Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity and the End Times
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 272 of 1748 (836090)
07-09-2018 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-09-2018 3:10 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
I really haven't mangled any facts, but PaulK has mangled a mess of them
Your interpretations are not facts. Funny how you can’t tell the difference. I seem to remember you accusing others of the same confusion. Falsely, as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 3:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 3:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 277 of 1748 (836095)
07-09-2018 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
07-09-2018 3:19 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
Facts, not interpretations
The identification of the messiahs is interpretation. The identification of the empires is interpretation. The identification of the little horns is interpretation.
So I disagree with your interpretation on all three points. That’s not mangling the facts. Never mind that my interpretations fit better with the actual text of Daniel than yours.
And to deal with Faith’s edit the only one that is a fact is the number of empires. And I don’t mangle that, at all.
Even the translated text allows for two messiahs, and I understand that the Masoretic text insists on it.
The claim that the little horns are different is just an opinion with no real foundation in the text. And, it must be said, that it would be very unlikely that Antiochus fit Daniel 7 so well by mere chance.
So, no, no mangled facts. Just the usual falsehoods from Faith.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 286 of 1748 (836104)
07-09-2018 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Phat
07-09-2018 3:48 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
If the source of any given prophecy is God Himself, it *will* come to pass. Period.
The Bible disagrees. In places. Jeremiah says as much.
Jeremiah 18:8-10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Phat, posted 07-09-2018 3:48 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Phat, posted 07-09-2018 4:35 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 299 of 1748 (836121)
07-10-2018 2:45 PM


The Olivet Discourse
This is a prophecy found in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13, Matthere 24-25, Luke 21) - attributed to Jesus. From a historical perspective we can’t be certain that Jesus said it at all. Certainly we can be sure that the Gospels do not relay Jesus actual words, if only because they were written in Greek.
The version in Luke is significantly different, so I will deal with it in a later post. Mark and Matthew have versions so similar that copying is almost certainly involved.
Mark opens with the disciples remarking on the glory of the Temple buildings. Whatever else may be said of Herod the Great, his renovations and additions to the Temple were quite impressive - the Western - or Wailing - Wall is a remnant of his building projects. Jesus tells them that within a generation not one stone would remain upon another. Allowing for hyperbole this came true, when the Romans took Jerusalem and - perhaps accidentally - burned down the Temple.
They move on and settle down on the Mount of Olives and they ask Jesus to tell them when this would happen. Jesus never gets to describing the actual destruction, so the events given are all leading up to that. Meaning, that if we want to relate them to actual events this prophecy can’t go past 70 AD.
Jesus tells them the following, all phrased as instructions to the disciples:
Many will come in his name and say I am he and they will lead people astray. The disciples should not trust them
There will be wars, earthquakes and famine.
The disciples will be persecuted and there will be violence and betrayal within families. The Gospel must be spread to all nations.
The abomination of desolation will be set up in the Temple, and seeing that is a sign to run for the hills, because of the terrible events that will follow.
Jesus again predicts false messiahs and prophets.
He goes on to say that the sun will be darkened, and the moon. Then the Son of Man will come and send angels to gather the elect from all over the world.
There is the parable of the fig tree, which says when those things occur that the end is soon. And more to say that the end will arrive suddenly so that the warnings should not be missed.
Matthew elaborates a little but says the same, but with additions.
Matthew adds the parable of the faithful slave, of the wise and foolish bridesmaids, of the talents.
The final section of Matthew 25 is the judgement, how the Son of Man will judge men by their deeds, and those who failed to be adequately charitable will be sent to eternal punishment.
I will note just some of the problems here.
There is no good explanation of the abomination. The best attempt I have seen is the standards of the Roman legionaries. But that is a bit late to say the least. Conditions in Jerusalem were very bad before the Romans managed to get past the inner wall. By the time they took the Temple it should have been obvious to everyone that there was serious trouble. The time to run away would have been before the siege got seriously started.
I understand that some Christians believe that Jesus was seen in the skies before the destruction of the Temple. But if He sent angels to gather His elect - let alone held the Final Judgement, you couldn’t tell from history.
And it all has to happen within a generation of the discourse - with the destruction of the Herodian Temple an important part of it.
Clearly this is set in our past, not our future.
Edited by PaulK, : Fixed typo in title

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 07-10-2018 10:39 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2018 1:17 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 301 of 1748 (836130)
07-11-2018 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
07-10-2018 10:39 PM


Re: The Olivet Discourse
quote:
Since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jesus' disciples it wouldn't make sense that He didn't also speak Greek. It was the common language of the day even if local areas had their own languages as well
Aramaic was the dominant spoken language of that region. Most of the NT was written decades later, most (perhaps all) of it by people who weren’t among the disciples. There simply is no basis for the idea that Jesus would have spoken Greek all the time.
quote:
Again, since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jewish fishermen and tax collectors it had to be the common language and Jesus must have spoken it.
That wouldn’t follow even if the premise were true. And it isn’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 07-10-2018 10:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 12:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 303 of 1748 (836132)
07-11-2018 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
07-11-2018 12:24 AM


Re: The Olivet Discourse
I know that you never like it when people prefer the truth - or at least the best attempt at it - to your beliefs. But that is simply your problem and getting angry about it won’t help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 12:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 304 of 1748 (836145)
07-11-2018 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
07-10-2018 2:45 PM


