:3-4 refers back to those statements (there is no other referent for "these things"). Ergo your claim that these are two seperate and unrelated conversations is based on assumptions not supported by the text, and opposed to a natural reading of the text.

Eh ? It is perfectly clear that Jesus made his statement concerning the destruction of the Temple in response to the statement made by a disciple given in Mark 13:1 - not in anticipation of the question in Mark 13:3-4. Indeed the question is a request for Jesus to add more details to his prediction of the Temple's destruction. No need for any mind reading at all.The suggestion that they should not be alarmed occurs in the reference to "wars and rumoours of wars" (13:7) - it is not a general statement covering the whole prophecy as you would have it. The intent seems to be that the wars are not the immediate prelude to the end (13:8 "These are the beginning of birth pains").

A simple literal interpretation ? Certainly not - the idea that the conversation in Mark 13:1-2 is unrelated to that in Mark 13:3-4 is based on assuming that the earlier conversation is private (when a simple literal interpretation says otherwise) and in ignoring the clear reference in 13:3-4 back to the statmenets in 13:1-2. No, you do not have a simple literal interpretation - you reject the simple literal interprtation. Want to explain why ?

Well of COURSE Mark 13:2 is not a response to Mark 13:4. Mark 13:4 is a request for more information on the statement Jesus made on Mark 13:2.What I want to know is why you feel the need to refute an idea that nobody - apart from you - has even suggested.So lets get some facts straight - first the statements made in 131-2 seem to have been made to the entire group so there is no question of eavesdropping. Second - and this is the point you seem to have great trouble grasping - is that the question in Mark 13:3-4 refers back to the statement made by Jesus in 13:2. Perhaps YOU think the disciples are asking about something Jesus has not even mentioned yet (I guess you think that they are mind-readers) but that cannot be derived from the text.And yes, I do know when the Temple was destroyed - in 70 Ad by the Romans. In fact within a generation of Jesus' death (sometime between 3o and 36 AD).And I was taught to read the text as it appears, not to invent my own fantasies. Like your deluded idea that I am suggesting that Mark 13:3-4 comes before 13:1-2. And no, I didn;t disregard vers 1 I just didn't quote it since it was irrelevant to my point in post 75 which was to explain what the "these things" referred BACK to. There was no reason to quote the statement that Jesus was replying to.

Actually you DID use the "directive to not be alarmed to refer to the entire prophecy".Post 82 "Suppose Jesus was trying to tell the disciples they were the generation that would certainly not pass away until all these
things had happened; why would he tell them not to be alarmed?""All these things" seems to cover that quite well.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-28-2003]