|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Which verse or verses? In Daniel 7 it refers to Antiochus’ pagan altar in the Temple.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Wherever it appears. You’re the one who specified chapter 7.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Then why not say why what I said is wrong instead of just rejecting it out of hand.
I read it twice. What's more I've read it before. It makes no difference, it still says - in terms - what it says. Even your hero CS Lewis calls it the most embarassing passage of the bible. Tangle writes: Lewis did say that but also went on to say this.
It's absolutely plain what it says and what it means. What's more even those thought so at the time. Your apologetics doesn't change the text or its simple meaning. quote: Firstly Lewis as a Christian was primarily a Christian philosopher and not a theologian as he often pointed out. Yes I convinced that he got this wrong. Since 1960 when Lewis wrote that there has been considerable advancement in our ability to understand and translate the ancient languages. It has been particularly helpful to have the dead sea scrolls. Modern NT scholars such as N T Wright have understood it to be about the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem. It is also unclear as to when the Gospels were written and it is possible that they were written after 70AD but I doubt that Mark was that late. However I did give a verse by verse breakdown of how those passages were a political statement being made to the revolutionaries and the zealots of His day.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
This is my quote from Daniel 7. Wherever it appears. You’re the one who specified chapter 7.quote: I did quote this from Daniel 11: quote:You said: PaulK writes: Is the Daniel 11 quote what you were referring to? In Daniel 7 it refers to Antiochus’ pagan altar in the Temple. There was nothing like that in 70AD.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I was referring to the text I quoted
Aside from that it is wrong in terms of what was meant by the phrase as taken from Daniel 7.
It would be rather easier if you kept track of the context instead of making me repeat myself. Or asking me what YOU meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So all the talk of abomination, desolation, everlasting dominion, of unequaled distress never to be equaled again, darkened Sun, stars falling from the sky, Angels gathering the elect from the ends of the Earth to the ends of the heavens, Earthquakes, famine....
I could go on. All of that is simply referring to the siege of Jerusalem of 70AD according to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
GDR writes: Then why not say why what I said is wrong instead of just rejecting it out of hand. I told you why it's wrong, it's in the text...
quote: None of that happened either within the generation of those hearing his words or when the Temple fell. Either way, your wrong.
Firstly Lewis as a Christian was primarily a Christian philosopher and not a theologian as he often pointed out. But he's good enough to quote when it works for you.
It is also unclear as to when the Gospels were written and it is possible that they were written after 70AD but I doubt that Mark was that late. However I did give a verse by verse breakdown of how those passages were a political statement being made to the revolutionaries and the zealots of His day. The gospels were written decades after the fact by unknown authors for unknown reasons and edited later by committees for political reasons. They are THE most unreliable source of events that you could imagine. There is no independent corroboration of any of the critical events as you would expect if they actually had happened. The entire story of resurrection is obviously a fabrication invented for political purposes.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: So all the talk of abomination, desolation, everlasting dominion, of unequaled distress never to be equaled again, darkened Sun, stars falling from the sky, Angels gathering the elect from the ends of the Earth to the ends of the heavens, Earthquakes, famine....I could go on. All of that is simply referring to the siege of Jerusalem of 70AD according to you? It is a combination of two things. The first is a warning that the revolution will lead to destruction and despair and and in regards to that he uses typical hyperbole with the the darkened sun, stars falling etc, in reference to verses in Isaiah 13. He then is saying that with that happening then they will see the Son of Man coming to the Father, (the Ancient of Days) with the establishment of the Kingdom as talked about in Daniel 7.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
No doubt that you,ringo, and PaulK have a good argument. I found myself challenged by two statements that you have said.