Re: The Olivet Discourse
Luke makes some major changes.
I will just point out that Luke is usually dated to after 70AD, while Mark may be as early as 60AD. This may explain the differences.
The first sections with the signs of the end and the persecution of the disciples are mostly the same. Although Luke does add a warning not to follow those who teach that the time is near (21:8). Oddly Luke does not say that the Temple will be destroyed within a generation here - that gets left to the parable of the fig tree.
The first big change is to lose the Abomination of Desolation (why?)
Instead the sign to run away is when armies surround Jerusalem. Which is better than waiting until the armies are over the last wall, but still a little late. The people are meant to leave the city (with an army in the way?) and everyone outside is supposed to stay outside (they need Jesus to tell them that?).
(What seems to be envisaged in Mark and Matthew is that pagan worship, or at least the installation of an idol - like the statue of Caligula that was planned but never came to pass - would be instituted before things got too bad. That obviously didn’t happen, but it makes more sense than even Luke’s version.)
The passage ends with the people of the city being taken away as captives - and the city controlled by gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Next there are the heavenly signs and the Son of Man coming in the clouds. When the (surviving) disciples see those, they can expect to be redeemed.
This is followed by the parable of the Fig Tree, and the exhortation to watch because the end will be sudden. The parable includes Jesus stating the the end will come in the present generation (21:32J.
Again it is all set in our distant past. Although it may be stretched out a little by allowing the times of the Gentiles to intervene after the fall of Jerusalem it still ought to happen within the generation living at the time of Jesus’ ministry.
The Olivet Discourse, then, is another failed end times prophecy. In both versions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2018 2:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 307 of 1748 (836155)
07-11-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
07-11-2018 2:33 PM


Re: The Olivet Discourse
Well aside from the fact that they probably didn’t write in Greek, if they did it would have been decades later and they would have had time to learn.
What sense does it make to assume that people who spoke Aramaic as their native language would use any other language in speaking among themselves ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 2:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 2:52 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 329 by GDR, posted 07-12-2018 2:30 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 309 of 1748 (836169)
07-11-2018 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
07-11-2018 2:52 PM


Re: The Olivet Discourse
I understand that you are really determined to have things your way. But that doesn’t make people who disagree revisionists or liars.
The fact is that the Jews of Judaea - and Galilee predominantly spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 2:52 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Phat, posted 07-11-2018 4:25 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 313 of 1748 (836177)
07-11-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
07-11-2018 4:27 PM


Re: Its Greek To Me
The New Testament was written for a predominantly Gentile Church, so Greek would be more appropriate.
If the disciples wrote any of it, then they had the opportunity to learn Greek or to get someone to help them.
The question of why they would speak differently makes no sense, since they would have been speaking Aramaic, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 4:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 5:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 316 of 1748 (836180)
07-11-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Phat
07-11-2018 4:46 PM


Re: Its Greek To Me
Describing a lack of bias as bias makes it hard to trust your judgement.
But if you think the second answer has some good arguments please present them - I don’t intend to sign up, so I can’t read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Phat, posted 07-11-2018 4:46 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Phat, posted 07-11-2018 5:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 319 of 1748 (836184)
07-11-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Phat
07-11-2018 5:07 PM


Re: Its Greek To Me
I note that the second article has only points that argue for the possibility that the traditional Gospel authors might have been able to write Greek.
That’s a long way from arguing that they did write anything, let alone Faith’s idea that Jesus would have spoken Greek as a matter of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Phat, posted 07-11-2018 5:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 326 of 1748 (836191)
07-12-2018 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
07-11-2018 5:23 PM


Re: Its Greek To Me
quote:
The first believers were Jews and it was preached in the synagogues all over the Helenistic world. Matthew is considered to have been written to the Jews because of how it uses Old Testament scripture and yet it was written in Greek like all the rest of the NT.
The Gospels were not written for the first believers. Diaspora Jews may well have spoken Greek - it’s those living in Judeans and Galilee that concern us.
quote:
Nobody writes Greek that well without being a native speaker. No, we know the disciples wrote the books ascribed to them.
One of the arguments for Mark is that the Greek isn’t that good. Aside from that we don’t know that the disciples wrote anything, and if good Greek is required they probably didn’t..
quote:
The revisionists have no evidence for their views, it's all speculative, and the believe that the apostles wrote the books under their names is the most ancient testimony.
Of course this is not true.
The copying between the synoptic Gospels is pretty good evidence that one of Matthew or Mark wasn’t written by the traditional author. Papias pretty much suggests that Mark wasn’t a disciple. And the work Papias attributes to Matthew likely isn’t the Gospel we have today (for one thing it was not written in Greek).
You don’t have any evidence of significance for the traditional authorship.
quote:
The point is that they all grew up in the same basic circumstances, all in an area that spoke Aramaic natively and all in the lands under Greek influence to the point that their Bible had been translated into Greek years before..
The Bible was translated into Greek in Egypt. That really doesn’t help you much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 5:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 12:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 328 of 1748 (836194)
07-12-2018 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Faith
07-12-2018 12:41 AM


Re: Its Greek To Me
quote:
That's all speculation, no evidence.
The evidence of copying is there in the text. Papias is evidence, too.
quote:
Tradition that goes back to the beginning is far more trustworthy.
Tradition is not trustworthy and it certainly does not go back to the beginning. That is why it is classed as tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 12:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 332 of 1748 (836200)
07-12-2018 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Phat
07-12-2018 4:28 AM


Re: Its Greek To Me
An apologist - by definition - is interested in defending a particular view rather than in discovering the truth. Hence an apologist is biased - by definition.
If bias is your concern you should trust scholars - scholars acting as scholars - over apologists.
And that’s before considering how bad apologetics can get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Phat, posted 07-12-2018 4:28 AM Phat has seen this message but 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