1) Tangle writes: While I cringed at the idea that you never respected scholarly apologists, I had no argument apart from the idea of correctly interpreting the book in context. I used to believe as Faith does--that believers are given insight and understanding that unbelievers will never see--but after honestly evaluating some of Faiths wilder beliefs concerning young earth creationism, I honestly could not buy that theory. GDR makes more sense to me as he adheres to belief in a living Christ and a living word...which rejects Biblical Idolatry. And yet he struggled to explain your second point that I could not really refute. ...all the available knowledge is held in one book. Just read it and you have the lot. Everything else is people making shit up that can't be verified.GDR writes: And I would agree with GDR in that the authors were inspired. Otherwise it would be exactly as you say: I accept that the bible is written by fallible humans. I agree that they were inspired to write down what they did, but that does not mean that they were infallible.tangle writes: And I have said before that I agree with GDR that there was nothing to be gained through being simply political and making it up (or embellishing the life of an actual Jesus) So I struggled with your second point, namely that Jesus was wrong about which "generation" would not ever pass. The Dispensationalists rationalize that one by claiming that Jesus was addressing the Little Flock and that when he spoke in Matthew 24 he was basically teaching and addressing them. Some would say, however, that among the Biblical Dispensationalists--all of whom were (and are)Protestant, that there was a hodgepodge of discord. They wrote many books predicting a Rapture and judgement, and were all quite wrong---though they did sell millions of books. The bible was written by fallible men; and is fallible. Actually, it's only falible if you believe it to be actual reported history. If you see it for what it is - politically motivated fiction - it's just propoganda.To her credit, Faith believes more in the wisdom and insight of the Theologians who signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy signed by over 200 evangelical leaders. The other guys--the booksellers such as Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffries, and others---were not in any sort of accord as were the Chicago group. As I was googling information for my response, I came upon a Catholic website that denounced the dispensationalists and the rapture theology which i found interesting: Five Myths About the Rapture and the Left Behind Industry. So what am I to conclude so far? In summation, I think it all boils down to belief since we have no solid objective evidence. As you say, we all make stuff up if we want to believe certain things apart from the plain text and in context. GDR presents us with a fairly believable Jesus. Faith insists upon a literal God with literal reasons why He judges. My own personal jury is still out regarding the exact character of the God whom I believe in. I am quite sure that He exists. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: I used to believe as Faith does--that believers are given insight and understanding that unbelievers will never see--but after honestly evaluating some of Faiths wilder beliefs concerning young earth creationism, I honestly could not buy that theory. Well it's useful to have a living example in front of you that is as obviously totally wrong about pretty much everything - and the least said about the recent nutters' posts the better - but it should be obvious that there is absolutely no insight provided by the fact that there are 38,000 different Christian churches all with slightly, or radically, different beliefs about the belief. That is a major clue.
GDR makes more sense to me as he adheres to belief in a living Christ and a living word...which rejects Biblical Idolatry. GDR makes more sense to you because his views are nice and modern and (don't panic) liberal. They appeal to people who need their god to be nice; they don't like the nasty OT god, so they explain him away - or as GDR admits, can't explain it at all. You're simply doing what everybody does and picking what you want to be true, what you're most comfortable with.
And I would agree with GDR in that the authors were inspired. Otherwise it would be exactly as you say: You have no alternative than to believe that. If you didn't, you'd be saying that the bible is purely man made and man inspired.
And I have said before that I agree with GDR that there was nothing to be gained through being simply political and making it up (or embellishing the life of an actual Jesus) If it wasn't embellished the entire movement would have died out just like all the others had done. If it wasn't embellished a Roman Emporor wouldn't have adopted it and made it into what is now. How much more political reasoning do you need?
So I struggled with your second point, namely that Jesus was wrong about which "generation" It's not not my point, it's Jesus's point in - allegedly - his own words. And not with words that there can be any doubt or subtlety about. Is he lying when he says he's telling the truth?
quote: The Dispensationalists rationalize that one by claiming that Jesus was addressing the Little Flock and that when he spoke in Matthew 24 he was basically teaching and addressing them. Some would say, however, that among the Biblical Dispensationalists--all of whom were (and are)Protestant, that there was a hodgepodge of discord. They wrote many books predicting a Rapture and judgement, and were all quite wrong---though they did sell millions of books. To her credit, Faith believes more in the wisdom and insight of the Theologians who signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy signed by over 200 evangelical leaders. The other guys--the booksellers such as Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffries, and others---were not in any sort of accord as were the Chicago group. As I was googling information for my response, I came upon a Catholic website that denounced the dispensationalists and the rapture theology which i found interesting: Five Myths About the Rapture and the Left Behind Industry. So what am I to conclude so far? In summation, I think it all boils down to belief since we have no solid objective evidence. As you say, we all make stuff up if we want to believe certain things apart from the plain text and in context. GDR presents us with a fairly believable Jesus. Faith insists upon a literal God with literal reasons why He judges. You've just made my point - the believers are not inspired.
My own personal jury is still out regarding the exact character of the God whom I believe in. I am quite sure that He exists. And you'll find something that suits your personalty best. Or, more likely, argue, worry, debate and agonise about it forever, whils simultaneously ignoring the actual evidence and believing it all anyway. There's an aphorism used here a lot - absense of evidence is not evidence of absence - it's bunkum. An absence of evidence where you would expect to find it if something was true IS evidence of absence. IF all those things had actually happened we would have evidence of them from many sources.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So it's all just hyperbole? Unequalled distress never to be equalled again and all that end-of-times-like description (etc.) is just a fanciful way of talking about the 70AD siege of Jerusalem?
I have to say that seems like an unbelievable cop out. Are other descriptions in the bible equally hyperbolic? At this rate of hyperbole a global flood might equate to a damp Monday in London.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Wrong. I don't need evidence "against" anything. If I am going to accept that something exists, I need evidence FOR it.
... the only fact that you have that would qualify as evidence against there being a living interactive God... Phat writes:
No, it isn't beyond you. You understand it very well. I don't believe in your God for the same reason that you don't believe in Zeus. Why you choose that option is beyond me---And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I don't know what that has to do with it. I don't believe in an inerrantist reading either. I do believe in taking the words for what they say, not cherry-picking like you do the parts that you like.
The point was that Jesus didn't believe in an inerrantist reading of the Scriptures either. GDR writes:
I didn't start from an atheistic position. I was driven there by nonsensical theology. If one starts from an atheistic position then obviously it will simply sound nonsensical.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Based on that, there is no way that you ever could have been a "saved" Christian since you never had evidence. What makes people become believers is the ability to suspend evidence in an objective sense and allow the subjective feelings to dominte. Rarely if ever have I heard of anyone becoming a believer against their will and intention.
If I am going to accept that something exists, I need evidence FOR it. You understand it very well. I don't believe in your God for the same reason that you don't believe in Zeus. I rarely give Zeus a second thought. Just another character in literature along with Long John Silver. Is that really how you see Jesus?
ringo addressing GDR writes: And lack of evidence, of course. I didn't start from an atheistic position. I was driven there by nonsensical theology.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Think. I was a believer when I didn't have a requirement for evidence. Other believers claimed that they had evidence but when I checked it out, I discovered that it was false. That's why I now have a requirement for real evidence. Based on that, there is no way that you ever could have been a "saved" Christian since you never had evidence. Why are you so desperate to believe I was never a believer?
Phat writes:
Nonsense. Anybody who suspends objective evidence in favour of subjective experience is an idiot.
What makes people become believers is the ability to suspend evidence in an objective sense and allow the subjective feelings to dominte. Phat writes:
Exactly. You contradict yourself. You become a believer because you want to believe. Rarely if ever have I heard of anyone becoming a believer against their will and intention. Of course, you can lose your belief against your will.
Phat writes:
Why would I see Jesus any differently? Why are you surprised that people don't see Jesus differently? I rarely give Zeus a second thought. Just another character in literature along with Long John Silver. Is that really how you see Jesus?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024